Abstract
In contact between closely related languages like Old Norse (ON) and Old English (OE), higher similarity between units of the languages in contact can favour integration of loans as selective copies (Johanson, 2002). This can result in the copying of cognates like Middle English (ME) reisen ‘to raise’ (<ON reisa) which shows intransitive rísan as a formally similar cognate in OE. A mixed-methods analysis of ME corpus data shows that the argument realisation patterns used with forms representing either cognate verb show semantic and combinational features of both verbs. It is argued that ambiguity between cognate phonological forms of OE rísan, ON causative reisa and ON anticausative rísa during contact served as the source for structural ambiguity between valency constructions later available to both ME verbs rísen and reisen. Thus, this work proposes that formal ambiguity between identifiable cognates in contact can disguise existing meaningful structural and semantic contrasts and lead to argument structural changes like the labilisation of historically contrasting, non-labile verbs. This work provides evidence that copying of cognates can serve as a source for argument structural change because, not despite, of linguistic closeness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This work focuses on the contact influence between rise and raise. The relation between raise and rear is not subject of this work. Etymologically both verbs descend from Germanic derived causatives and Anglo-Scandinavian contact leads to their status as near synonyms in English (rear v.1. OED Online).
- 2.
Levin (1993) lists arise and rise as non-alternating verbs in the causative/inchoative alternation. Raise is not listed.
- 3.
- 4.
This alternation is also known under the name causative/anticausative alternation (Ottósson, 2013).
- 5.
See Pons-Sanz (2013) for a detailed account.
- 6.
Ordering of multiple lemma associations by the BASICS lemmatizer is not probabilistic. The author thanks Carola Trips and Michael Percillier for sharing insights into the annotation process.
- 7.
Data extraction protocol: the penn2svg tool from the BASICS Toolkit (Percillier, 2016–2021) was used to generate a html structure embedding the CorpusSearch2 output. Relevant metadata, annotations and text for each token were extracted from this for analysis in a csv dataset using an in-house script.
- 8.
The author thanks Gjertrud Stenbrenden for her correspondence on these forms where <ai> might reflect a diphthong and thus potential ambiguity between the cognates or could reflect a northern form for southern á.
References
Barðdal, J., & Eyþórsson, Þ. (2020). How to identify cognates in syntax? Taking Watkins’ legacy one step further. In J. Barðdal, S. Gildea, & E. R. Lujan (Eds.), Reconstructing syntax (pp. 197–238). Brill.
Barnes, M. P. (2008). A new introduction to Old Norse (3rd ed.). Viking Society for Northern Research, University College London.
Bosworth, J., Northcote Toller, T., Sean, C., & Tichy, O. (Eds.). (2014). An Anglo-Saxon dictionary online. Faculty of Arts. Charles University. Retrieved February 13, 2022 from https://bosworthtoller.com/
Bowern, C. (2013). Relatedness as a factor in language contact. Journal of Language Contact, 6(2), 411–432.
Dance, R. (2012). English in contact: Norse. In L. Brinton & A. Bergs (Eds.), English historical linguistics. An international handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 1724–1737). De Gruyter Mouton.
Dance, R., Pons-Sanz, S. M., & Schorn, B. (2019). The Gersum project: The Scandinavian influence on English vocabulary. Cambridge.
Durkin, P. (2014). Borrowed words: A history of loanwords in English. Oxford University Press.
Elter, W. J. (2020). The rise of the to-dative: A language-contact approach to a phenomenon of structural language change. Mannheim Papers in Multilingualism, acquisition and change (pp.1–71). https://doi.org/10.25521/MAPMAC.2020.121
Faarlund, J. (1994). Old and middle Scandinavian. In E. König & J. van der Auwera (Eds.), The Germanic languages (pp. 38–71). Routledge.
Fowler, H. W., & Crystal. D. (2009). A dictionary of modern English usage: The classic first edition. Oxford University Press.
García García, L. (2020). The basic valency orientation of old English and the causative Ja-formation: A synchronic and diachronic approach. English Language & Linguistics, 24(1), 153–177.
Gooskens, C., & Swarte, F. (2017). Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of mutualintelligibility between Germanic languages. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 40(2), 123–147.
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (Eds.). (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge University Press.
Hogg, R. M., & Alcorn, R. (2012). An introduction to Old English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
Holler, A. (2015). Grammatik und integration: Wie fremd ist die Argumentstruktur nicht-nativer Verben? In S. Engelberg, K. Proost, E. Winkler, & M. Meliss (Eds.), Argumentstruktur zwischen Valenz und Konstruktion (pp. 397–416). Narr Franke Attempto.
