Three Types of Old English Adjectival Postposition: A Corpus-Based Construction Grammar Approach

Abstract

The present article looks at different patterns of adjectival postmodification in Old English. A detailed corpus analysis is performed, whose results are interpreted within the framework of Construction Grammar. This study contributes to previous research on the subject by using a large set of corpus data which pave the way for adopting a usage-based approach. The results indicate that the patterns analyzed fulfilled different functions, which in the framework adopted is grounds enough for assigning them to different conceptual categories, i.e., “constructions.” Further, I investigate the mutual relations between these constructions as well as the internal dynamics of their functions and development. The findings support the basic constructionist notion that language is most effectively described as a complex and dynamic network of interrelated constructions.

Multiple Adjectival Modification in Old and Middle English: A Reconfiguration of a Constructional Network

“…Bech (2017) offers a plausible explanation of how this restriction may have been gradually relaxed, noticing that in OE, AAN quite readily accommodated adjectives which formed a hierarchy, rather than modifying the noun separately. Grabski (2020) follows up on this observation and reports that the split asyndetic type, that is, ANA, also tended to be associated with hierarchically-linked adjectives. On this strength, he postulates the existence of the asyndetic schema sanctioning both the earlier split arrangement and the innovative continuous one, as premodification was gaining ground in English.…”

“…Bech (2019:30), discussing the OE version of Cura Pastoralis , refers to the translator’s tendency to use two synonymous words to render as closely as possible a single word from the Latin original, and the same tendency was observed by Kuhn (1947) with regard to Bede’s Ecclesiastical History . Grabski (2020:184) found twenty-one cases of ACAN in OE translations “traceable to a noun phrase in the original text,” and in twenty of these, the Latin counterpart featured a single adjective. I have identified near-synonyms in both the continuous type, as in (13) and (14), and the split type, as in (15).…”

“…This decision may be defended by reference to some previous studies. For example, Grabski (2020:189) observes that ANA may be ambiguous between cases of hierarchical description (where one adjective has scope over the other, as in e.g., ‘wooden holy cross,’ that is, a holy cross which is wooden, rather than one which is wooden and holy) and postnominal placement motivated by the ‘verbal’ character of the adjective (where postposition “would have likely occurred . .…”

“…Adjectival participles were treated on par with prototypical adjectives, following a fairly well-established methodology for studying the patterns in question, employed for example, in Fischer (2012) and Grabski (2020:175), who justifies such uniform treatment on grounds that “the defining characteristic of both parts of speech [is] their ability to modify nouns.” Further, analyzing AAN, I followed Bech (2017:11) in excluding classifiers, that is, type/origin adjectives, non-prototypical adjectives ( agen , ‘own,’ ilca , ‘same,’ oðer , ‘other,’ self , ‘self,’ swilc , ‘such’), and quantifier-like adjectives (e.g., mænigfeald , ‘manifold,’ or missenlic , ‘various’), which often occur as the first element of the pair.…”

“…Bech (2019), in a balanced qualitative and context-based study, points to some problems with Fischer's iconicity-informed model, makes a strong case against generalizations, and argues that in the analysis of adjective position in early English, a clear distinction should be made between patterns involving a single adjective and those where multiple adjectives occur. Grabski (2020) likewise suggests that structures with multiple adjectives should be studied independently. To account for the postposition of one of the adjectives in the conjoined type of ANCA, both authors have recourse to Mitchell's (1985) classical study, where such splitting in OE is said to be motivated by the speakers' dispreference for heavy groups in a continuous arrangement.…”