2013Linguistik aktuellRequires access

Variation in the form and function of the possessive morpheme in Late Middle and Early Modern English

Teo Juvonen

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

This paper analyses the morphosyntactic nature of the possessive -s in the Late Middle and Early Modern English periods. As is well known, the possessive -s, or the inflectional genitive, was increasingly replaced by the of-possessive during the Middle English period (Mustanoja 1960; Fischer 1992; Allen 2003). By the Late Middle English period the possessive -s occurred almost exclusively in cases where the possessor was an animate, human entity. Furthermore the possessor phrase was typically short, only one or two words long, and complex possessors were avoided. Nonetheless, in this context the possessive -s was the most frequent, neutral possessive construction of choice in most genres. I argue that by the Early Modern English period, at the latest, the possessive -s can no longer be categorized as an inflectional case due to the syntactic and semantic constraints on its use. However, neither can it unproblematically be categorized as a clitic. Rather than insist on a specific categorization, I present the types of orthographic, morphosyntactic and semantic evidence available relevant to its classification, based on a corpus of about 900,000 words and about 5,000 tokens.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This paper analyses the morphosyntactic nature of the possessive -s in the Late Middle and Early Modern English periods. As is well known, the possessive -s, or the inflectional genitive, was increasingly replaced by the of-possessive during the Middle English period (Mustanoja 1960; Fischer 1992; Allen 2003). By the Late Middle English period the possessive -s occurred almost exclusively in cases where the possessor was an animate, human entity. Furthermore the possessor phrase was typically short, only one or two words long, and complex possessors were avoided. Nonetheless, in this context the possessive -s was the most frequent, neutral possessive construction of choice in most genres. I argue that by the Early Modern English period, at the latest, the possessive -s can no longer be categorized as an inflectional case due to the syntactic and semantic constraints on its use. However, neither can it unproblematically be categorized as a clitic. Rather than insist on a specific categorization, I present the types of orthographic, morphosyntactic and semantic evidence available relevant to its classification, based on a corpus of about 900,000 words and about 5,000 tokens.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This paper analyses the morphosyntactic nature of the possessive -s in the Late Middle and Early Modern English periods. As is well known, the possessive -s, or the inflectional genitive, was increasingly replaced by the of-possessive during the Middle English period (Mustanoja 1960; Fischer 1992; Allen 2003). By the Late Middle English period the possessive -s occurred almost exclusively in cases where the possessor was an animate, human entity. Furthermore the possessor phrase was typically short, only one or two words long, and complex possessors were avoided. Nonetheless, in this context the possessive -s was the most frequent, neutral possessive construction of choice in most genres. I argue that by the Early Modern English period, at the latest, the possessive -s can no longer be categorized as an inflectional case due to the syntactic and semantic constraints on its use. However, neither can it unproblematically be categorized as a clitic. Rather than insist on a specific categorization, I present the types of orthographic, morphosyntactic and semantic evidence available relevant to its classification, based on a corpus of about 900,000 words and about 5,000 tokens.

Key concepts: Possessive, Morpheme, Variation (astronomy), Linguistics, Middle English, History, Philosophy, Physics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Variation in the form and function of the possessive morpheme in Late Middle and Early Modern English — Research Paper | ScholarLens