Cover not available
Part of
Language Structure and Environment: Social, cultural, and natural factors
Edited by Rik De Busser and Randy J. LaPolla
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies in Cultural Contexts 6] 2015
► pp. 45–76

Chapter 3. The body, the universe, society and language

Germanic in the grip of the unknown

 | Monash University
The focus of this chapter is on the grammatical expression of the unknown and its role as a force for linguistic change at different times in Germanic. The paper opens with a brief look at modern Pennsylvania German, the language spoken by ultra-conservative Anabaptist groups in North America. This language has been chosen because it offers such clear evidence of a modern Germanic language whose structural features have been shaped by the cultural preoccupations of its speakers. The second part of the paper shifts focus to the grammatical coding of human experiencers in early Germanic, in particular Anglo-Saxon and early Dutch. Here it is argued that the predilection for dative and accusative marked participants during these early times was an enactment of prevailing thinking – specifically, beliefs about the human condition that emphasized its vulnerability to external forces.
Published online: 9 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.6.03bur
References (59)
Bibliography
Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, C.L. (1995). Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from old to early modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Böjars, K., & Burridge, K. (2011). From preposition to purposive to infinitival marker: The Pennsylvania German fer…zu construction. In M.T. Putnam (Ed.), Studies on German-language Islands (pp. 385–411). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1979). Theory of complementation in English syntax. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Bruch, R. (1973). Luxemburger Grammatik in volkstümlichem Abriss. Luxembourg: Editions de la Section de Linguistique de l’Institut gr.-d.Google Scholar
Buehler, A.M. (1977). The Pennsylvania German Dialect and the Life of an Old Order Mennonite. Cambridge, Ontario: Pennsylvania Folklore Society of Ontario.Google Scholar
. (1996). Degenerate cases of body parts in Middle Dutch. In H. Chappell & W. McGregor (Eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 679–710). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Changes within Pennsylvania German grammar as enactments of Anabaptist world-view. In N.J. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture (pp. 207–230). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2007). A separate and peculiar people - Fieldwork and the Pennsylvania Germans. Sprachtypologie Und Universalienforschung . Language Typology and Universals, 6(1), 32–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L., Perkins, R., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, H., & McGregor, W. (Eds.). (1995). The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Christophory, J. 1904 [1970]. Mir schwätze Lëtxebuergesch. Luxembourg: Imprimerie Saint-Paul, Société Anonyme.Google Scholar
Curme, G.O. (1970). A grammar of the German language. New York, NY: Frederick Ungar.Google Scholar
Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. New York: Metropolitan.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W. (2005). A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, M., & Burridge, K. (2007). Experiencing English anew— the grammar of sickness. Paper presented at the 2007 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society , University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
DuBois, J.W. (1985). Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax: Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax , Stanford, June 24-6, 1983 (pp. 343–365). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Durrell, M. (1991). Hammer’s German grammar and usage, Second Edition. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Enninger, W. (1985). Amish by-names. Names: A Journal of Onomastics, 33(4), 243–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. (1981). Body part syntax: Towards a universal characterization. Studies in Language, 5(3), 323–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fretz, J.W. (1989). The waterloo mennonites: A community in Paradox. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2002). Ethnosyntax, ethnopragmatics, sign-functions, and culture. In N.J. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in grammar and culture (pp. 52–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grattan, J.H., & Singer, C.J. (1952). Anglo-Saxon magic and medicine. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar, Second Edition (2nd edn.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1989). From purposive to infinitive ― A universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica, 23(Historica vol. 10,1-2), 287–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henn, B. (1980). Pfälzisch. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.Google Scholar
Hopper, P.J. (1991). On some principles of grammaticization. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Volume 1 (pp. 17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hostetler, J.A. (1980). Amish society (Third Edition). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1927). A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part III syntax. Volume 2. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, B., & Delbecque, N. (1998). The possessive dative in Romance and Germanic languages. In W. Van Langendonck & W. Van Belle (Eds.), The dative, Volume 2: Theoretical and contrastive studies (pp. 29–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, R.J. (2003). Why languages differ: Variation in the conventionalization of constraints on inference. In D. Bradley, R.J. LaPolla, B. Michailovsky, & G. Thurgood (Eds.), Language variation: Papers on Variation and Change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in Honour of James A. Matisoff (pp. 113–144). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lockwood, W.B. (1968). Historical German syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, N.A. (1976). From OE/ME “impersonal” to “personal” constructions: What is a “subject-less” S? In S.B. Steever, C.A. Walker, & S.S. Mufwene (Eds.), Proceedings of the Chicago linguistic society: Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax , April 22, 1976 (Vol. 22 April 1976, pp. 192–204). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Miller, D.G. (2002). Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, H., Mose, H., Schröbler, I., & Grosse, S. (1982). Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Porter, R. (1997). The greatest benefit to mankind: A medical history of humanity. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
. (2003). Flesh in the age of reason: The modern foundations of body and soul. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1923). The infinitive, the gerund and the participles of the English verb. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Heine, B. (Eds.). (1991). Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & König, E. (1991). The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Volume 1 (pp. 189–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tripp, R.P. (1978). The psychology of impersonal constructions. Glossa, 12(2), 177–189.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1995). Grammaticalisation and social structure: Non-standard conjunction-formation in East Anglian English. In F.R. Palmer (Ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons (pp. 136–147). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Gaaf, W. (1904). The Transition from the Impersonal to the Personal Construction in Middle English. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Visser, F.T. (1963). An historical syntax of the English language (3 Volumes). Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M.I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W.P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium (pp. 97–195). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1979). Ethno-syntax and the philosophy of grammar. Studies in Language, 3(3), 313–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Middle Dutch sources
Braekman, W.L. (Ed.). (1970). Middelnederlandse Geneeskundige Recepten: Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de vakliteratuur in de Nederlanden. Gent: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie.Google Scholar
. (Ed.). (1975). Medische en technische middelnederlandse recepten: Een tweede bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de vakliteratuur in de Nederlanden. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
. (1987). Een merkwaardige collectie secreten uit de vijftiende eeuw. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 2, 270–287.Google Scholar
Daems, W.F. (1967). Boec van medicinen in Dietsche: Een Middelnederlandse compilatie van medisch-farmaceutische literatuur. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Frencken, H.G.T. (1934). T Bouck van Wondre, 1513. Roermond: Drukkerij H. Timmermans.Google Scholar
Van Leersum, E.C. (Ed.). (1928). Het “Boeck van Surgien” van Meester Thomaes Scellinck van Thienen. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Vandewiele, L.J. (1970). Een middelnederlandse versie van de “Circa instans” van Platearius: Naar de hss Portland, British Museum ms. Loan 29/332, XIVe eeuw en Universiteitsbibliotheek te Gent Hs. 1457, XVe eeuw. Oudenaarde: Sanderus.Google Scholar
Old and Middle English sources
Cockayne, O. (Ed.). (1865). Leechdoms, Wortcunning, and Starcraft of Early England (3 Volumes). London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green.Google Scholar
Sinclair Ogden, M. (1938). The “Liber de diversis medicinis” in the Thornton Manuscript (MS. Lincoln Cathedral A.5.2). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Kopaczyk, Joanna & Jukka Tyrkkö
2018. Chapter 11. Blogging around the world. In Applications of Pattern-driven Methods in Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 82], ► pp. 277 ff. DOI logo
Schneider, Edgar W.
2018. The interface between cultures and corpora: Tracing reflections and manifestations. ICAME Journal 42:1 ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.