Slides - Daniel Reisinger – Linguist

Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Methinks, Meseems, Medreams:
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION,
Then and Now
Daniel Reisinger
[email protected]
CSDL 2014
Santa Barbara, CA • Nov. 04, 2014
Funded by the GSA, University of Alberta.
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
How to Conceptualize IDEATION
I think that …
I believe that …
I dreamed that …
I came up with an idea …
I will throw this out there…
Agent
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
How to Conceptualize IDEATION
It came to me …
It hit me …
It occured to me …
It struck me …
Methinks …
Recipient or Experiencer
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Impersonal Constructions
Definition: “constructions lacking a referential subject.”
(MALCHUKOV & SIEWIERSKA 2011)
Weather verbs:
it rains … it snows … it pours … it storms …
Emotion verbs:
it scares me … it bores me … it pleases me …
Ideation verbs:
it hit me… it struck me … methinks …
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Ideational Constructions
I think that’s true.
It seems that’s true.
Methinks that’s true.
Personal
Construction
Impersonal Dummy-It
Construction
Impersonal Dative
Construction
C
D
F
P
=
=
=
=
conceptualizer
epistemic dominion
field; scope of awareness
proposition
(LANGACKER 2009)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Questions and Approach
What’s the history of methinks, meseems, and medreams?
When did these constructions lose their productivity?
How did English compensate for the decline of these
impersonal ideation constructions?
An extensive diachronic analysis using data from several
historical corpora and the OED, covering the period of time
since the Anglo-Saxon era.
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Methodology
“… diachronic corpora and similar textual resources such as
the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) are a particularly apt
source of data for the study of constructional change …”
(HILPERT 2013)
think …
… seem
dream …
ATTRACTORS
&
CONSTRAINTS
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Historical Corpora
Dictionary of Old
English Corpus
(DOE)
Penn-Helsinki Parsed
Corpus of Middle
English
(PPCME2)
Penn-Helsinki
Parsed Corpus
of Early Mod.
English
(PPCEME)
Corpus of
Historical
American
English
(COHA)
Penn-Helsinki
Parsed Corpus of
Modern British
English
(PPCMBE)
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
The Methinks-Construction
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Old English
The dative object was not restricted in terms of person and number:
… Me þynceð, broðor, cwæð he, þæt þu wære …
(1SG)
… þe ðincð se earmra se þæt yfel deð ðonne se …
(2SG)
… Þonne him þynce, þæt his earn ehte …
(3SG.MASK)
… hire þynceð sceort eall þæt þær …
(3SG.FEM)
… Us ðincð to menigfeald þæt we swiðor …
(1PL)
… Ac eow þinceð swiðe earfoðlice þa …
(2PL)
… hi him þincað deore, forþam þu hi …
(3PL)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Old English
The Old English methinks-Cx accepted present and past tense verb forms:
… Me þynceð, broðor, cwæð he, þæt þu wære …
(PRES)
… Þæt me þuhte ful oft þæt wære þritig þusend …
(PAST)
… Ðuhte him þæt engel ufan of roderum stigan …
(PAST)
The word order was free and could be instantiated by OV or VO:
… Þonne him þynce, þæt his earn ehte …
(OV)
… ne þynceð me forþon, þæt us aht wiþsæce …
(VO)
… Eac swilce ða steorran ðe us lytle ðincað …
(O x V)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Middle English
In Middle English, the dative object was still not restricted in terms of
person and number:
… tolde the in this mater a lyttill as me thynke …
(1SG)
… if the thynke that the rotus be depe …
(2SG)
… in schorte tym hym thynkes that that name …
(3SG.MASK)
… that hire thuhte god in hire heorte to habbe …
(3SG.FEM)
… ac us thincd, that hit rihtlice to hire gebyred, …
(1PL)
… swich thyng as yow thynketh that is best for …
(2PL)
… hem thynketh they been free, and han …
(3PL)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Middle English
The ME methinks-Cx accepted present and past-tense verb forms:
… enclyned to synne, hym thynketh it is so greet …
(PRES)
… myght seen hit, hym thoght he brennet for hete … (PAST)
And for-as-mych as hem thought that here …
(PAST)
The word order was still free and could be instantiated by OV or VO:
… hi him þincað deore, forþam þu hi …
(OV)
… Nowe than, thynke me, that ther may …
(VO)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Early Modern English
Early Modern English saw the restriction of the dative object to first-person
singular pronouns:
But methinks, the Seat of our Family looks like …
(1SG)
But me thinks I heare you wonder how it should …
(1SG)
… yet methinks it looks better in this good sawce.
(1SG)
… herein methinks they slander her Highness …
(1SG)
The corpus analysis only yielded two exceptions:
… seruants seeing, thought him somthing sawcie …
(3SG.MASK)
… in which him thoughte that a bore with his …
(3SG.MASK)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Early Modern English
The tense marking was still productive and could instantiate either past or
present-tense forms:
… methinks it had been more modesty for Mr. …
(PRES)
And then me thought I harde you saye euen …
(PAST)
… in mine owne minde me thought my self not …
(PAST)
The word order of this construction became fixed to OV in Early Modern
English (apart from one exception):
… yet methinks it looks better in this good sawce.
(OV)
… seruants seeing, thought him somthing sawcie …
(VO)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Modern English
In ModE, the dative object is still restricted to the first-person singular:
Methinks that they think you are the like …
(1SG)
Methinks now this coined sun wears a ruddy face … (1SG)
… but methinks he's too subservient …
(1SG)
While both present and past-tense instantiations are attested, the former
seems to be preferred (70 hits vs. 11 hits):
Methinks Cupid aimed well when one …
(PRES)
… will offer to say what methought I had …
(PAST)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
The Methinks-Cx: Summary
OE
Dative
Object
1SG
2SG
3SG
ME
1PL
2PL
3PL
1SG
2SG
3SG
EModE
1PL
2PL
3PL
1SG
2SG
3SG
1PL
2PL
3PL
ModE
1SG
2SG
3SG
1PL
2PL
3PL
Tense
PRES
PAST
PRES
PAST
PRES
PAST
PRES
PAST
Word Order
OV
VO
OV
VO
OV
VO
OV
VO
Fused
Spelling
no
no
yes
yes
The Early Modern English period witnessed the "fossilization" of the
methinks-construction.
(LOPEZ-COUSO 1996)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
The Meseems-Construction
(Dative Cx)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Middle English
In ME, this construction was schematic in terms of person and number, …
… synne to hide goddes myracle as me semed …
(1SG)
… of mete and drynke that the semeth shulde …
(2SG)
… For hem semeth that whosoeuere be meke …
(3PL)
… tense, and word order:
Me semith she was a blessed womman and …
(PRES)
… pepul for her syn, as hyme semyd in his wision.
(PAST)
… through consell of ham, him semede that he …
(OV)
Yf thou say a thyng of thiself that semes thi loving … (VO)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Early Modern English
This construction appeared exclusively with a 1SG pronoun in EModE:
Certes me semeth that I see them as it were …
(1SG)
Me semeth, that chylde oughte to haue …
(1SG)
And for asmuch her semed the Cardinall more …
(3SG.FEM)
While tense was still schematic, the OV word order became fossilized:
… me semeth, it shoulde be more spyrituall …
(PRES)
… asmuch her semed the Cardinall more redy, …
(PAST)
Me semeth, that chylde oughte to haue …
(OV)
And therfore me semeth beste to holde …
(OV)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Modern English
In Modern English, the dative construction was used remarkably seldom:
O, can it be I she breathes, meseems, My too –
(PRES | OV | 1SG)
… here seems possible; meseems myriad lives …
(PRES | OV | 1SG)
… the next week, and meseemed in truth …
(PAST | OV | 1SG)
Still awhile himseemed That of that fair close …
(PAST | OV | 3SG)
Herseemed she scarce had been a day One of …
(PAST | OV | 3SG)
It eventually disappeared around the beginning of the 20th century.
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
The Meseems-Cx: Summary
OE
ME
1SG
2SG
3SG
EModE
1PL
2PL
3PL
1SG
2SG
3SG
1PL
2PL
3PL
ModE
1SG
2SG
3SG
1PL
2PL
3PL
Dative
Object
―
Tense
―
PRES
PAST
PRES
PAST
PRES
PAST
Word Order
―
OV
VO
OV
VO
OV
VO
Fused
Spelling
―
no
no
yes
The dative Cx used to be very productive, but gradually lost its
schematicity and eventually disappeared in the early 20th century.
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
The It-seems-Construction
(Dummy-It Cx)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Middle English
The dummy-it construction was also used productively at the same time:
“Hit semyth me,” seyd sir Launcelot, “ …
(PRES | OV)
… for hit semyth nat you to spede theras all …
(PRES | OV)
… and hit semed unto hym that the watir brente …
(PAST | OV)
… Semeth hit a wundur that thu hast
(PRES | VO)
Apparently, there was some variation in terms of tense and word order.
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Early Modern English
The dummy-it construction remained frequently used and showed
variation in terms of word order:
Semeth it but a small thynge vnto you, that …
(PRES | VO)
… that it semeth me to be in a paradise ...
(PRES | OV)
… for want of pitching it seemes only a harbour …
(PRES | OV)
… and it seemeth to haue but one hole or mouth …
(PRES | VO)
… coulde not rule them, than semeth it, that …
(PRES | VO)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Modern English
While the dative construction disappeared in the first half of the 20th
century, the dummy-it construction is still widely used. The COHA analysis
yielded a number of 27682 instances for this construction since the year
1810. The dative construction only produced 27 hits.
It seems that there are no vacancies in the German courts.
It seems to me he’s the only link left in all of this mystery.
But it seems to me that you boys found the answer to that problem.
… it seems to me like two queen bees in one beehive …
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
The Medreams-Construction
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Middle English
The OED provides a few examples for the medreams-construction in ME:
Another drem dremede me ek.
(1SG | PAST | VO)
Me drempte ic stod at a wintre.
(1SG | PAST | OV)
Hem drempte dremes boðen onigt.
(3PL | PAST | OV)
Quat-so him drempte ðor-quiles he slep.
(3SG | PAST | OV)
That it was May, thus dremed me.
(1SG | PAST | VO)
Of gerlis … gretly me dremed.
(1SG | PAST | OV)
Me dremyd þat I was ledd To durham.
(1SG | PAST | OV)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
(Early) Modern English
The construction is not attested in any of the EModE or ModE corpora.
However, the OED lists one example for medreams from 1854:
… and medreamed I stood Robed like …
(1SG | PAST | OV)
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
The Medreams-Cx: Summary
OE
ME
1SG
2SG
3SG
EModE
1PL
2PL
3PL
ModE
1SG
2SG
3SG
1PL
2PL
3PL
Dative
Object
?
Tense
?
PRES
PAST
?
PRES
PAST
Word Order
?
OV
VO
?
OV
VO
Fused
Spelling
?
no
?
yes
?
How productive this construction actually was – as well as how and
when it became extinct – remains a mystery.
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
Summa Summarum
History:
DAT thinks
it seems
DAT seems
DAT dreams
Productivity:
(ca. 750 – present)
(ca. 1250 – present)
(ca. 1400 – ca. 1900)
(ca. 1300 – ca. 1850)
DAT constr. gradually lost their productivity
each construction has its own history
lexicalization or disappearance
dummy-it constructions still productive
Status Quo:
decline of certain impersonal ideation Cxs
emergence of new impersonal ideation Cxs
Impersonal Constructions in IDEATION, Then and Now
CSDL 2014 • Santa Barbara, CA
What‘s Next?
How have other impersonal ideation constructions (it
occured to me, it struck me …) developed over the
centuries?
What is the history of impersonal weather and emotion
constructions?
What‘s going on in other languages?
Methinks, Meseems, Medreams
Ling 610 (Winter 2014)
References
Hilpert, M. (2013). Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In Graeme Trousdale & Thomas Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 458-477.
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Investigations in cognitive grammar (Vol. 42). Walter de Gruyter.
López-Couso, M. J. (1996). On the history of methinks: From impersonal construction to fossilised expression. Folia linguistica
historica, 30(Historica vol. 17, 1-2), 153-170.
Malchukov, A., & Siewierska, A. (Eds.). (2011). Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective (Vol. 124). John Benjamins
Publishing.
Palander-Collin, M. (1996). The rise and fall of METHINKS. Language and Computers, 15, 131-150.
Palander-Collin, M. (1998). Grammaticalization of I think and methinks in Late Middle and Early Modern English-A sociolinguistic
perspective. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 99(4), 419-442.
Palander-Collin, M. (1999). I think, methinks: Register variation, stratification, education and nonstandard language. PRAGMATICS
AND BEYOND NEW SERIES, 243-262.
Wischer, I. (2000). Grammaticalization versus lexicalization. Methinks” There is Some Confusion”, Pathways of Change:
Grammaticalization in English, ed., by Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein, 355-370.

Download Report