Prague, Oxford University Press, London, relative clauses, Modern English, Middle English, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Cambridge University Press, Old English, 14th century, Mouton de Gruyter, Linguistics, Academic Press, Journal of Linguistics, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, Philologica Pragensia, Syntax and Semantics, English Grammar, relatives, John P. Kimball, Diachronic Development, native speakers, Berkeley Linguistics Society, French speakers, John R., Constructions, Olomouc, relative clause, English French grammar Question, French grammar, Joseph Emonds, Modern English Usage, English Conversation, University Olomouc, Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, Jaroslav Mach, relativizer, Ten Joseph Emonds, Ivan Poldauf, University of Ostrava, Czech Republic, Modern Language, Jan Terje Faarlund, relative pronoun, Michaela Mahlberg, John M. Anderson, Ivan, English Language and Linguistics, Masayoshi Shibatani, relative, Middle, 14th Century England, dependent clauses, Universitas Ostraviensis Facultas Philosophica, National Aviation University, Jan Svartvik, Slavic Linguistics, Laura A. Janda, University of Chicago Press, Michael Stubbs, Cognitive Linguistics, Linguistic Inquiry, Michael Hoey, Corpus Linguistics, Chicago University Press
Olomouc Modern Language Monographs Vol. 1 Categories and Categorial Changes: The Third Syntactical Plan and Beyond Edited by Michaela Martinkovб, Markйta Janebovб, and Jaroslav Machбcek Palackэ University Olomouc 2014
Reviewers: Karin Aijmer (University of Gothenburg
, Sweden) Stanislav Kavka (University of Ostrava, Czech Republic
) FIRST EDITION Arrangement copyright © Michaela Martinkovб, Markйta Janebovб, Jaroslav Machбcek Introduction copyright © Michaela Martinkovб Papers copyright © Lucie Cernб, Joseph Emonds, Mirjam Fried, Kateina Havranovб, Markйta Janebovб, Nadzda Kudrnбcovб, Jaroslav Machбcek, Michaela Martinkovб, Olga Richterovб, Andrea Rysavб, Jarmila Tбrnyikovб Copyright © Palackэ University, Olomouc, 2014 ISBN 978-80-244-4287-7 (print) ISBN 978-80-244-4288-4 (e-book) This publication was made possible thanks to targeted funding provided by the Czech Ministry of Education
, Youth and Sports for specific Research Grant
ed in 2012 to Palackэ University, Olomouc (IGA FF_2012_030)
Diachronic Development of English Relativizers Chapter Ten Joseph Emonds and Kateina Havranovб Diachronic Development of English Relativizers: A Study in Grammar Competition 1. Poldauf's Historical Problem Many Indo-European languages such as Czech, French, and Modern English have a wide variety of ways to introduce relative clauses, emphasized in (1). Thus, to modify an overt NP, Modern English uses an invariant complementizer that (1a), "contact relatives" where the relative clause follows the modified NP directly (1b), and a range of pronominal wh-words who(m), whose, which, where, and when (1c). Relevant examples appear in Poldauf (1955), on the pages indicated.1 (1) (a) Smith is a man that is never at a loss. (192) Newton was one of the greatest men that ever lived. (192) You are the only person (that) I have ever met who could do it. (192) . . . like her mother that was dead. (192) (b) The man my friend saw looked happy. Where is the book you have brought with you? (176) Where is the man you showed the book (to)? (176) (c) . . . people whom we admire. (193) . . . the place where it touched the ground. (182) The day when we arrived was very cloudy. (193) Your duchess is only a flower girl whom you taught. (adapted from Shaw's Pygmalion, 193) . . . a ring which she durst not put on her finger, but hid it in her bosom. (182) 1 Unless stated otherwise, all italics in the examples are our own. 149
Such systems contrast with systems in which relative clauses are introduced by a single invariant marker, followed by a clause with a gap for an NP with the same reference as the modified NP.2 For example, Old Norse was such a language, and its relativizer was invariant er; the examples in (2) are from Emonds and Faarlund (forthcoming, Sec. 5.1.6).
(2).. (a) н юau konungs herbergi er helzt munu vera
in those king's quarters that most may be
good customs.nom in had
"in those king's quarters where good customs may be best kept up"
(Holm-Olsen 1945, 42.22)
(b) юat er mйr юуtti engi vуn
that that me.dat seemed no hope.nom in be
"that which I thought there was no hope in" (Rindal 1981, 101.32)
Old English, a close genealogical relative of Old Norse, also had an invariant relativ-
izer юe (3): Poldauf (1955, 16970), Strang (1970, 270), and Mitchell and Robinson
However, Old English had an additional means of introducing restrictive relatives with
a pronoun with the case required in the relative clause followed by юe; for more discussion,
see van Kemenade (1987, Sec. 5.1.3) and Emonds and Faarlund (forthcoming, Sec. 5.2.4).
Mitchell and Robinson (1992, 76) call these se юe relatives, giving the example (3b).
(3) (a) Ure Drihten arжrde anes ealdormannes dohtor,
our Lord raised an alderman's
рe lжg dead.
who. fem, nom that lay dead
"Our Lord raised an alderman's daughter who lay dead."
(van Kemenade 1987, 150)
genip, юam юe se юeoden self sceop nihte naman.
darkness.gen cloud that.dat that the Lord self made night name
"The cloud of darkness, for which the Lord Himself made the name night."
(c) Se mann se
юe ic gelнefe him.
the man he.nom that I believe him
"That's the man whom I believe." (Poldauf 1955, 167)
2 According to Downing (1978, 395), this type of relative clause is a characteristic of several non-IndoEuropean languages, among them Arabic, Hausa, and Malay.
Diachronic Development of English Relativizers Nonetheless, the case marked Old English relativizers se юe died out in Middle English. Therefore, for purpose of ascertaining the historical antecedents and development of the Modern English relativizing system, Old English had only one way of introducing relative clauses that survives today and this type was like the Old Norse system. It had a single invariant relativizer юe. This is the purpose that Poldauf (1955) sets himself in his long and scholarly treatise on the structures and meanings of English and Czech relative clauses. Using extensively the sources available to him, especially the studies of Jespersen (A Modern English Grammar
on Historical Principles, vol. 3; Analytic Syntax; The Philosophy of Grammar), Poldauf wished to understand how all three constructions in (1a)(1c) came to enter English grammar by the time of Shakespeare (early Modern English), even though none of the three directly continues the OE юe.3 2. The Invariant Relativizer That The first of these to enter English was the invariant relativizer that, which replaced the Old English counterpart юe in the first half of the 13th century (Strang 1970, 270). Like other authors, Poldauf (1955, 170) does not relate the change to that, which he dates as 1250, to any other factor in Early Middle English; i.e., it is just accidental. Here it can be remarked that any plausible explanation of this change is better than just attributing it to chance. Here the hypothesis of Emonds and Faarlund (forthcoming) on the genesis of Middle and Modern English provides a more likely, if speculative account. These authors argue that the syntax of Middle English descends not from Old English, but from the Old Scandinavian spoken for centuries in the East Midlands in the Danish kingdoms of the Danelaw and later the whole of England.4 In their scenario, when the French Normans established their supremacy throughout England in the late 11th and 12th centuries, the old enmity between English Scandinavians and native English dissipated, and in its place the two subject peoples fused and set about forging a grammatical lexicon based on cognates (c. 50%) and otherwise 3 Poldauf 's essay devotes almost no space to non-restrictive relative clauses, nor does the present essay treat them. The reason they are never introduced by that is that they do not have dependent clause structure (Ross 1967; Emonds 1979). 4 The Danish King Sweyn conquered all of England in 100213 (with a capital in Wincester, well outside the Danelaw), and was succeeded by his famous son Canute and his childless grandson Hathacnut, who died in 1041. Edward, son of Canute's second wife Emma of Normandy, then became king. When Edward also died childless in 1066, there was confusion and warfare, but within ten months his cousin William's army reestablished (and mercilessly strengthened) Norman rule over all of England. Though this Edward, born c. 1003, is regularly considered "the last Anglo-Saxon king of England," this honor in reality accrues to his father, whose independence from the Danish king ended in 991. After that time, England was continuously ruled by Danes and Normans, outside a few chaotic months in 1066. Edward's fully Danish mother Emma brought him up in Normandy from the age of nine, and later astutely married the Danish King Canute, completely severing any link with the Anglo-Saxons. It was no accident that Edward moved the capital from inland Winchester to the port London. Other than by paternal blood, he was in no sense Anglo-Saxon. 151
in almost equal shares from non-English Old Scandinavian and non-Scandinavian Old English (Emonds and Faarlund, forthcoming, Sec. 6). Thus, as tens of thousands of Old English switched their native syntactic system to that of the Anglicized Danes, they were challenged with what is called "Grammar Competition" (Kroch 2001). They continued to introduce relative clauses by transferring their own invariant юe and then formed the dependent relative clause itself using the unmarked Danish subordinating complementizer at "that." That is, their new way to introduce relative clauses consisted of юe+at. And because early Middle English, like Old Norse but unlike Old English, completely lacked diphthongs with low off-glides (Freeborn 1998, 11213), юe+at naturally came to be pronounced and written as that:
(4) (a) . . . юone Nazareniscan hжlend южt wer бfanden wжs. "You seek Jesus of Nazareth
, who was crucified." (from Mark's Gospel, 16:6, in Poldauf 1955, 170)5
(b) Affterr юat
little witt юatt me Min Drihhtin hafeюю lenedd.
little wit that me my Lord has lent
юu юohhtesst tatt itt mihte wel Till mikell frame turrnenn.
you thought that it might well till great benefit turn
(from The Ormulum, c. 1180, in Poldauf 1955, 175)6
(c) . . . the hyll that we on standeth. ". . . the hill that we are standing on" (Poldauf 1955, 174)
(d) . . . temptacions юat we er umsett with юat lettes us nyght and day. ". . . temptations that we are set about with that hinder us night and day." (from Richard Rolle, The Form of Living, 14th century)
(e) For in юat curt юat es sa clene, may na filth in dwell. "For in that court which is so pure, no filth may dwell in." (from Cursor Mundi, c. 1325, in Denison 1993, 133)
The usual timing of the change from юe to that is 120050, which falls squarely in the period given in Emonds and Faarlund (forthcoming) for the switch in England to Danish syntax (Anglicized Norse) and the accompanying Grammar Competition.
5 Poldauf furnishes no glosses. The translation is Mark 16:6 (New King James
Version). 6 Poldauf furnishes no glosses. The glosses provided here are ours. 152
Diachronic Development of English Relativizers 3. The Emergence of Middle English Contact Relatives A "contact relative" is a relative clause not introduced by any relativizer, pronominal or invariant, as exemplified in (1b). Though in some languages, for example standard Japanese, all relative clauses are of this type, they are not at all common in Indo-European. Thus, contact relatives are impossible in Czech, Dutch, French or German, despite the typological differences among these languages (case-inflecting or not; free or fixed word order). The following are word-for-word translations of the Modern English sentence containing a contact relative in (1b). (5) Czech: *Muz, mj pнtel vidl, vypadal sastn. Dutch: *De man mijn vriend gezien heeft leek gelukkig. French: *L' homme mon ami a vu paraissait heureux. German: *Der Mann mein Freund hat gesehen schien glьcklich. Grammatical counterparts of these examples require overt relative pronouns as follows, i.e., they are not examples of contact relatives: (6) Czech: Muz, kterйho mj pнtel vidl, vypadal sastn. Dutch: De man die mijn vriend gezien heeft leek gelukkig. French: L' homme que mon ami a vu paraissait heureux. German: Der Mann den mein Freund hat gesehen schien glьcklich. Contact relatives were either extremely rare or non-existent in both Old Norse and Old English.7 They began to appear in Middle English with an early example in (7a) in Denison (1993, 132) dated c. 1200, and by 1370 they were used freely (Strang 1970, 198). (7) (a) Nis nan feirure wifmon юa whit sunne scineр on. "There is no fairer woman the bright sun shines on." (b) Early Middle English from Poldauf (1955, 174):8 the hyll the we hine seth "the hill that we see" the hyll the we fleth "the hill that we flee" to the hyll the we ther gath "the hill that we go to" 7 For a review of sources with different conclusions about whether Old English had occasional contact relatives, see Lee (2006). No authors claim that they occur more than very rarely. 8 Poldauf furnishes no glosses. The translation provided here is ours. 153
Chapter 10 (c) Modern English from Poldauf (1955, 167, 176): That's the man I readily believe. Who is the man you are looking at? Contact relatives, or relatives of juxtaposition as Poldauf (1955, 17493) terms them, are essentially unknown in related or neighboring languages. Consequently, their emergence in Middle English (7) cannot be due to "Grammar Competition," because none of the potentially competing grammars in the English Middle Ages included them. Their isolated status makes it equally fruitless to attribute their increasing frequency in Middle and Modern English to any general or universal principle of interpretation. Rather, the English contact relative seems to be a language-specific particularity, which apparently developed spontaneously, namely as an optional deletion (or alternatively optional null allomorph) of the unmarked complementizer (C) that used in any finite dependent clauses that lack a wh-word in pre-subject position.9 Given this fact, Poldauf (1955, 17577) is rightly concerned with determining why this deletion is acceptable except when the relativized Noun Phrase is the highest subject in its clause.10 The signal that a dependent clause is beginning is the close contact with a new subject. Yet subject in an English sentence can be recognized by its adjacency to a finite verb. . . . Thus it is the English fixed word order which allows juxtaposition of dependent clauses. [our translation] His hypothesis is thus that that-deletion (i.e., the possibility of a contact relative) depends on the following constituent being transparently recognizable as a full clause, with a predicate preceded by an overt subject NP. He gives the following examples (Poldauf 1955, 176): (8) Platonic friendship is a gun you do not know is loaded. He refuses to see the holiness there is in death. By the time I had told mother nobody knew about it except me. In the posture he lay it was difficult to identify him. 9 We will say here "optional deletion" rather than "null allomorph," though nothing in this study depends on how we formalize this idea. Similarly, the Czech finite past auxiliary in the 3rd person can be considered as either obligatorily deletion of je/jsou "is/ are" or as an obligatorily null allomorph of this copula. The complementizer that in Modern English never appears with a fronted wh-phrase or with the trace of a subject phrase; the latter restriction is often termed the "that-trace filter." 10 As Poldauf (1955, 17980) notes, a very few such contact relatives with understood subjects can be found (here in italics) in Late Middle English and Early Modern English: . . . with him ther was a ploughman was his brother. (Chaucer) I have a brother is condemned to die. (Shakespeare) My father had a daughter lov'd a man. (Shakespeare) 154
Diachronic Development of English Relativizers In the terminology of deletion, Poldauf is claiming that (9) expresses the context for thatdeletion, i.e., for generating Modern English contact relatives, which seems to be correct: (9) [C that ] ==> Ш / ___ NP, optional He further indicates that this possibility developed in Middle English, as can be seen in his example in (1b). It thus appears that ever since that entered the Middle English grammatical lexicon in early Middle English, its lexical specification for almost all speakers, has included (9). 4. Grammar Competition in 14th Century England We have seen that one type of English relative clause (1a) arose from Grammar Competition, between Old Norse and Old English, and that a second type, contact relatives, arose spontaneously in early Middle English (1b). Before we discuss how wh-relative clauses developed (1c), we need to understand clearly the linguistic situation of 14th century England. Before 1300, the lexicons of Old English and Old Norse had fused to form a new lexicon for Middle English, whose syntax is unmistakably Scandinavian (North Germanic), not West German
ic, as traditionally assumed (without argument); see Emonds and Faarlund (forthcoming). On the other hand, in spite of the Norman rulers being francophone, French had until 1250 had little influence on English, mainly in certain limited areas of lexical borrowing (Baugh 1957, 2012). But after 1250, the upper classes carried over into English an astonishing number of common French words. In changing from French to English, they transferred . . . their ecclesiastical, legal, and military terms, their familiar words of fashion, food, and social life, the vocabulary of art, learning and medicine. . . . the French words introduced into English . . . in the century and a half following 1250, . . . were also such as people who had been accustomed to speak French would carry over with them into the language of their adoption. As a result, in the 14th century, though England had a majority of illiterate monolingual speakers, there were significantly many literate French speakers, who eventually all became bi-lingual, though perhaps over several generations; see the description in Baugh (1957, 17179). By the end of this century, for these writers not only had English become the preferred means of writing, but increasingly French was disappearing as an alternative. Grammar schools for the education of the minority switched to English between 1349 and 1385 (by which time the change was complete), and legal proceedings started to be generally conducted in English in 1362 (Baugh, 17779). These changes were no doubt partly responses to the national feelings strengthened during the Hundred Years' War with France, during this time a constant preoccupation. 155
Chapter 10 Thus, by the late 14th century the linguistic profile of the educated had undergone a dramatic change. The class of bi-lingual French speaking writers, who basically had not written in English prior to 1300, started writing voluminously in English; cf. the discussion in Strang (1970, 25054). Chaucer was the most famous among them, and writing in French became finally a purely academic exercise. By 1400, native speakers of French in England were few and far between; and famously, the King's last French address to Parliament was in 1400. Now the new generations of bi-lingual writers were not entering a world of already literate English folk who had developed literate vocabularies. Rather, when these writers experienced a lack of vocabulary in English (largely a language of illiterates), they imported huge stores of French words from their native command of that language. As Jespersen notes, for example, most English adjectives are from French.11 More generally, English writing in the 14th century was a flourishing enterprise undertaken largely by bi-lingual French speakers, whose national pride was undoubtedly piqued by the long dragged out war with France. Consequently, there could have been no stigma among the literate against what would today be referred to as "Gallicisms." More likely French vocabulary and turns of phrases must have been such common currency that they passed almost unnoticed among the educated, and seemed to be part and parcel of newly literate English expression. In fact, this situation is a good example of what is today widely referred to as Grammar Competition of Kroch (2001), introduced above in Section 2. "The basic idea of Kroch's approach is that parametric change must always proceed via a stage where a speaker (or, a generation of speakers) of a language X has access to more than one internalized grammar" (Fuss and Trips 2002, 195). However, many authors use this idea in an unconstrained way, and thereby miss exploiting its potential explanatory force. Even cursory reflection on this notion shows that in usual language contact, including stable arrangements that last centuries, no changes at all result from Grammar Competition. Largely bi-lingual and bi-dialectal communities typically endure indefinitely without either language undergoing any significant syntactic change as a result. In bi-lingual populations such as Berber speaking Moroccans (J. Ouhalla, pers. comm.), Czech-German bi-linguals in 19th century
