Cover not available
Part of
The Noun Phrase in English: Past and present
Edited by Alex Ho-Cheong Leung and Wim van der Wurff
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 246] 2018
► pp. 143–186

Chapter 6
Anaphoric reference in Early Modern English

The case of said and same

| Northumbria University
| Newcastle University
Work on the anaphoric NPs the said + N and the same has shown that both were frequent in sixteenth-century English but declined afterwards. We address the question why this happened. After reviewing earlier work on the two constructions, we present data showing that their properties and development are too dissimilar to assume that they declined for the same reason. Instead, we identify for each of the changes two separate causal factors, which involve tension between form and meaning of the anaphor. In exploring these case histories, we also offer some discussion of the general kinds of explanations that have been proposed for the decline of linguistic forms and constructions, which is an aspect of language change that deserves more systematic investigation.
Keywords: anaphoric NPs, referential distance, the decline of constructions, form-meaning misfit, Early Modern English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1 Background to the said + N
    • 2.2 Background to the same
  • 3.Further data: Frequency and distance
    • 3.1The frequency of said and same in EModE: Methodology
    • 3.2The frequency of said and same in EModE: Results
    • 3.3The distance of said and same in EModE
  • 4.The decline of said and same : Causation
    • 4.1The decline of said : Wrong word, wrong place
    • 4.2The decline of same : Too costly, too long
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 June 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.246.06leu
References (112)
References
Alrenga, Peter. 2006. Scalar (non-)identity and similarity. In Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds), 49–57. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions: a cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics 30: 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Accessibility marking: Discourse functions, discourse profiles, and processing cues. Discourse Processes 37: 91–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David I. & Clark, Brady Z. 2008, Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
BNC: British National Corpus. Davies, Mark. 2004-. BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). <[URL]>
Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18: 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2010a. English Adjectives of Comparison: Lexical and Grammaticalized Uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Reconstructing paths of secondary grammaticalisation of same from emphasising to phoricity and single-referent-marking postdeterminer uses. Transactions of the Philological Society 108: 68–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Functional shifts and the development of English determiners. In Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English, Anneli Meurman-Solin, María J. López-Couso & Bettelou Los (eds), 271–300. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica 48: 469–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brie, Friedrich W. D. 1906–1908. The Brut or The Chronicles of England, Edited from Ms. Rawl. B 171, Bodleian Library, 2 vols [Early English Text Society, O.S. 131, 136]. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Britain, David. 2002. Space and spatial diffusion. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), 603–637. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnley, David. 1992. Lexis and semantics. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 2: 1066–1476, Norman Blake (ed.), 409–499. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Pagliuca, William. 1985. Cross-linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In Historical Semantics – Historical Word-Formation, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 59–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. 2001. What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23: 113–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1996. Inferring identifiability and accessibility. In Reference and Referent Accessibility [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 38], Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette K. Gundel (eds), 37–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1–46.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H. & Chater, Nick. 2016. The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2012. Linguistic levels: Styles, registers, genres, text types. In English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol. 1, Alexander Bergs & Laurel Brinton (eds), 237–253. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 1999. Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2014. Does innovation need reanalysis? In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 69], Evie Coussé & Ferdinand von Mengden (eds), 23–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Fischer, Olga C. M. 2017. The role of analogy in language change: Supporting constructions. In The Changing English Language: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds), 240–268. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2010. The meaning of the English present participle. English Language and Linguistics 15: 473–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durkin, Philip & Allan, Kathryn. 2016. Borrowing and copy: A philological approach to Early Modern English lexicology. In Linguistics and Literary History: In Honour of Sylvia Adamson [Linguistic Approaches to Literature 25], Anita Auer, Victorina González-Díaz, Jane Hodson & Violeta Sotirova (eds), 71–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
EEBO: Early English Books Online. <[URL]>
Filipović, Luna & Hawkins, John. 2016. English article usage as a window on the meanings of same, identical and similar . English Language and Linguistics 20: 295–313.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga C. M. 2006. On the position of adjectives in Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 10: 253–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga C. M., De Smet, Hendrik & van der Wurff, Wim. 2017. A Brief History of English Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan, Alexander, Marc, Pidd, Michael, Robinson, Justyna, Dallachy, Fraser, Hine, Iona, Mehl, Seth, Aitken, Brian, Groves, Matthew & Rogers, Katherine. 2016. Linguistic DNA: Modelling concepts and semantic change in English, 1500–1800. Paper presented at Digital Humanities 2016 Conference, Kraków, July 2016. Abstract available online at <[URL]>
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fries, Udo. 1994. Text deixis in Early Modern English. In Studies in Early Modern English, Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), 111–128. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garner, Bryan. 2011. Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage, 3rd edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns: Person, Self, and Interpretability [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 39]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics 30: 5–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2 [Typologial Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), 257–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, James. 2012. Contribution to internet forum, posted on 22 June 2012, 2:58, on the topic ‘Can the word “said” be a determiner in written English?’. <[URL]>
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Pronouns without NP antecedents: How do we know when a pronoun is referential? In Anaphora Processing: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Modelling [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 263], António Branco, Tony McEnery & Ruslan Mitkov (eds), 351–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haas, Florian. 2009. Reciprocity in English: Historical Development and Synchronic Structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22: 315–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: A usage-based account. Constructions 2. <[URL]>.
. 2009. Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. In Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook, Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds), 35–54. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Song, Kyung-an. 2011. On the grammaticalization of personal pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 47: 587–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric & Slofstra, Bouke. 2013. A diachronic study of the negative polarity item syn leven ‘his life > ever’ in West Frisian between 1550 and 1800. Language 89(4): e39–e55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Study. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2014. The demise of the being to V construction. Transactions of the Philological Society 112: 167–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2004. Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization theory. In Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], Olga C. M. Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds), 45–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juge, Matthew L. 2007. Metaphor and teleology do not drive grammaticalization. In Historical Linguistics 2005: Selected papers from the 17th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Madison, Wisconsin, 31 July – 5 August 2005 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 284], Joseph C. Salmons & Shannon Dubenion-Smith (eds), 33–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 2002. Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. In Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective, Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell (eds), 325–354. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in Discourse. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilpiö, Matti. 1997. Participial adjectives with anaphoric reference of the type the said, the (a)forementioned from Old to Early Modern English: The evidence of the Helsinki Corpus. In Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen [Mémoires de la Société Linguistique de Helsinki 52], Terttu Nevalainen & Lena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds), 77–100. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 17: 39–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komen, Erwin R. 2011. Average referential distance. MS, Radboud University Nijmegen. <[URL]>.
Koopman, Willem & van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. Two word order patterns in the history of English: Stability, variation and change.’ In Stability, Variation and Change of Word-order Patterns over Time [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 213], Rosanna Sornicola, Erich Poppe & Ariel Shisha-Halevy (eds), 259–283. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory, Katharine Beals (ed.), 180–201. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 2010. Data in historical pragmatics. In Historical Pragmatics [Handbooks of Pragmatics 8], Andreas Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 33–67. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Mikko. 2008. Sociolinguistic patterns in grammaticalization: He, they, and those in human indefinite reference. Language Variation and Change 20: 155–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2010. A lot of quantifiers. In Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research, Sally Rice & John Newman (eds), 41–57. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2008. Asymmetries in participial modification. In Asymmetric Events [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 11], Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), 261–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1990. Obsolescence and universal grammar. In Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 65], Sylvia M. Adamson, Vivien A. Law, Nigel Vincent & Susan Wright (eds), 281–292. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linguistic DNA: A collaborative research project of the universities of Sheffield, Glasgow and Sussex on semantic-conceptual change in English 1500–1800. <[URL]>
