Cover not available
Part of
Ditransitives in Germanic Languages: Synchronic and diachronic aspects
Edited by Eva Zehentner, Melanie Röthlisberger and Timothy Colleman
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 7] 2023
► pp. 56–79

The Middle English prepositional dative

Contact with French

The to-PP form of the dative alternation is argued to have arisen from contact with French rather than being linked to the loss of the Old English Dative case. It is shown to have been extended in ME to the experiencer argument of psych verbs, and to the recipient argument of some verbs of communication, but only to those whose French counterparts took the à-dative, regardless of OE case assignment. Where French equivalents of verbs in these classes did not take an indirect object, the Middle English verb took only a nominal object. Selectivity in to-PP use in ME, going beyond verbs of possession transfer yet showing a verb-specific restriction to source item argument realisation patterns, indicates that French provided a replication source for the to-PP form of the dative alternation.
Keywords: dative, dative alternation, Middle English, argument realisation, verbs, language contact, French, possession transfer
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The spread of the to-PP to dative contexts
  • 3.Explaining the change
  • 4.Contact with (Anglo-)French in later medieval England
  • 5.Design of the study
  • 6.Verb profiles
    • 6.1Psych verbs
    • 6.2Verbs of communication
  • 7.Implications
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Data sources
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.7.02ing
References (49)
Data sources
AND: An Anglo-Norman Dictionary. Second Edition. 2005. William Rothwell, Stewart Gregory, and David Trotter (eds), with the assistance of Michael Beddow, Virginie Derrien, Geert de Wilde, Lisa Jefferson and Andrew Rothwell. [URL].
ASD: Bosworth, Joseph, and Thomas Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MED: Middle English Dictionary. 1954–2001. Hans Kurath and Sherman Kuhn (eds). Ann Arbor: Michigan UP.
References
Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Case Syncretism and Word Order Change.” In The handbook of the history of English, ed. by Ans Van Kemenade, and Bettelou Los, 201–223. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosworth, Joseph, and Thomas Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015. “The Old English to-Dative Construction.” English Language and Linguistics 19(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier. 1986. “Romance Loans in Middle English: A Re-Assessment. In Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries. Volume 1: Linguistic Theory and Historical Linguistics, ed. by Dieter Kastovsky and Aleksander Szwedek, 253–266. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durkin, Philip. 2014. Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2014. “Changes in Psych-verbs: A Reanalysis of Little v.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 13: 99–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerwin, Johanna. 2014. Ditransitives in British English Dialects. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Guidi, Luiz Guilherme. 2011. “Old English Psych verbs and Quirky Experiencers.” York Papers in Linguistics 2 (11): 48.Google Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2018. “Syntactic Effects of Contact in Translations: Evidence from Object Pronoun Placement in Middle English.” English Language and Linguistics 22 (2): 301–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Healey, Antonette di Paolo, Joan Holland, David McDougall, and Ian McDougall. 2009. Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus. University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Tony. 2008. “Anglo-Norman and the Loss of Normandy.” In Un espace colonial et ses avatars, ed. by Florence Bourgne, Leo Carruthers, and Arlette Sancery, 141–151. Paris: PUPS.Google Scholar
. 2015. “The Maintenance of French in Later Medieval England.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 115 (4): 623–645.Google Scholar
. 2016. “Investigating Language Change Using Anglo-Norman Spoken and Written Register Data.” Linguistics 54 (2): 381–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “How Contact with French Drove Patient-Lability in English.” Transactions of the Philological Society 118 (3): 447–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kootstra, Gerrit Jan, and Willemijn J. Doedens. 2016. “How Multiple Sources of Experience Influence Bilingual Syntactic Choice: Immediate and Cumulative Cross-Language Effects of Structural Priming, Verb Bias, and Language Dominance.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19 (4): 710–732. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor. 2000. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. The Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: SUP.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lusignan, Serge. 2004. La Langue des Rois au Moyen Age. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. “The Rise of the to-Dative in Middle English.” In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, ed. by David W. Lightfoot, 107–123. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meisel, Jürgen. 2011. First and Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miura, Ayumi. 2014. Middle English Verbs of Emotion and Impersonal Constructions: Verb Meaning and Syntax in Diachrony. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, Silvina. 2004. “Subject and Object Expression in Spanish Heritage Speakers: A Case of Morpho-Syntactic Convergence.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7: 125–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peteghem, Marleen van. 2006. “Le Datif en Français: Un Cas Structurel.” Journal of French Language Studies 16: 93–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prins, A. 1941. “On the Loss and Substitution of Words in Middle English.” Neophilologus 26: 280–298 and 27, 49–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Proost, Kristel. 2014. “Ditransitive Transfer Constructions and Their Prepositional Variants in German and Romanian: An Empirical Survey.” In Komplexe Argumentstrukturen, ed. by Ruxandra Cosma, Stefan Engelberg, Susan Schlotthauer, Speranta Stănescu, and Gisela Zifonun, 19–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rauth, Philip. 2016. Die Rolle dialektaler Kasussysteme bei der Abfolge ditransitiver Objekte. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 165: 109–135.Google Scholar
Rothwell, William. 1983. “Language and Government in Medieval England”. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 92 (3): 258–270.Google Scholar
. 1993. “The “Faus franceis d’Angleterre”: Later Anglo-Norman.” Anglo-Norman Anniversary Essays. ANTS OP 2: University of London.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Arrivals and Departures.” English Studies 79: 144–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar. 2007. Postcolonial English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Short, Ian. 1980. “Bilingualism in Anglo-Norman England.” Romance Philology 33: 467–479.Google Scholar
. 2009. “L’Anglo-Normand au Siècle de Chaucer: Un Regain de Statistiques.” In Le Plurilinguisme au Moyen Age, ed. by Claire Kappler, and Suzanne Thiolier-Méjean, 67–77. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah, and Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolisation, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trips, Carola and Achim Stein. 2019. Contact-Induced Changes in the Argument Structure of Middle English Verbs on the Model of Old French. Journal of Language Contact 12 (1): 232–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trotter, David. 2003. “Not as Eccentric as It Looks: Anglo-French and French French.” Forum for Modern Language Studies 39: 427–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus. 1963. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part 1: Syntactical Units with One Verb. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
World Atlas of Linguistic Structures (WALS), ed. by Martin Haspelmath. 2005. online: [URL].
Zehentner, Eva. 2017. “Ditransitives in Middle English: On Semantic Specialisation and the Rise of the Dative Alternation.” English Language and Linguistics 22 (1): 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar