Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The diachronic semantics of English again

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the diachronic development of the English adverb again. A compositional semantic analysis of its grammar at various stages is provided. It is argued that this analysis must consist of a staging of first a lexical and then a structural change, in order to adequately model the sequence of individual developmental steps observed in the historical corpus data, and that it provides an insight into pathways of semantic change in general.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2005. There and back again: A semantic analysis. Journal of Semantics 22: 3–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Focus on again. Linguistics and Philosophy 29: 277–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid. 2012. Pluractional comparisons. Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 57–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid, Polina Berezovskaya, and Katja Pflugfelder. 2009. The use of ‘again’ in 19th-century English versus Present-Day English. Syntax 12: 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosworth, Joseph, and Thomas N. Toller (eds.). 1882. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary: Based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, Stephen, and Diane Lillo-Martin. 1998. An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M. 1978. Prepositions and points of view. Linguistics and Philosophy 2: 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In New reflections on grammaticalization, ed. I. Wischer and G. Diewald, 102–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eckardt, Regine. 2011. Semantic reanalysis and language change. Language and Linguistics Compass 5: 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckardt, Regine. 2012. Grammaticalization and semantic reanalysis. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, ed. Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn, and Paul Portner, 2675–2702. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elenbaas, Marion. 2007. The synchronic and diachronic syntax of the English verb-particle combination. Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen (LOT Dissertations 149).

  • Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. PhD dissertation, Göteborg University.

  • Evans, Nicholas, and David Wilkins. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian Languages. Language 76: 546–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1983. Wieder ein Wieder? Zur Semantik von Wieder. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. R. Baeuerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow, 97–120. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 2001. Wi(e)der and again(st). In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: a festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. Caroline Fery and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 101–130. Berlin: Akademie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galves, Charlotte, Helena Britto, and M. Clara Paixão de Sousa. 2005. The change in clitic placement from classical to modern European Portuguese: Results from the Tycho Brahe Corpus. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 4(1): 39–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergel, Remus. 2009. Rather—On a modal cycle. In Cyclical change, ed. E. van Gelderen, 243–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergel, Remus. 2010. From comparisons to preferences: Investigations in modeling variation, change, and continuity at the syntax–semantics interface. Habilitation: Universität Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gergel, Remus. 2014. On the diachronic trajectory of the adverb again: A corpus study at the interface with meaning. Ms., Universität Tübingen.

  • Gergel, Remus, and Sigrid Beck. (to appear). Early Modern English again—A corpus study and semantic analysis. English Language and Linguistics.

  • Gevaert, Caroline. 2007. The history of ANGER: The lexical field of ANGER from Old to Early Modern English. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Leuven.

  • Heim, Irene. 1990. Presupposition projection. In Presupposition, lexical meaning and discourse processes (Workshop Reader), ed. R. van der Sandt. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.

  • Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New reflections on grammaticalization, ed. Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Herweg, Michael, and Dieter Wunderlich. 1991. Lokale und Direktionale. In Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, ed. Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich, 758–785. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heycock, Caroline, and Joel Wallenberg. 2013. How variational acquisition drives syntactic change. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16: 127–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, James. 1999. Accomplishments. Proceedings of GLOW in Asia II: 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, Gerhard, and Reinhart Blutner. 2000. Against lexical decomposition in syntax. In Proceedings of the Israeli Association for Theoretical Linguistics 15, ed. Adam Wyner, 113–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, Hans, and Antje Rossdeutscher. 1994. Remarks on lexical structure and DRS construction. Theoretical Linguistics 20: 97–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Wolfgang. 2001. Time and again. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: a festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. Caroline Fery and W. Sternefeld, 267–286. Berlin: Akademie.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Ruth. 2011. Back to back: The trajectory of an old borrowing. Selected Papers from NWAV 39. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17.2: 115–123.

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. Proceedings of SALT 8, 92–110. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 197–235 Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, Anthony. 2001. Syntactic change. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. M. Baltin and C. Collins. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini, and Lauren Delfs. 2004. Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Early Modern English. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini, and Ariel Diertani. 2010. Penn parsed corpus of Modern British English. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroch, Anthony, and Ann Taylor. 2000. Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, Christopher, and David Willis. 2012. Never again: The regrammaticalization of never as a marker of negation in English. English Language and Linguistics 16: 459–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCawley, James. 1968. The role of semantics in a grammar. In Universals in linguistic theory, ed. E. Bach and R. Harms, 124–169. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoard, Robert. 1978. The English perfect: Tense-choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, Thomas, and Artemis Alexiadou. 2010. Perfects, resultatives, and auxiliaries in Earlier English. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 389–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, Terry. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, Barbara. 1973. Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, W. 2010. Two sources of ‘again’-ambiguities: Evidence from degree-achievement predicates. In Logic, language and meaning: 17th Amsterdam Colloquium, Revised Selected Papers, ed. M. Aloni et al., 355–363. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pintzuk, Susan, and Ann Taylor. 2008. The loss of OV order in the history of English. In The handbook of the history of English, ed. A. van Kemenade and Bettelou Los. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintzuk, Susan, and Anthony Kroch. 1989. The rightward movement of complement and adjuncts in the Old English of Beowulf. Language Variation and Change 1: 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb-meaning and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, Irene, and Arnim von Stechow. 1999. Fast ‘almost’ and the Visibility Parameter for functional adverbs. Journal of Semantics 16: 149–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schöller, Anthea. 2013. The different readings of ‘wieder’ and ‘again’: An experimental investigation. Graduate Thesis, University of Tübingen.

  • Snyder, William. 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language 77: 324–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speyer, Augustin. 2010. Topicalization and stress clash avoidance in the history of English. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, Gustaf. 1931. Meaning and change of meaning with special reference to the English language. Göteborg: Elander.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Ann, Arja Nurmi, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk, and Terttu Nevalainen. 2006. Parsed corpus of Early English correspondence. Compiled by the CEEC Project Team. York and Helsinki: University of York and University of Helsinki. Oxford Text Archive.

  • Traugott, Elizabeth, and Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troberg, Michelle, and Heather Burnett. 2014. Le prédicat résultatif adjectival en français médiéval. Lingvisticae Investigationes 37(1): 152–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 1995. Lexical decomposition in syntax. In The lexicon in the organization of Language, ed. U. Egli et al., 81–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13: 87–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 1999. Eine erweiterte Extended Now-Theorie für Perfekt und Futur. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 113: 86–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 2002. German seit ‘since’ and the ambiguity of the German Perfect. In More than words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, ed. Ingrid Kaufmann and Barbara Stiebels, 393–432. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 2006. Spatial prepositions in interval semantics. Ms., University of Tübingen.

  • Warner, Anthony. 2005. Why DO dove: Evidence for register variation in Early Modern English negatives. Language Variation and Change 17(03): 257–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, and Marvin I. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitelock, Dorothy, David C. Douglas, and Susie I. Tucker (eds.). 1961. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle: A revised translation. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

    Sigrid Beck

  2. Universität Graz, Graz, Austria

    Remus Gergel

Authors
  1. Sigrid Beck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Remus Gergel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigrid Beck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beck, S., Gergel, R. The diachronic semantics of English again . Nat Lang Semantics 23, 157–203 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9111-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-015-9111-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation