Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T08:38:28.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconsidering the history of like

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Cynthia L. Allen
Cynthia L. Allen
Affiliation:
The Australian National University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of the verb like has attracted a good deal of interest among linguists and students of the history of English, from Van der Gaaf (1904) and Jespersen (1927) up to Elmer (1981), Lightfoot (1981), and Fischer and Van der Leek (1983). The interest in this verb is caused by the fact that it presents a clear case of a verb changing its assignment of semantic to syntactic roles. In Modern English (ModE), this verb subcategorizes for a cause, which takes the grammatical role of object, and an experiencer, which plays the role of subject. But in Old English (OE), the semantic roles were assigned to the opposite grammatical roles:

It is generally assumed (with an exception to be discussed below), that this change is an instance of syntactic reanalysis. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that no reanalysis of a structure has taken place; rather, a new subcategorization frame has been introduced and gradually ousted the old one.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , September 1986 , pp. 375 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Allen, C. (1980). Topics in diachronic English syntax. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. (1984). Case, agreement and inversion in Georgian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 157–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andress, A. (1976). The VP analysis in Modern Icelandic. Montreal working papers in linguistics. University of Montreal. 1–21.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. (1981). The representation of case in Modern Icelandic. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 427–503.Google Scholar
Besten, H. den (1981). Government, syntaktische Struktur und Kasus. In Koht, M. & Lernerz, J. (eds.), Sprache: Formen und Strukturen. Akten des 15 Linguistischen Kolloquiums Münster 1980, Vol. 1 (Linguistische Arbeiten 98.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bosworth, J. & Toller, T. N. (1898). An Anglo-Saxon dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butler, M. (1977). Reanalysis of object as subject in Middle English impersonal constructions. Glossa 11:2. 155–170.Google Scholar
Canale, M. (1978). Word order change in OE: base reanalysis in generative grammar. Unpublished PH.D. dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Cole, P., Herbert, W., Hermon, G. & Sridhar, S. N. (1980). The acquisition of subjecthood. Lg 56. 719–743Google Scholar
Elmer, W. (1981). Diachronic grammar: the history of Old and Middle English subjectless constructions. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. C. M. & Van der Leek, F. (1983). The demise of the Old English impersonal construction. JL 19. 337–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaaf, W. van der (1904). The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in Middle English. (Anglistische Forschungen 14.) Reprinted in 1967. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Healey, A. & Venezky, R. (1980). A microfiche concordance to Old English. Toronto: Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1927). A modern English grammar on historical principles, Vol. 3. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. & Bresnan, J. (1982). Lexical functional grammer: a formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 173–281.Google Scholar
Kato, T. (1974). A concordance to the works of Sir Thomas Malory. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. (1980). Bengali dative subjects. Lingua 51. 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossuth, K. (1978). Icelandic word order: in support of drift as a diachronic principle specific of language families. In Jaeger, et al. (eds), Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California.Google Scholar
Kurath, H. & Kuhn, S. (eds) (1956). Middle English dictionary. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1981). The history of NP movement. In Baker, C. L. & McCarthy, J. (eds), The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maling, J. (1980). Inversion in embedded clauses in modern Icelandic, Islenskt Mál og Almenn Málfraeoi. 2. 175–194.Google Scholar
McCawley, N. (1976). From OE/ME ‘impersonal’ to ‘personal’ constructions: what is a ‘subjectless’ S? In Stever, S. B. et al. (eds) Papers from the parasession on diachronic syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 192–204.Google Scholar
Middle English Group of the Modern Language Association of America (1967). A manual of the writings in Middle English 1050–1500. New Haven: the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Grammatical relations and clause structure in Malayalam. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 504–589.Google Scholar
Murray, J. et al. (eds) (1933). Oxford English dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Neidle, C. (1981). Case agreement in Russian. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 391–426.Google Scholar
Rögnvaldsson, E. (1982). We need (some kind of a) rule of conjunction reduction. Lin 13. 557–564.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1977). Grammatical relations and surface cases. Lg 53. 789–809.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. (1983). Aspects of Warlpiri morphology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Spevack, M. (1970). A complete and systematic concordance to the works of Shakespeare. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Sridhar, S. N. (1979). Dative subjects and the notion of subject. Lingua 49. 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatlock, J. & Kennedy, A. (1963). A concordance to the complete works of Geoffrey Chaucer and to the Romaunt of the Rose. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. (1980). On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1963). An historical syntax of the English language. Part I. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. (1963). A syntax of the English language of St. Thomas More. Parts 2 and 3. Louvain: Librairie Universitaire.Google Scholar
Wahlén, N. (1925). The Old English impersonalia. Part I. Göteborg: Elanders.Google Scholar