Matras, Yaron. 2007. The borrowability of grammatical categories. In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Yaron Matras & Jeanette S. Sakel (eds), 31–73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 2014. The Positions of Adjectives in English. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2010. Same problem, different solution. MS, University of Utrecht. <[URL]>
MED: Middle English Dictionary. <[URL]>
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston MA: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Miller, George A., Newman, E. B. & Friedman, E. A. 1958. Length-frequency statistics for written English. Information and Control 1: 370–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mind Bending Grammars: Research project at the University of Antwerp on change in the grammars of 17th-century individuals. <[URL]>
Mortelmans, Jesse. 2006. Ledit vs le démonstratif en moyen français: Quels contextes d’emploi ? Langue française 152(4): 70–81.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1999. The facts and nothing but: The (non-)grammaticalisation of negative exclusives in English. In Negation in the History of English, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Gunnel Tottie & Wim van der Wurff (eds), 167–187. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Norms and usage in seventeenth-century English. In Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 3], Gijsbert Rutten, Rik Vosters & Wim Vandenbussche (eds), 103–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1994. Its strength and the beauty of it: The standardization of the third person neuter possessive in Early Modern English. In Towards a Standard English, 1600–1800, Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds), 171–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
OED: Oxford English Dictionary. <[URL]>
Österman, Aune. 2001. “Where your Treasure is, There is your Heart”: A Corpus-Based Study of There Compounds and There/Where Subordinators in the History of English [Memoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 59]. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter & Van de Velde, Freek. 2015. Differences and similarities between individuals in ongoing grammaticalisation. Paper presented at International Conference on Historical Linguistics 22, Naples, July 2015. <[URL]>
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 261–303.Google Scholar
Postma, Gertjan. 2010. The impact of failed changes. In Continuity and Change in Grammar [Linguistik Aktuesll/Linguistics Today 159], Christopher Lucas, Sheila Watts, Anne Breitbarth & David Willis (eds), 269–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 223–255. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Geoffrey, Leech & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Dirven, René. 2007. Cognitive English Grammar [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanja & Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 657–720.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 3: 1476–1776, Roger Lass (ed.), 187–331. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2012. Grammaticalisation, contact and corpora: On the development of adverbial connectives in English. In English Historical Linguistics 2010: Selected Papers from the Sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 16), Pécs, 23–27 August 2010 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 325], Irén Hegedűs & Alexandra Fodor (eds), 131–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritt, Nikolaus. 2004. Selfish Sounds and Linguistic Evolution: A Darwinian Approach to Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scotto di Carlo, Giuseppina. 2015. Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Legal English: Past, Present, and Possible Future of Legal English. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Sinar, Beck. 2006. A History of English Reflexives: From Old English into Early Modern English. PhD dissertation, University of York. <[URL]>
Sleeman, Petra. 2011. Verbal and adjectival participles: Position and internal structure. Lingua 121: 1569–1587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Andrew, Trousdale, Graeme & Waltereit, Richard (eds). 2015. New Directions in Grammaticalization Research [Studies in Language Companion Series 166]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In Variation and Change in English Grammar and Lexicon, Robert A. Cloutier, Anne Marie Hamilton-Brehm & William Kretzschmar (eds), 11–27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2011. Anaphoric adjectives becoming determiners: A corpus-based account. In The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 171], Petra Sleeman & Harry Perridon (eds), 241–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vartiainen, Turo. 2016 A constructionist approach to category change: Constraining factors in the adjectivization of participles. Journal of English Linguistics 44: 34–60.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1997. The structure of parametric change, and V-movement in the history of English. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 380–393. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2011. Grammaticalization and prosody. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 331–341. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Zenner, Eline, Speelman, Dirk & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2014. Core vocabulary, borrowability and entrenchment: A usage-based onomasiological approach. Diachronica 31: 74–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Pinson, Mathilde
2023. Decompositionalization and Partial Recompositionalization: The Emergence of by the Same Token as a Polyfunctional Discourse Marker. Journal of English Linguistics 51:3 ► pp. 236 ff. DOI logo
Kranich, Svenja & Tine Breban
2021. Lost in Change. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.