Moravia (L. Veselovskб, pers. comm.), Hispanic bi-linguals in the American Southwest, speakers of Standard and non-Standard dialects of the same language, and in fact the world over, language contact does not lead to Grammar Competition. The competing syntactic systems (of living languages) stay the same. So when does Grammar Competition in Kroch's sense actually occur? Even though he might dissent, it is plausibly subject to a strong sociolinguistic restriction: (10) Grammar Competition. The syntactic variant arises only under conditions of a community's deliberate changing to speaking a new first language. 11 By our rough count, c. 70% of the adjectival roots, including those forming adverbs, which we have used so far in this section are from French, including of course some derived in turn from Latin. 156
Diachronic Development of English Relativizers That is, syntactic Grammar Competition in a population, e.g., in the case at hand among French first language speakers in 14th century England, invariably indicates a population that is shifting the first language they speak to a new one. From this perspective, Grammar Competition between French and English in 14th century England is entirely expected. And this competition is what brought back into Middle English the lost IndoEuropean use of wh-words to introduce relative clauses in (1c).12 5. The French Source of English Wh-relatives Wh-pronouns begin to introduce restrictive relative clauses in the 14th century: Denison (1993) gives the examples in (11), one from a biblical work already in 1250:13 (11) (a) And getenisse men ben in ebron, quilc men mai get wundren on. "and gigantic men are in Hebron, which men may yet wonder at" (from Genesis and Exodus, c. 1250, in Denison 1993, 132) (b) How god began юe law hym gyfe, юe quilk the Iuus in sul life. how God began the law him give the which the Jews in should live "How God gave him the law by which the Jews were to live." (from Cursor Mundi, c. 1325, in Denison 1993, 132) Strang (1970, 198) summarizes: "At the beginning of the period , (the) which is just coming into use as a relative. Who/which are still essentially interrogative, . . . who [as a relative] begins to appear very gradually from the close of the 14th century." The timing of this innovation coincides exactly with when French influence
on English is greatest, since this is when the majority of literate native speakers, whose predecessors had previously written almost exclusively in French, switched to writing in English. Since most relative clauses in French require wh-pronouns (Modern qui "who," quoi "what," oщ "where, when," quel "which," etc.), it is not surprising that the 14th century English relative clauses of French-speaking bi-linguals began to be transposed into their English wh-counterparts. The Grammar Competition in the minds of literate bi-lingual community, in the period when they were switching their first language from French to English, is summarized in the following table. The table represents the situation before wh-words were used to introduce English relative clauses. 12 Poldauf is not immune to the ever recurring tendency to attribute characteristics of European languages, such as the wh-relatives of Late Middle English, to (contemporary) "Latin influence." It seems strange to attribute such linguistic powers to scholars who could read but not speak Latin. Analogously, could today's scholars who can read but not speak Middle English influence Modern English to reintroduce medievalisms such as a present plural finite inflection -en or inversion of the main verb in questions? Expecten we to speak like the Hobbits? 13 Denison's examples are extremely interesting, (i) because which is spelled quilc/k, indicating that the author is French speaking and thinking of the French wh-relative pronoun quell, and (ii) like the French relative quel, this relative pronoun is preceded by the definite article. We return to these points below. 157
(12) 14th century Grammar Competition as bi-lingual French speakers change to English
Modified English grammar
Question words: the basic use dating from Indo-European
quel, ±ANIMATE, can be a pronoun or a modifying DET qui, +HUMAN, subject/objects, can only be a pronoun, not DET
oъ, +LOC, can only be a pronoun
Relative clause introducers14
Extends the above forms to relative clauses, adding le/la/les to quel.
which, ±ANIMATE, can be a pronoun or a modifying DET who(m), +HUMAN, subject/ objects, can only be a pronoun, not DET where, +LOC, can only be a pronoun No extension to relative clauses.
14 The left column of Table (12) illustrates aspects of the internalized grammar of native speakers of French, and the right column shows what they have to learn to become bilingual. Obviously, they need only set up some simple correspondences on the basis of the question words:
English: which the who(m)15 where
It then seems pretty natural that as this community of bi-linguals switched their first language to English, Grammar Competition (10) set in, leading them to overgeneralize the use of the wh-words in (13), and internalize Table (14) as their modified English grammar:
14 In Modern relative clauses, que rather than qui is used as the object of a verb, and oъ can also be temporal. 15 Poldauf and other authors observe that English who begins to be used as a relative pronoun considerably later than which. 158
Diachronic Development of English Relativizers
(14) English grammar as modified by French speakers switching to English
Question words: the basic use dating from Indo-European
quel, ±ANIMATE, can be a pronoun or a modifying DET qui, +HUMAN, subject/objects, can only be a pronoun, not DET
oъ, +LOC, can only be a pronoun
Relative clause introducers
Extends the above forms to relative clauses, adding le/la/les to quel.
Modified English grammar which, ±ANIMATE, can be a pronoun or a modifying DET who(m), +HUMAN, subject/ objects, can only be a pronoun, not DET where, +LOC, can only be a pronoun Extends the above forms to relative clauses, using the equivalences in (13).
Besides the simplicity of the transfers in (13), an additional telling piece of evidence for this scenario is the fact, quoted from Strang (1970) earlier in this section, that the earliest English relative clauses using which were in fact introduced by the which, a direct transliteration of the French lequel (Poldauf 1955, 187). This sequence has since become ungrammatical in English, showing that these wh-words in relative clauses have been fully integrated into the English grammatical lexicon. Ordinarily, when new speakers of a language import a new tongue some syntactic characteristic of a language they are abandoning, an existing native speaking community challenges them and does not readily accept any modifications. But when the new native speakers are a numerous and literate elite, and socially dominate the long time native speakers, then changes in a grammatical lexicon wrought by Grammar Competition, such as those underlined in Table (14), have a good chance of surviving. In fact, it is highly unlikely that English commoners in the 14th and 15th century, mostly illiterate, could have successfully challenged the writers of documents, sermons and literature for using "non-English" phrasing in their relative clauses. Any "negative evidence" they might have offered in the face of these Gallicisms would doubtless have been ridiculed and dismissed. Concretely, how could the servants of Geoffrey Chaucer instruct him how to write in his native tongue? As a result, wh-relative pronouns not only survived into Modern English, but as Poldauf (1955, 187) observed, this French-influenced change became more than ever a common device, especially in written or "bookish" language. Like Poldauf, we have now reviewed and analyzed the three novel ways of introducing restrictive relative clauses that have entered English since the early Middle Ages. Two of the three are due to Grammar Competition, once between Old Norse and Old English, and once between English and French
. A third (contact relatives) arose spontaneously without such an impetus.
Conclusions Ivan Poldauf 's introduction of the third syntactical plan into the linguistic description in the 1960s anticipated the birth of a whole new discipline, and his subtle investigations of linguistic categories have been recently rediscovered by linguists working in the field of cognitive linguistics (e.g., Gilquin 2010; Fried 1999 and 2011). The purpose of this monograph has been to contribute to the study of linguistic categories of Poldauf 's academic interest and their changing functions by showing how new linguistics methods and frameworks, namely methods of corpus linguistics and cognitive linguistic frameworks, can increase our understanding of how categories change their functions, and/or new categories are created. Five chapters in Section 1 dealt with constructional categories, namely causative constructions and the medio-passive, but also concern/interest-expressing constructions as well as constructions with interactional datives. In Chapter 1, Fried noted that "[i]n dealing with the categorial and functional gradience displayed by I-Ds, we need an analytic approach that looks beyond a narrowly understood relationship between form and meaning, allows systematic reference to contextual motivations in grammatical descriptions, and considers non-propositional meanings as part of grammatical organization" (20). Construction grammar, a cognitively grounded framework which holds that there are "form-meaning configurations larger than morphemes and words which are conventionally conceptualized as wholes" (stman and Fried 2005, 1) was referred to in Chapter 2 and explicitly mentioned as a theoretical framework adopted for the analysis presented in Chapter 4, which argued for a newly emerging evaluative construction. Section 2, which dealt with the semantic categories of tense, aspect, and modality as well as the ways of their expression, investigated the competition of the futurity markers be going to and will, of the infinitive and gerundial complements of aspectual verbs, and the function of the progressive form with "anti-progressive" verbs. Chapters in Section 3 tested the "nounhood" of expressions referred to as "quotational compounds" and presented an analysis of the rise of the relativizer which in the history of English. Since in most of the chapters, English and Czech data are contrasted, the book can be seen as a substantial contribution to the contemporary contrastive linguistic research. Chapters 2, 6, and 7, which make use of the parallel translation corpus Intercorp, open ground for statistical testing of the association (dependence) between a certain variable (Poldauf 's supplementary signal) and the presence/absence of a certain translation equivalent. 160
Works Cited Aarts, Bas. 2001. English Syntax and Argumentation. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave. Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aarts, Bas. 2011. Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anderson, John. 1968. "Ergative and Nominative in English." Journal of Linguistics 4 (1): 1152. Austin, Frances. 2004. "Points of Modern English Usage
LXXX." English Studies
85 (1): 7788. Authier, J.-Marc, and Lisa Reed. 1992. "Case Theory, Theta Theory, and the Distribu- tion of French Affected Datives." In The Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Dawn Bates, 2739. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Bakir, Murtadha J. 1996. "Notes on Passive and Pseudo-intransitive Constructions in English and Arabic." Pozna Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 31: 3946. Baugh, Albert. 1957. A History of the English language
. 2nd ed. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Berman, Ruth A. 1982. "Dative Marking of the Affectee Role: Data from Modern Hebrew
." Hebrew Annual Review 6: 3559. Berry, Margaret. 1979. Introduction to Systemic Linguistics. Vol. 1, Structures and Systems. London: Batsword. Best, Erik. "Church Law Leaves Klaus Behind." Fleet Sheet's Final Word, November 28, 2012, http://www.fsfinalword.com/data/FW121128.pdf. Biber, Douglas et al. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. "Entailment and the Meaning of Structures." Glossa 2: 11927. Borer, Hagit, and Yosef Grodzinsky. 1986. "Syntactic Cliticization and Lexical Cliticization: The Case of Hebrew Dative Clitics." In The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, edited by Hagit Borer, 175217. New York: Academic Press. Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brousseau, Anne-Marie, and Elizabeth Ritter. 1992. "A Non-unified Analysis of Agentive Verbs." In The Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Dawn Bates, 5364. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. Cermбk, Frantisek. 1997. Jazyk a jazykovda: Pehled a slovnнky. Prague: Karolinum. Cernб, Lucie. 2013. "Progressive Form and State Verbs." In Forlang: Cudzie jazyky v akademickom prostredн, 4752. Kosice: TUKE. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell. 165
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conrad, Bent. 1982. Referring and Non-referring Phrases: A Study in the Use of the Gerund and the Infinitive. Copenhagen: Academisk Forlag. Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Cruse, D. Alan. 2011. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragma- tics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crystal, David. 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell. Cvrcek, Vбclav et al. 2010. Mluvnice soucasnй cestiny: Jak se pнse a jak se mluvн. Prague: Karolinum. Cvrcek, Vбclav et al. 2013. "Context-Based Approach to Collocations: The Case of Czech." In Corpus Linguistics 2013: Abstract Book, edited by Andrew Hardie and Robbie Love, 5759. Lancaster: UCREL. Available online at http://ucrel. lancs.ac.uk/cl2013/doc/CL2013-ABSTRACT-BOOK.pdf. Dbrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
. Danes, Frantisek. 1966. "The Relation of Centre and Periphery as a Language Universal." Travaux linguistiques de Prague 2: 921. Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Longman. Dennis, Leah. 1940. "The Progressive Tense: Frequency of Its Use in English." Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 55: 85565. Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute
for evolutionary anthropology
and Department of Linguistics of the University of Leipzig. "The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for Interlinear Morpheme-by-Morpheme Glosses." 2008. Rev. version. Accessed December 8, 2013. http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php. De Wit, Astrid, and Frank Brisard. 2009. "Expressions of Epistemic Contingency in the Use of the English Present Progressive." Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium 4: 118. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1984. "The Semantic Basis of Syntactic Properties." In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, edited by Claudia Brugman, Monica Macaulay, Amy Dahlstrom, Michelle Emanatian, Birch Moonwomon, and Mary C. O'Connor, 58395. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Downing, Bruce. 1978. "Some Universals of Relative Clause Structure." In Universals of human language
, vol. 4, Syntax, edited by Joseph Greenberg, Charles Ferguson, and Edith Moravcsik, 375418. Stanford: Stanford University
Press. Duffley, Patrick J. 1992. The English Infinitive. London: Longman. Duffley, Patrick J. 1999. "The Use of the Infinitive and the -ing after Verbs Denoting the Beginning, Middle and End of an Event." Folia Linguistica 33 (34): 295331. 166
Duskovб, Libuse. 1994. Mluvnice soucasnй anglictiny na pozadн cestiny. 2nd ed. Prague: Academia. Duskovб, Libuse. 2006. Mluvnice soucasnй anglictiny na pozadн cestiny. 3rd ed. Prague: Academia. Egan, Thomas. 2008. Non-finite Complementation: A Usage-Based Study of Infinitive and "-ing" Clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Emonds, Joseph. 1979. "Appositive Relatives Have No Properties." Linguistic Inquiry 10 (2): 21143. Emonds, Joseph, and Jan Terje Faarlund. Forthcoming. "English as North Germanic: Modern English is Modern Norse." Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. Enkvist, Erik Nils. 1994. "Centre and Periphery, Delicacy and Fuzz." In The Syntax of Sentence and Text: A Festschrift for Frantisek Danes, edited by Svtla Cmejrkovб and Frantisek Stнcha, 4358. Prague: Univerzita Karlova. Evola, Vito, and Sophie Raineri. 2011. "A comparative analysis
of Narrative Datives in French and Italian." Paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of SLE, Logroсo. Fagan, Sarah. 1988. "The English Middle." Linguistic Inquiry 19 (2): 181203. Filipec, Josef, ed. 2005. Slovnнk spisovnй cestiny pro skolu a veejnost: S Dodatkem Ministerstva skolstvн, mlбdeze a tlovэchovy Ceskй republiky. 4th ed. Prague: Academia. Fillmore, Charles J.
