Cover not available
Part of
The Determinants of Diachronic Stability
Edited by Anne Breitbarth, Miriam Bouzouita, Lieven Danckaert and Melissa Farasyn
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 254] 2019
► pp. 215–244

Chapter 9
What is a diachronically stable system in a language-contact situation?

The case of the English recipient passive

ORCID logo | Universität Stuttgart
| Universität Mannheim | University of Westminster
| Universität Mannheim
In this paper we present data showing that the development of the English recipient passive (RP) was linked predominantly to verbs of French origin, although Old French (OF) did not have an RP. We present two explanations of the role that contact with French could have played in this development. The first explanation builds on the fact that only structurally case-marked arguments can become subjects of passive clauses and assumes that the RP was developed with French verbs because the OF structural dative was copied to Middle English (ME). The second explanation is that clause-taking ditransitive verbs in Anglo-French (AF, the variety of OF spoken in England) showed case idiosyncracies that licensed the RP in AF and may thus have acted as a bridge construction. We relate both explanations to current approaches in contact linguistics as well as to the degrees of stability of the three languages involved, ME, OF, and AF.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Recipient passive in the history of English
    • 2.1Previous studies and first occurrences
    • 2.2Middle English data extracted from the PPCME2 and the PCEEC
  • 3.Structural datives: A case of copying abstract case features?
  • 4.Clause-taking verbs: A possible bridge construction?
  • 5.Contact and stability
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.254.09ste
References (51)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2006. Introduction. In Datives and Other Cases [Studies in Language Companion Series 75], Daniel Hole, André Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds), 3–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Sevdali, Christina. 2014. Opaque and transparent datives, and how they behave in passives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17(1): 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 1995. Case Marking and Reanalysis: Grammatical Relations from Old to Early Modern English. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Arteaga, Deborah L. & Herschensohn, Julia. 2013. A diachronic view of Old French genitive constructions. In Research on Old French: The State of the Art, Deborah L. Arteaga (ed.), 19–44. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah, Hartsuiker, Robert J. & Pickering, Martin J. 2009. Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach. Cognition 112: 300–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18: 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Coetsem, Frans. 1988. Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact [Publications in Language Sciences 27]. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. A General and Unified Theory of the Transmission Process in Language Contact. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax. Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Dupuy, Estèle. 2010. La voix passive et les auxiliaires factitifs en moyen français: Maillage inter-verbal des systèmes valentico-référentiels. In Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, Tome VI, Maria Iliescu, Heidi Siller-Runggaldier & Paul Danler (eds), 105–114. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emirkanian, Louisette & Jebali, Adel. 2013. Acquiring argument structure in French L2: The case of ditransitive structures. In Conference Proceedings of 6th ICT for Language Learning, Florence, Italy, 14–15 November, Pixel (ed.), 469–473. Padova: Libreria universitaria.Google Scholar
Feldman, Harry. 1978. Passivizing on datives in Greek. Linguistic Inquiry 9(3): 499–502.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2006. A History of the English Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric. 2010. Investigating Anglo-Norman influence on Late Middle English syntax. In The Anglo-Norman Language and its Contexts, Richard Ingham (ed.), 143–163. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2016. Canonical goal passives in Dutch and its dialects. Ms.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., Pickering, Martin J. & Veltkamp, Eline. 2004. Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science 15(6): 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania (eds). 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herschensohn, Julia. 1996. Case Suspension and Binary Complement Structure in French [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 132]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herslund, Michael. 1980. Problèmes de syntaxe de l’ancien français. Compléments datifs et génitifs. Uppsala: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2012. Middle English and Anglo-Norman in contact. Bulletin de l’Association des Médiévistes Anglicistes de l’Enseignement Supérieur 81: 1–23.Google Scholar
. 2017. The Middle English prepositional dative: Grammaticalisation and contact with French. Talk held at the SLE 2017 in Zurich.Google Scholar
Jensen, Frede. 1990. Old French and Comparative Gallo-Romance Syntax [Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 232]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2002. Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extralinguistic Factors, Mari C. Jones & Edith Esch (eds), 285–313. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Willem. 1990. The Double Object Construction in Old English. In Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Sylvia Adamson Vivien A. Law, Nigel Vincent & Susan Wright (eds), 225–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony & Taylor, Ann (eds). 2000. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, 2nd edn (PPCME2). Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1979. The English passive: An argument for historical rule stability. Linguistic Inquiry 10(4): 667–688.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lucas, Christopher. 2012. Contact-induced grammatical change. Towards an explicit account. Diachronica 29(3): 275–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2002. The rise of the to-dative in Middle English. In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, David Lightfoot (ed.), 107–123. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkvall, Mikael. 2008. Which parts of language are the most stable? Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 61(3): 234–250.Google Scholar
Rothwell, William. 2001. The teaching and learning of French in later medieval England. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 111: 2–18.Google Scholar
Rothwell, William & Trotter, David (eds). 2001. The Anglo-Norman Online Hub. London: Aberystwyth University and Swansea University.Google Scholar
Russom, Jacqueline Haring. 1982. An examination of the evidence for OE indirect passives. Linguistic Inquiry 13(4): 677–680.Google Scholar
Santoro, Maurizio. 2007. Second language acquisition of Italian accusative and dative clitics. Second Language Research 23(1): 37–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Short, Ian. 1980. Bilingualism in Anglo-Norman England. Romance Philology 33(4): 467–479.Google Scholar
Sleeman, Petra. 2010. L2 acquisition of clitics: Old French as an interlanguage. In Movement and Clitics: Adult and Child Grammar, Vincent Torrens et al.. (eds), 389–416. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Nurmi, Arja, Warner, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan & Nevalainen, Terttu (eds). 2006. Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC). York and Helsinki: Universities of York and Helsinki.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Togeby, Knud. 1974. Précis historique de grammaire française. Odense: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Toyota, Junichi. 2008. Diachronic Change in the English Passive. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trips, Carola & Stein, Achim. 2018. A comparison of multi-genre and single-genre corpora in the context of contact-induced change. In Diachronic Corpora, Genre and Language Change [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 85], Richard Whitt (ed.), 241–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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
Troberg, Michelle. 2008. Dynamic Two-place Indirect Verbs in French: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study in Variation and Change of Valence. PhD Thesis: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, Marina & Waterfall, Heidi. 2012. Beyond syntactic priming: Evidence for activation of alternative syntactic structures. Journal of Child Language 39(2): 258–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasilyeva, Marina, Waterfall, Heidi, Gamez, Perla, Gomez, Ligia, Bowers, Edmond & Shimpi, Priya. 2010. Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in bilingual children. Journal of Child Language 37(5): 1047–1064. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1963. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Weber, Kirsten & Indefrey, Peter. 2009. Syntactic priming in German-English bilinguals during sentence comprehension. Neuroimage 46(4): 1164–1167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2003. Contact-induced changes: Classification and processes. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 57: 129–150.Google Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case, and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 111–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yanagi, Tomohiro. 2012. Ditransitive alternation and theme passivization in Old English. In Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, Vol. 10: Outposts of Historical Corpus Linguistics: From the Helsinki Corpus to a Proliferation of Resources, Jukka Tyrkkö et al.. (eds). Helsinki: Varieng. [URL]Google Scholar
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
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Stein, Achim
2019. Le rôle de l’ancien français dans le développement du passif indirect en anglais. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 135:2 ► pp. 356 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.