Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 1992 / The syntax of the Old English preverbal ge- in the light of the theory of language changes as strengthenings or weakenings

The syntax of the Old English preverbal ge- in the light of the theory of language changes as strengthenings or weakenings

Paper · 1992 · Frančiška Trobevšek-Drobnak

Summary

The paper asks why the Old English verbal prefix ge- appears so inconsistently, even in parallel Gospel manuscripts translating the same Latin. Earlier explanations, such as perfective aspect, intensification, resultativity or Lindemann's directional "semantic nucleus", each rest on selected data and do not agree. The author instead treats late Old English ge-verbs and their simplex counterparts as syntactic variants of a language change in progress, the gradual loss of ge-. She applies the theory of changes as strengthenings or weakenings. A "stronger", more elaborate variant should be preferred in grammatically complex (marked) environments, and a "weaker" one in simple environments. Verbs from Orosius and the Gospels of Mark and John were coded for seven markedness parameters taken from Mayerthaler. Basic samples of ge-verbs were then compared statistically with control samples of simplex verbs. Five parameters supported the hypothesis. The study suggests that variant choice depends on deep, cumulative informational complexity rather than on surface form alone.

Key points

  • Around 35 earlier studies had tried to fix a single meaning for ge-. Lindemann (1970) examined 45,000 verbs and linked ge- to an Indo-European deictic stem *gho-.
  • The Corpus, Hatton, Lindisfarne and Rushworth manuscripts disagree on ge- for the same verses (e.g., Mark 3.10, John 3.18). This shows that ge- usage was not mandatory.
  • The seven parameters were clause type, propositional modality, tense, mood, transitivity, number and person. Modality, tense, mood, transitivity and number showed ge- more often with marked values.
  • Clause type and person showed no effect. For third versus non-third persons, overall ge- frequencies were nearly identical (about 42.6% vs 43.0%).
  • Present-tense verbs with future reference carried ge- more often than preterites with past reference. Bare datives correlated with ge- more strongly than prepositional objects expressing a similar deep case.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Instead of assigning one fixed meaning to an optional marker, model its presence as a variant choice predicted by how complex the surrounding grammar is.
  • I2. Notional (deep) values, such as future time reference, predicted variant choice better than their surface encoding, such as present-tense form.
  • I3. Compare a basic sample (forms with the marker) against a control sample (same texts, without it) over many coded parameters, and test differences for significance.
  • I4. When a complex meaning lacks an explicit marker, speakers balance the weight of information against utterance length by choosing longer variants.
  • I5. Coding person yields muddy results because a category can bundle several notions, such as inclusive versus exclusive "we" or animate versus inanimate third person.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (tokens): Optional morphemes or particles could get a context-complexity feature in the tagger rather than a forced single lemma sense.
  • I2 (frames): Frames should store real temporal reference separately from morphological tense, so that "present for future" verbs get correct event timing.
  • I3 (learn): This basic-versus-control design could serve as a negative-control check when testing whether a silver-data feature really tracks a construction.
  • I4 (back): Generation could choose periphrastic or more explicit forms when the graph node carries several unmarked complex relations, keeping the output easy to decode.
  • I5 (world): Entity records should split such bundled notions into separate attributes rather than relying on a grammatical person tag.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Fields, topics and concepts

📚 Shelves 2The field of science this work belongs to (OpenAlex fields).Arts and Humanities · 16,039 worksLanguage and Linguistics · 15,891 works

🧭 Topics 3Research subjects and languages the work is about.English · 2,263 worksSyntax & grammar formalisms · 214 worksHistorical linguistics & language change · 249 works

Cite

Cite as Frančiška Trobevšek-Drobnak. 1992. The syntax of the Old English preverbal ge- in the light of the theory of language changes as strengthenings or weakenings. Acta Neophilologica 25.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.4312/an.25.1.13-30

@inproceedings{trobevsekdrobnak1992syntax,
  title = {{The syntax of the Old English preverbal ge- in the light of the theory of language changes as strengthenings or weakenings}},
  author = {Frančiška Trobevšek-Drobnak},
  booktitle = {Acta Neophilologica 25},
  year = {1992},
  doi = {10.4312/an.25.1.13-30},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.4312/an.25.1.13-30}
}

References

5 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Benson, T., Vocabularium Anglo-Saxonicum, Lexico Gul. Somneri Magna Parte auctius, Oxford 1701. Benveniste, E., »Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe«, Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique, XLIII, 1946. Bernhardt, E., »Die Partikel Ga als Hilfmittel bei der gotischen Conjugation<<, ZjdPh, 11, 1870. Bosworth, J., ed., King Alfred's Anglo-Saxon Version of the Compendious History of the World, London 1859. Brugmann, K., Die Demonstrativpronomina der indogermanischen Sprachen, Leipzig 1904. Chomsky, N., Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger Publishers, New York 1986. Goedsche, C. R., >>Aspect versus Aktionsart<<, JEGP, xxxix, 1940. Goropius, J., Hermathena, Antwerp 1580. Grimm, J., Deutsche Grammatik, 2"d ed., rev. find
  2. Scherer, Berlin 1878. The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments, set forth in 1611 and commonly known as the King lames Version, American Bible Society, New York 1816. Jakobson, R., Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums, Prague 1932. Lenz, P., »Der syntactische Gebrauch der Partikel 'ge' in den Werken Alfreds des Grossen<<, dissert., Darmstadt 1886. Lindemann, J. W. R., Old English Preverbal Ge-: Its Meaning, The University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville 1970. Anton Lorz, »Aktionsarten des Verbums in Beowulf<<, dissert., Wuerzburg 1908. Martens, H., »Die Verba perfecta in der Nibelungendichtung<<. KZ, xii, 1863. find
  3. Mayerthaler, W., Morphologische Natuerlichkeit, Wiesbaden 1981. Mosse, F., Histoire de la forme periphrastique etre + participe present en Anglais de 1200 a nos jours, these pour le doctorat es lettres, Paris 1938. Oresnik, J., »Introduction to the Subsequent Three Papers in the Present Volume<<, Linguistica XXX, Ljubljana 1990. Oresnik, J., Trobevsek-Drobnak, F., »Expanded Tenses in the Old English Orosius: A Strengthened Construction<<, Language and Civilization I, pp. 146-161, Peter Lang Publishers, Frankfurt 1992. Pavlic, I., Statisticka teorija i primjena, Tehnicka knjiga, Zagreb 1985. Pilch, H., »Das AE. Praeverb ge-<<, Anglia. find
  4. LXXXI, 1953. Pott, A. F., Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, LemgojDetmold 1859. Ryden, M., An Introduction to the Historical Study of English Syntax, Stockholm 1979. Samuels, M. L., »The Ge- Prefix in the Old English Gloss to the Lindisfarne Gospels<<, Transactions of the Philological Society, London 1949. Skeat, W., ed., The Gospel acc01'ding to Saint Mar."<. In Anglo-Saxon and North-wnbrian versions synoptically arranged, with collations exhibiting all the readings of all the MSS, Cambridge University Press 1871. Skeat, W., ed., The Gospel according to Saint John. In Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian versions synoptically arranged, with collations exhibiting all the readings of all the MSS, Cambridge University Press 1878. Snedec, A., »The Progress of Syntactic Change: English Do-Support<<, Linguistica XXX, Ljubljana 1990. Stampe, D., A Dissertation on Natural Phonology, New York, London 1979. Streitberg, W., »Perfective und imperfective Aktionsart im Germanischen<<, PBB, XV, 1891. Sweet, H., ed., King Alfred's Orosius, EETS Nr 79, London 1883, repr. 1959. Terian, K., »Das Worden-Passiv als syntaktische Verstaerkung im Deutschen<<, Linguistica XXX, Ljubljana 1990. Trobevsek-Drobnak, F., »Expanded Tenses in the Old English Orosius: a Syntactic Strengthening<<, Linguistica XXX, Ljubljana 1990. find
  5. Trobevsek-Drobnak, F., >>Skladnja st aroangleskih glagolov s predpono ge- v pri-merjavi s skladnoj staroangleskih gagolov brez prepopne«, disertacija, Filozofska merjavi s skladnjo staroangleskih glagolov brez predpone<<, disertacija, Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana 1990. Wanley, H., Antiquae Literaturae Septentrionalis liber alter, seu Humphredi W anleii Librorum V ett. Septentrionalium Catalogus, Oxoniae 1705. Weick, F., >>Das Aussterben des Praefixes ge- im Englischen<<, dissert., Darmstadt 1911. Wise, F., ed., Annales rerum gestarum AElfredi Magni auctore Asserio Mene-vensi, recensuit Franciscus Wise, Oxon. 1722. find

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/trobevsek-drobnak-1992-syntax-old-english-preverbal-ge/