(1968) 2003. "The Case for Case." In Form and Meaning in Language. Vol. 1, Papers on Semantic Roles, 21119. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Available at http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~syntax-circle/syntax-group/ spr08/fillmore.pdf. Fillmore, Charles J. 1992. "`Corpus Linguistics' or `Computer Aided Armchair Linguistics.'" In Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82; Stockholm, 48 August, 1991, edited by Jan Svartvik, 3566. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fodor, Jerry A. 1970. "Three Reasons for not Deriving `Kill' from `Cause to Die.'" Linguistic Inquiry 1 (4): 42938. Freeborn, Dennis. 1998. From Old English to Standard English
. 2nd ed. London: MacMillan. Freed, Alice F. 1979. The Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation. Dordrecht: Reidel. Fried, Mirjam. 1999. "The `Free' Datives in Czech as a Linking Problem." In Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting, 1998, edited by Katarzyna Dziwirek, Herbert Coats, and Cynthia M. Vakareliyska, 14566. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Fried, Mirjam. 1999. "From Interest to Ownership: A Constructional View of External Possessors." In External Possession, edited by Doris L. Payne and Immanuel Barshi, 473504. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 167
Fried, Mirjam. 2004. "Predicate Semantics and Event Construal in Czech Case Marking." In Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective, edited by Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Цstman, 87120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fried, Mirjam. 2007. "A Frame Semantic Account of Morphosemantic Change: The Case of Old Czech vнcн." In Cognitive Paths into the Slavic Domain, edited by Dagmar Divjak and Agata Kochaska, 283315. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fried, Mirjam. 2008. "Constructions and Constructs: Mapping a Shift between Predication and Attribution." In Constructions and Language Change, edited by Alexander Bergs and Gabriele Diewald, 4779. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fried, Mirjam. 2009. "Plain vs. Situated Possession in a Network of Grammatical Constructions." In The Expression of Possession, edited by William McGregor, 21348. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fried, Mirjam. 2011. "The Notion of Affectedness in Expressing Interpersonal Functions." In Slavic Linguistics in a Cognitive Framework, edited by Marcin Grygiel and Laura A. Janda, 12143. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Fried, Mirjam, and Jan-Ola Цstman, eds. 2004. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fuss, Eric, and Carola Trips. 2002. "Variation and Change in Old and Middle English On the Validity of the Double Base Hypothesis." Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 171224. Gilquin, Gaлtanelle. 2003. "Causative `Get' and `Have': So Close, So Different." Journal of English Linguistics 31: 12548. Gilquin, Gaлtanelle. 2010. Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givуn, Talmy. 1975. "Cause and Control: On the Semantics of Interpersonal Manipulation." In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 4, edited by John P. Kimball, 5989. New York: Academic Press. Givуn, Talmy. 1980. "The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements." Studies in Language 4 (3): 33377. Givуn, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grepl, Miroslav et al. 1995. Pнrucnн mluvnice cestiny. Prague: Lidovй noviny. Grice, H. Paul 1975. "Logic and Conversation." In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 4158. New York: Academic Press. Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. "50-Something Years of Work on Collocations: What Is or Should Be Next." International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18 (1): 13765. Haegeman, Liliane. 1989. "Be Going to and Will: A Pragmatic Account." Journal of Linguistics 25: 291317. Haiman, John. 1983. "Iconic and Economic Motivation." Language 59 (4): 781819. 168
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. "Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English." Part 1. Journal of Linguistics 3 (1): 3781. Halliday, M.A.K. 1979. "Modes of Meaning and Modes of Expression: Types of Grammatical Structure and Their Determination by Different Semantic Functions." In Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: A Festschrift for William Haas, edited by D.J. Allerton, Edward Carney, and David Holdcroft, 5779. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M.A.K., and Johathan J. Webster, eds. 2009. Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum. Harley, Heidi. 2006. English Words: A Linguistic Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. "Frequency vs. Iconicity in Explaining Grammatical Asym- metries." Cognitive Linguistics 19 (1): 133. Hatcher, Anna Granville. 1951. "The Use of the Progressive Form in English: A New Approach." Language 27 (3): 25480. Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoey, Michael. 2007. "Lexical Priming and Literary Creativity." In Text, Discourse and Corpora: Theory and Analysis, edited by Michael Hoey, Michaela Mahlberg, Michael Stubbs, and Wolfgang Teubert, 729. London: Continuum. Hollmann, Willem. 2006. "Passivisability of English Periphrastic Causatives." In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, edited by Stefan Thomas Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch, 193223. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Holmes, Janet. 1990. "Hedges and Boosters in Women's and Men's Speech." Language & Communication 10 (3): 185205. Holm-Olsen, Ludvig, ed. 1945. Konungs skuggsiб. Oslo: Dybwad i komm. Hooper, Joan B. 1975. "On Assertive Predicates." In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 4, edited by John P. Kimball, 91124. New York: Academic Press. Huddleston, Rodney D., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Inoue, Kazuko. 1992. "Cause and Make in Semantic Representation." English Linguistics 9: 13251. Inoue, Kazuko. 1995. "Causative Have and Experiential Have." English Linguistics 12: 7395. Available online at http://kinoue.info/Have-constructions.pdf. Jakobson, Roman. (1959) 2004. "On Linguistic Aspects of Translating." In The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, 13843. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Janda, Laura A. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 169
Jespersen, Otto. (1924) 1992. "Parts of Speech." In The Philosophy of Grammar, 5871. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and Unwin. Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Vol. 3, Syn- tax. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. Jespersen, Otto. 1937. Analytic Syntax. London: Allen and Unwin. Johansson, Stig. 2007. Seeing through Multilingual Corpora: On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Johansson, Stig. 2007. "Seeing through Multilingual Corpora." In Corpus Linguistics 25 Years On, edited by Roberta Facchinetti, 5171. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kдrkkдinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactive Functions, with a Focus on "I think." Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Karlнk, Petr. 2002. "Sloveso modбlnн." In Encyklopedickэ slovnнk cestiny, edited by Petr Karlнk, Marek Nekula, and Jana Pleskalovб, 41314. Prague: Nakladatelstvн Lidovй noviny. Karlнk, Petr, and Klбra Osolsob. 2002. "Spojka (konjunkce)." In Encyklopedickэ slovnнk cestiny, edited by Petr Karlнk, Marek Nekula, and Jana Pleskalovб, 43637. Prague: Nakladatelstvн Lidovй noviny. Karlнk, Petr et al. 2008. Pнrucnн mluvnice cestiny. 3rd ed. Prague: Nakladatelstvн Lidovй noviny. Kemenade, Ans van. 1987. Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kenny, Anthony. 1975. Will, Freedom and Power. Oxford: Blackwell. Klinge, Alex. 1993. "The English Modal Auxiliaries: From Lexical Semantics to Utterance Interpretation." Journal of Linguistics 29: 31557. Kroch, Anthony. 2001. "Syntactic Change." In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, edited by Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 699729. Oxford: Blackwell. Labov, William. 2004. "The Boundaries of Words and Their Meanings." In Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader, edited by Bas Aarts, David Denison, Evelien Keizer, and Gergana Popova, 6790. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lee, Soojin. 2006. "That or Which? The That's That of Which Is Which." Computing in the Humanities and Social Sciences. University of Toronto. http://homes.chass. utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-lee.htm. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English Verb. 3rd ed. London: Longman. Leech, Geoffrey et al. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 170
Lopatkovб, Markйta, Zdenk Zakobrtskэ, and Vбclava Kettnerovб. 2008. Valencnн slovnнk ceskэch sloves. Prague: Karolinum. Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Machбcek, Jaroslav. 1959. "A Contribution to the Problem of the So-Called Copula in Modern English." Philologica Pragensia 2: 1420. Machбcek, Jaroslav. 2009. "The English Infinitive Shod or Bare? (The Case of Help)." In Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis: Facultas Philosophica; Philologica Anglica III, edited by Jarmila Tбrnyikovб and Markйta Janebovб, 3947. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackйho. Machбcek, Jaroslav, and Michaela Martinkovб. "The Infinitive and the -ing Form after the Verbs Begin and Start: The Case of Cry." In Text as a Dynamic Interplay of Text Parameters, edited by Ondej Molnбr and Michal Kubбnek, 99109. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackйho. Maldonado, Ricardo. 2002. "Objective and Subjective Datives." Cognitive Linguistics 13 (1): 165. Martin, J.R. and White P.R.R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Martinkovб, Michaela. 2011. "I Wish You Would, I Wish I Could: A Corpus-Based Study of Sentences with Wish." Czech and Slovak Linguistic Review 1: 7390. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackйho. Martinkovб, Michaela. 2012. "The Have Construction/s: A Pilot Corpus-Based Study." In Text as a Dynamic Interplay of Text Parameters, edited by Ondej Molnбr and Michal Kubбnek, 8198. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackйho. Martinkovб, Michaela. 2013. "Slovo; aneb, kde (ne)hledat zбkladnн jednotku lexikбlnнho plбnu." In Dynamika ceskйho lexika a lexikologie, edited by Michaela Martinkovб and Oldich Ulicnэ, 123. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackйho. Mathesius, Vilйm. 1961. Obsahovэ rozbor soucasnй anglictiny na zбklad obecn lingvistickйm. Prague: Nakladatelstvн Ceskoslovenskй akademie vd. Mathesius, Vilйm. 1975. A Functional Analysis of Present-Day English on a General Linguistic Basis. Translated by Libuse Duskovб. Prague: Academia. Michelioudakis, Dimitris, and Ioanna Sitaridou. 2009. "The Ethic Dative in modern Greek
and Romance." Studies in Greek Linguistics 29: 35570. Mitchell, Bruce, and Fred Robinson. 1992. A Guide to Old English. 5th ed. Padstow: T. J. Press. Mittwoch, Anita. 1990. "On the Distribution of Bare Infinitive Complements in English." Journal of Linguistics 26 (1): 10331. Mluvnice cestiny. Vol. 1, Fonetika, fonologie, morfonologie a morfemika, tvoenн slov. 1986. Edited by Milos Dokulil and Jan Petr. Prague: Academia. Mluvnice cestiny. Vol. 2, Tvaroslovн. 1986. Edited by Jan Petr et al. Prague: Academia. Mluvnice cestiny. Vol. 3, Skladba. 1987. Edited by Frantisek Danes et al. Prague: Academia. 171
Molochieva, Zarina. 2011. "Tense, Aspect, and Mood in Chechen." PhD diss., Lepzig University. Nicolle, Steve. 1997. "A Relevance-Theoretic Account of Be Going To." Journal of Linguistics 33: 35577. Nicolle, Steve. 1998. "Be Going to and Will: A Monosemous Account." English Language and Linguistics 2 (2): 22344. Nosek, Jiн. 1985. "Quotational Compounds in Modern English and Czech." Philologica Pragensia 28: 15964. O'Grady, William. 1980. "The Derived Intransitive Constructions in English." Lingua 52 (12): 5772. Palmer, F.R. 1979. Modality and the English Modals. Longman: London. Poldauf, Ivan. 1940. "Podstata anglickйho pasiva a anglickй vazby zбjmovй ъcasti." Casopis pro modernн filologii 26: 35863. Poldauf, Ivan. 1947. "Strukturбlnн pohled na shall a will." Casopis pro modernн filologii 30: 2644, 11623, 193202. Poldauf, Ivan. 1948. On the History of Some Problems of English Grammar before 1800. Prague: Filosofickб fakulta University Karlovy. Poldauf, Ivan. 1951. Mluvnice soucasnй anglictiny. Vol. 1. Prague: Stбtnн nakladatelstvн ucebnic. Poldauf, Ivan. 1955. "O konkurenci infinitivu a gerundu v anglictin." Casopis pro modernн filologii 37: 20323. Poldauf, Ivan. 1955. "Vztaznй vty v anglictin a cestin." In Sbornнk Vysokй skoly pedago- gickй v Olomouci: Jazyk a literatura, vol. 2, 15994. Prague: Stбtnн pedagogickй nakladatelstvн. Poldauf, Ivan. 1962. "Mнsto dativu ve vэstavb vty." Slavica Pragensia 4: 33545. Poldauf, Ivan. 1964a. "Souhrnnэ pohled na vid v novй cestin." Slovo a slovesnost 25: 4664. Poldauf, Ivan. 1964b. "The Third Syntactical Plan." Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1: 24155. Poldauf, Ivan. 1967. "On Lexical Limitations to Grammatical Categories." Philologica Pragensia 12: 722. Poldauf, Ivan. 1967. "The Have Construction." Philologica Pragensia 12: 2340. Poldauf, Ivan. 1968. "Evaluative Predications." Philologica Pragensia 11: 112. Poldauf, Ivan. 1969. "The So-Called Medio-passive in English." Prague Studies in English 13: 1534. Poldauf, Ivan. 1970. "Case in Contemporary English." Philologica Pragensia 13 (3): 12131. Poldauf, Ivan. 1982. "Verbal Aspect: A Slavonic-English Comparison." In Language Form and Linguistic Variation: Papers Dedicated to Angus Mclntosh, edited by John M. Anderson, 30719. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Quirk, Randolph et al. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. 172
Quirk, Randolph, and Sidney Greenbaum. 1990. A Student's Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Richterovб, Olga. 2011. "Can Translations Help Reveal Categorial Change?" In Korpusovб lingvistika Praha 2011 1 InterCorp, edited by Frantisek Cermбk, 186 203. Prague: Nakladatelstvн Lidovй noviny. Richterovб, Olga. 2012. "Participial Adjectives in Czech and Their German Equivalents: How to Reveal an Ongoing Grammaticalization Process with the Help of Translations." In General and Specialist Translation / Interpretation: Theory, Methods, Practice, 31930. Kiev: National Aviation University. Rindal, Magnus, ed. 1981. Barlaams ok Josaphats saga. Oslo: Norsk historisk kjeldeskriftinstitutt. Ross, John. 1967. "Constraints on Variables in Syntax." PhD diss., MIT. Rosta, Andrew. 1992. "English Mediopassive." UCL Working Paper
s in Linguistics 4: 32751. Schiffrin, Deborah.1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, Stefan. 2007. Reduced Parenthetical Clauses as Mitigators: A Corpus Study of Spoken French, Italian and Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. 1999. "Indirect Speech Acts." In Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, 3057. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. 2011. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. "The Grammar of Causative Constructions: A Conspec- tus." In The Grammar of Causative Constructions, edited by Masayoshi Shibatani, 140. New York: Academic Press. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1994. "An Integrational Approach to Possessor Raising, Ethical Datives, and Adversative Passives." In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore, 46186. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stalmaszczyk, Piotr. 1993. "The English Middle Construction and Lexical Semantics." Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 27: 13347. Stehlнkovб, Nikol. 2012. "Poldauf 's Conception of the Third Syntactical Plan from the Point of View of Corpus Linguistics." MA diss., Palackэ University, Olomouc. Strang, Barbara. 1970. A History of English. London: Routledge. Svozilovб, Naa, Hana Prouzovб, and Anna Jirsovб. 1997. Slovesa pro praxi: Valencnн slovnнk nejcastjsнch ceskэch sloves. Prague: Academia. Swan, Michael. 1996. Practical English Usage. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sweet, Henry. 1891. A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 173
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects
of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 1, Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT press
. Tбrnyikovб, Jarmila. 2000. "Dichotomies and Scales." Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis: Facultas Philosophica; Philologica Anglica 2: 5364. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackйho. Tбrnyikovб, Jarmila. 2012. "Halliday's Interpersonal Component Reconsidered." In The Interpersonal Language Function across Genres and Discourse Domains, edited by Christopher Hopkinson, Renбta Tomбskovб, and Gabriela Zapletalovб, 2636. Ostrava: Universitas Ostraviensis Facultas Philosophica. Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. "From Propositional to Textual and Expressive Meanings: Some Semantic-Pragmatic Aspects of Grammaticalization." In Perspectives on Historical Linguistics: Papers from a Conference Held at the Meeting of the Language Theory Division, Modern Language Association; San Francisco
, 2730 December, 1979, edited by Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel, 24571. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. "Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization." In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 40616. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. "On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change." In Language 65 (1): 3155. Vachek, Josef. 1961. "Some Less Familiar Aspects of the Analytical Trends of English." Brno Studies in English 3: 974. Vбlkovб, Silvie. 2012. Regulating Discourse: Compliments and Discourse Signposts; English-Czech Interface. Saarbrьcken: LAP Lambert Academic. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press. Verhagen, Arie, and Suzanne Kemmer. 1997. "Interaction and Causation: Causative Constructions in Modern Standard Dutch." Journal of Pragmatics 27: 6182. Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold. Zima, Jaroslav. 1961. Expresivita slova v soucasnй cestin: Studie lexikologickб a stylis- tickб. Prague: Nakladatelstvн Ceskoslovenskй akademie vd. Zimek, Rudolf. 1960. "K chбpбnн posesivnosti." In Rusko-ceskй studie, edited by Ctirad Bosбk et al., 13156. Prague: Stбtnн pedagogickй nakladatelstvн. 174
Categories and Categorial Changes: The Third Syntactical Plan and Beyond Philosophical Faculty, Palackэ University, Olomouc, Czech Republic Edited by Michaela Martinkovб, Markйta Janebovб, and Jaroslav Machбcek Series: Olomouc Modern Language Monographs Executive Editor: Agnes Hausknotzovб Responsible Editor: Jana Kreiselovб Typesetting: Martin Navrбtil Cover Design: Gobak DTP Proofreaders: Simon Gill, Christopher Hopkinson Published by Palackэ University, Olomouc Kнzkovskйho 8, 771 47 Olomouc, Czech Republic http://www.upol.cz/vup e-mail: [email protected]
Printed by Papнrtisk, s.r.o. Chvбlkovickб 223/5, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic http://www.papirtisk.cz e-mail: [email protected]
Olomouc 2014 First Edition ISBN 978-80-244-4287-7 (print) ISBN 978-80-244-4288-4 (e-book)