Johanson, L. (2002). Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In M. C. Jones & E. Esch (Eds.), Language change (pp. 285–313). De Gruyter Mouton.
Johanson, L. (2008a). Remodeling grammar. In N. Kintana & P. Siemund (Eds.), Language contact and contact languages (pp. 61–80). John Benjamins.
Johanson, L. (2008b). Case and contact linguistics. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 494–501). Oxford University Press.
Johanson, L., & Robbeets, M. I. (2012). Copies versus cognates in bound morphology. (Brill's studies in language, cognition, and culture; Vol. 2). Leiden; Boston: Brill.
Kroch, A., & Taylor. A. (2000). The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, second edition (PPCME2). University of Pennsylvania. https://www.ling.upenn.edu/ppche/ppche-release-2010/PPCME2-RELEASE-3/
Kulikov, L. I. (2001). Causatives. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals 2 (pp. 886–898). De Gruyter Mouton.
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B. (2018). Argument structure. In Oxford Bibliographies. Linguistics. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199772810/obo-9780199772810-0099.xml
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge University Press.
MED. (n.d.). In R. E. Lewis et al. (Eds.) Middle English dictionary (1952–2001). University of Michigan Press. Online edition in Middle English Compendium. Frances McSparran, et al. (Eds.). University of Michigan Library, 2000–2018. Retrieved January 13, 2022 fromhttp://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/
Morse-Gagne, E. E. (2003). Viking pronouns in England: Charting the course of THEY, THEIR, and THEM, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania. https://www.proquest.com/docview/305305334/
OED Online. (n.d.). Oxford English Dictionary. Online-Version. M. Proffitt (Ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved January 13, 2022 from http://www.oed.com/
ONP Online. (n.d.) Dictionary of Old Norse prose. Retrieved January 13, 2022 from www.onp.ku.dk
Ottósson, K. (2013). The anticausative and related categories in the Old Germanic languages.In F. Josephson & I. Söhrman (Eds.), Diachronic and typological perspectives on verbs (Vol. 134, pp. 329–382). John Benjamins.
Percillier, M. (2016–2021). BASICS Toolkit. Retrieved May 14, 2022 from http://basics-toolkit.spdns.org/
Pons-Sanz, S. M. (2013). The lexical effects of Anglo-Scandinavian linguistic contact on Old English. Brepols Publishers.
Randall, B. (2010). CorpusSearch (Version 2.003.00) [Computer Software]. http://corpussearch.sourceforge.net/
Thomason, S. G., & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.
Townend, M. (2002). Language and history in Viking Age England: Linguistic relations between speakers of Norse and English. Brepols Publishers.
Trips, C. (2020). Copying of argument structure A gap in borrowing scales and a new approach to model contact-induced change. In B. Drinka (Ed.), Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017 (pp. 409–430). John Benjamins.
Trips, C., & Stein, A. (2008). Was Old French -able borrowable? A diachronic study of word-formation processes due to language contact. In R. Dury, M. Dossena & M. Gotti (Eds.), English historical linguistics 2006. Vol. 2: Lexical and semantic change (pp. 217–240). John Benjamins.
Trips, C., & Percillier, M. (2020). Lemmatising Verbs in Middle English Corpora: The benefit of enriching the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2 (PPCME2), the Parsed Corpus of Middle English Poetry (PCMEP), and A Parsed Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English (PLAEME). In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. 7170–7178). https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.886
Truswell, R., Alcorn, R., Donaldson, J., & Wallenberg, J. (2018). A Parsed Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English. University of Edinburgh.
van Gelderen, E. (2011). Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 1(1), 106–143.
van Gelderen, E. (2018). The diachrony of verb meaning: Aspect and argument structure. Routledge.
Visser, F. T. (1963–73). An historical syntax of the English language. Brill.
Warner, A. (2017). English-Norse contact, simplification, and sociolinguistic typology. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 118(2), 317–404.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. Findings and problems. Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York.
Winford, D. (2003). An introduction to contact linguistics. Blackwell Publishing.
Zimmermann, R. (2018). The parsed corpus of middle English poetry (PCMEP). https://pcmep.net/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Elter, W.J. (2023). Integration of Cognate Loan Verbs in Contact Between Closely Related Languages Effecting Valency Changes. In: Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B., Trojszczak, M. (eds) Language in Educational and Cultural Perspectives. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38778-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38778-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38777-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38778-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)