In Present-day English (PDE), the to-dative construction refers to clauses like John sold/offered/mentioned/gave the books to Mary, in which a ditransitive verb takes a Recipient that is expressed as a to-Prepositional Phrase (to-PP). This study examines the to-dative construction in Old English (OE). I show, first of all, that this construction was not rare in OE, in contrast to what has been suggested in the literature. Second, I report on two corpus studies in which I examined the ordering behaviour of the NP and the to-PP. The results of the first study suggest that the same ordering tendencies already existed in OE as in PDE: both the NP-to-PP and the to-PP-NP orders were grammatical, but the NP-to-PP was the most frequently used one. However, in OE, the to-PP-NP was more common than in PDE, where its use is heavily restricted. My second corpus study is informed by the multifactorial approach to the English dative alternation and uses a mixed-effects logistic regression analysis to evaluate the effects of various linguistic (verbal semantics, pronominality, animacy, definiteness, number, person and length) and extra-linguistic variables (translation status, time of completion/manuscript) on the ordering of NP and to-PP. The main finding is that, generally speaking, the same factors that motivate the dative alternation in PDE were involved in OE as well. No evidence was found for the influence of verbal semantics nor of the extra-linguistic variables. Finally, I argue against the view that to was semantically reanalysed from a Goal to a Recipient marker from OE to ME. Building on evidence that the Recipient use of to was already embryonically present in OE, I make the case that this semantic change was far more gradual than traditionally assumed.

This article investigates uses of the adverb again in Early Modern English (EModE) correspondence. The study collects occurrences of again and analyses their interpretation. It reveals interesting differences in the use of again between EModE and Late Modern English (LModE) as well as Present-day English (PDE). To bring out the grammatical significance of the results, we connect the study methodologically as closely as possible with Beck, Berezovskaya & Pflugfelder's (2009) study of LModE/PDE correspondence. We show that the key diachronic alteration we observe when considering EModE is not just numerical in nature but also qualitatively distinct from the later change at the transition between LModE and PDE. At the heart of our proposal is the finding that while a structural approach to again (Rapp & von Stechow 1999; Beck 2005) is successful for characterizing the transition between LModE and PDE, a uniform analysis for the entire diachronic trajectory is not warranted; a combined theoretical modelling is required instead. Specifically, a lexical analysis relying on counterdirectionality (e.g. Fabricius-Hansen 2001) is required to capture the differences in the EModE data.

This article presents new evidence for the early history of the Northern Subject Rule in the form of an exhaustive corpus study of plural present-tense indicative verb forms in Northern and Northern Midlands early Middle English, analysed in relation to their syntactic context, including subject type and subject–verb adjacency. We show that variation between -∅/e/n and -s endings was conditioned by both subject type and adjacency in a core area around Yorkshire, whereas in more peripheral areas, the adjacency condition was weaker and often absent.

We present an analysis of these facts in relation to the presence of multiple subject positions in early English, which we show contra earlier literature to be relevant for Northern English as well, We view -∅/e/n endings as ‘true’ agreement, which in the relevant dialects is limited to contexts with pronominal subjects in a high subject position, Spec,AgrSP; other forms of agreement (-s or -th) represent default inflection occurring elsewhere. This analysis supports the hypothesis that the NSR arose when the extant morphological variation in Northern Old English was reanalysed as an effect of pre-existing multiple subject positions.

This article critically assesses Lightfoot's (1991, 2006) ‘degree-0 theory’ of language change, specifically the use that Lightfoot makes of empirical data from Old English (OE) and Middle English (ME). This is followed by the presentation of a recent analysis of word order in a variety of OE and ME sources. It is argued that data from these periods do not support the ‘degree-0 theory’. Rather, the data demonstrate that verb-final and object–verb order were less dominant in OE subordinate clauses than previously assumed, and that the shift to SV order was fairly gradual. There is also little in the data to suggest that subordinate clauses and main clauses developed in radically different manners or at radically different speeds. The article highlights the importance of careful data usage, both with respect to type and scope of material, and the interpretation of data collected and categorised by others.

Much scholarship on morphological productivity has focused on measures such as hapax legomena, single occurrences of derivatives in large corpora, to compare and contrast the varying productivities of English affixes. But the small size of historical corpora has often limited the usefulness of such measures in diachronic analysis. Examining letters from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, this article advances a multifaceted approach to assessing historical changes in nominal suffixation in English. It adapts methodologies from work on morphological productivity in contemporary language – in particular, measures of base and derivative ratios from Hay & Baayen (2002) – to provide quantitative and qualitative descriptions of changes in the productivity of native -ness and borrowed -ity, -cion, -age and -ment in Early Modern English. Ultimately, the study argues that diachronic productivity is best evaluated with a multifactor analysis, including measures of suffixal decomposability, aggregation of new derivatives and evidence of hybridization. It also suggests that increased use of neologisms with borrowed suffixes in Early Modern English might be explained by the increasing transparency of these suffixes in derivatives during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

This article develops a functional classification of the different uses of English premodifying present participles and applies it to historical corpus data to show that premodifying present participles have undergone functional change. It is argued that three core functions can be distinguished: identifying uses (e.g. the following evening); type-oriented uses (e.g. a talking dog) and situation-oriented uses (e.g. a passing car). Historically, the use of premodifying present participles has shifted from predominantly identifying and type-oriented uses, to predominantly situation-oriented uses, particularly in narrative discourse. This means that premodifying present participles have come to fulfil a function that is less typical of noun-phrase-internal modification, instead being increasingly used to denote backgrounded situations that are temporally aligned to the situation evoked by their main clause. The shift can be interpreted as an instance of functional clausalization.

This article offers a syntactic analysis of the construction [be done NP], e.g. I am done dinner, I am finished my homework, as found in Canadian English and some US dialects. After situating this construction in the context of a productive transitive be perfect in Scots/English dialects, [be done NP] will be distinguished from a set of its conceptual and structural relatives, and ultimately be shown not to be reducible to a surface realization of another underlying structure. From the perspective of syntactic theory, the article problematizes the parsimony of the mainstream generative approach (most recently in MacFadden & Alexiadou 2010) in accounting for the facts of [be done NP] on strictly compositional grounds, as well as the mainstream view of lexical items as projecting theta grids and subcategorization frames (as e.g. in Grimshaw 1979; Emonds 2000). Following Fillmore et al. (1988), Goldberg (1995, 2005) and others, what will be suggested instead is a construction grammar approach to [be done NP], under which a construction holistically licenses its argument structure. Along these lines [be done NP] will be characterized as an abstract construction with some fixed material.