Cover not available
Part of
Explorations in English Historical Syntax
Edited by Hubert Cuyckens, Hendrik De Smet, Liesbet Heyvaert and Charlotte Maekelberghe
[Studies in Language Companion Series 198] 2018
► pp. 51–76

Chapter 2
Cognate noun constructions in Early Modern English

The case of Tyndale’s New Testament

| National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
This paper examines cognate noun constructions (CNCs) (e.g. smile a disarming smile) in Early Modern English, particularly in the first complete English translation of the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew by William Tyndale. Tyndale’s translation is produced during a period of significant expansion of CNCs in English. It is argued that CNCs in Tyndale are a marker of a particular English biblical register which involves archaic (early) English properties (cognate nouns in PPs) rather than a new tendency for cognate direct objects or the result of a translation effect alone. In other words, it is shown that Tyndale’s translation follows archaic/early English rules, thus deviating both from the new tendency for cognate direct objects and from the source text. This archaic characteristic of CNCs with cognate nouns in PPs instantiates a general tendency in Tyndale’s translation to use archaisms – as evidenced, for instance, in his dispreference of auxiliaries.
Keywords: Early Modern English, transitivity, cognate nouns, biblical English, translation effects, “sacral stamp”
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical and historical background
    • 2.1Theoretical background: Cognate nouns and CNCs
    • 2.2Historical background: Cognate nouns and their diachrony in English
  • 3.The data from Tyndale
    • 3.1CNCs in Tyndale vs. other biblical translations
    • 3.2Archaic “sacral stamp” vs. indirect effects of translation in Tyndale
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 13 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.198.03lav
References (36)
References
Blass, Friedrich, Debrunner, Albert & Funk, Robert W. 1961. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Canon, Elizabeth Bell. 2010. The Use of Modal Expression Preference as a Marker of Style and Attribution: The Case of William Tyndale and the 1533 English Enchiridion Militis Christiani. Bern: Peter Lang.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis & Stock, S. George. 1905[1995]. Grammar of Septuagint Greek. Boston MA: Hendrickson.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2011. The sacral stamp of Greek: Periphrastic constrictions in New Testament translations of Latin, Gothic, and Old Church Slavonic. In Indo-European Syntax and Pragmatics: Contrastive Approaches, Eirik Welo (ed.). Oslo Studies in Language 3(3): 41–73.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1994. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 78: 137–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara. 2011. Native syntax and translation effects. Adnominal arguments in the Greek and Latin New Testament. In Indo-European Syntax and Pragmatics: Contrastive Approaches, Eirik Welo (ed.). Oslo Studies in Language 3(3): 75–101.Google Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara & Lavidas, Nikolaos. 2013. Cognate adverbials and case in the history of Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics 33: 61–75.Google Scholar
Gianollo, Chiara & Nikolaos Lavidas. 2014. Greek cognate datives: From modification to focus. In Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, Georgios Kotzoglou, Kalomira Nikolou, Eleni Karantzola, Katerina Frantzi, Ioannis Galantomos, Marianthi Georgalidou, Vasilla Kourti-Kazoullis, Chrysoula Papadopoulou & Evagelia Vlachou (eds), 488–500. Rhodes: University of the Aegean, Laboratory of Linguistics of the SE Mediterranean.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel & Castroviejo Miró, Elena. 2011. The dimensions of verum. In Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 8, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 143–165. Paris: Université Paris-Sorbonne. <[URL]>
Harsh, Wayne. 1968. The Subjunctive in English. Tuscaloosa AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Haug, Dag T. T. & Jøhndal, Marius L. 2008. Creating a parallel treebank of the Old Indo-European Bible translations. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Language Technology for Cultural Heritage Data (LaTeCH 2008), Caroline Sporleder & Kiril Ribarov (eds), 27–34. Marrakech: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey & Stavrou, Melita. 2003. Actions and their results in Greek and English: The complementarity of morphologically encoded (viewpoint) aspect and syntactic resultative predication. Journal of Semantics 20: 297–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Grammaticalized aspect and spatio-temporal culmination. Lingua 117: 605–644. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Morphological aspect and the distribution of cognate objects across languages. In Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure, Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds), 284–308. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2015. Heterogeneity vs. homogeneity. In Letter Writing and Language Change, Anita Auer, Daniel Schreier & Richard J. Watts (eds), 72–100. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Michael Allan. 1988. Cognate objects and the case-filter. Journal of Linguistics 24: 89–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lavidas, Nikolaos. 2013a. Null and cognate objects and changes in (in)transitivity: Evidence from the history of English. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 60(1): 69–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Unaccusativity and the diachrony of null and cognate objects in Greek. In Argument Structure in Flux: The Naples-Capri Papers [Studies in Language Companion Series 131], Elly van Gelderen, Jóhanna Barðdal & Michela Cennamo (eds), 307–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Light, Caitlin & Wallenberg, Joel. 2015. The expression of impersonals in Middle English. English Language and Linguistics 19(2): 227–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Cuzzolin, Pierluigi. 2007. Mediating culture through language: Contact induced phenomena in the early translations of the Gospels. In Europe and the Mediterranean as Linguistic Areas: Convergencies from a Historical and Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 88], Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds), 133–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1990. Cognate objects as thematic objects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 35: 161–190.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2015. Preverbal ge- in Old and Middle English. In Byproducts and Side Effects [ZAS Papers in Linguistics 58], André Meinunger (ed.), 15–48. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS).Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita. 1998. Cognate objects as reflections of Davidsonian event arguments. In Events and Grammar, Susan Rothstein (ed.), 309–332. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moulton, James Hope. 1908. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1: Prolegomena. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.Google Scholar
Nakajima, Heizo. 2006. Adverbial cognate objects. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 674–684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. Motivated archaism: The use of affirmative periphrastic do in Early Modern English liturgical prose. In Historical English Syntax, Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), 303–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 1999. Two classes of cognate objects. In The Proceedings of the WCCFL XVII, Kimary Shahin, Susan Blake & Eun-Sook Kim (eds.), 537–551. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2002. Cognate objects in Modern and Biblical Hebrew. In Themes and Issues in Arabic and Hebrew, Jamal Ouhalla & Ur Shlonsky (eds), 107–136. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Psaltes, Stamatios B. 1913. Grammatik der byzantinischen Chroniken. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. 1919. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 3rd edn. New York NY: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann. 2008. Contact effects of translation: Distinguishing two kinds of influence in Old English. Language Variation and Change 20(2): 341–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga. 2012. Latin absolute constructions and their Old English equivalents: Interfaces between form and information structure. In Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English, Anneli Meurman-Solin, María José López-Couso & Bettelou Los (eds), 228–242. New York NY: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1963–73[2002]. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Brendan. 2006. Figurae etymologicae in Gothic. Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 11: 207–214.Google Scholar
Yamakawa, Kikuo. 1970. ‘An hungred’ and some kindred syntactic archaisms. Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts and Sciences 11(1): 53–62.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Bouso, Tamara
2020. The growth of the transitivising Reaction Object Construction. Constructions and Frames 12:2 ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Farkas, Imola-Ágnes
2020. Diacronia construcției cu complement intern în română și maghiară. Diacronia :12 DOI logo
Farkas, Imola-Ágnes
2020. The diachrony of the cognate object construction in Romanian and Hungarian. Diacronia :12 DOI logo
Farkas, Imola-Ágnes
2021. Aspectual cognate objects in Hungarian. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo
Farkas, Imola-Ágnes
2021. Aspectual cognate objects in Hungarian. Folia Linguistica 55:2 ► pp. 389 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 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.