Middle English Verbs of Emotion
and Impersonal Constructions
oxford studies in the history of english
General Editor
Terttu Nevalainen, University of Helsinki
Editorial Board
Laurel Brinton, University of British Columbia
Donka Minkova, UCLA
Thomas Kohnen, University of Cologne
Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, University of Leiden
The Early English Impersonal Construction
Ruth Möhlig-Falke
Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English
Edited by Anneli Meurman-Solin, María José López-Couso, and Bettelou Los
Spreading Patterns
Hendrik De Smet
Constructions and Environments
Peter Petré
Middle English Verbs of Emotion and Impersonal Constructions
Ayumi Miura
Middle English Verbs
of Emotion and Impersonal
Constructions
Verb Meaning and Syntax in Diachrony
ayumi miura
1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by
Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
© Oxford University Press 2015
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the
appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Miura, Ayumi, author.
Middle English verbs of emotion and impersonal constructions : verb meaning and syntax
in diachrony / Ayumi Miura.
p. cm. — (Oxford studies in the history of English)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978–0–19–994715–7 (hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 978–0–19–994716–4 (ebook : alk.
paper) 1. English language—Middle English, 1100–1500—Verb. 2. English language—Middle
English, 1100–1500—Syntax. 3. English language—Middle English, 1100–1500—Versification.
4. English language—History.
PE587M58 2015
427’.02—dc23
2014018519
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
CONTENTS
List of Tables ix
Acknowledgements xiii
Abbreviations xvi
CHAPTER
1Introduction 1
1.1 Aims of the Book 1
1.2 Definitions of ‘Impersonals’ in Previous
Studies 3
1.2.1 Terminological Controversy 3
1.2.2 Morphosyntactic Definitions of Impersonals 4
1.2.3 Historical Outline of Impersonals 8
1.2.4 Semantic Definitions of Impersonals 9
1.2.4.1 Meanings Expressed by ‘Impersonal
Constructions’ 10
1.2.4.2 Meanings Expressed by ‘Impersonal
Verbs’ 13
1.3 Issues to be Addressed 15
1.3.1 Feasibility of Making Semantic Distinctions
between Impersonal and Non-impersonal
Verbs 15
1.3.2 Emphasis on Middle English 16
1.3.3 Insights from Psych-Verbs in Modern
Languages 17
1.4 Outline of the Book 18
v
2 Theoretical and Methodological Considerations 21
CHAPTER
2.1 Positive and Negative Evidence for Studying the Syntax of a
Historical Language 22
2.2 Case Studies of Near-synonymous Verbs in Early
English 23
2.2.1 Elmer (1983) in Valency-Based Grammar 24
2.2.2 Denison (1990) and Loureiro-Porto (2009) on
Complementation Patterns 26
2.2.3 Allen (1995) and the Role of Animacy 30
2.2.4 Carroll (1997) in Levin’s (1993) Framework 33
2.3 Semantic Roles: Descriptive Adequacy 36
2.4 Event Structure of Psych-Verbs in Modern
Languages 37
2.4.1 Causation 38
2.4.2 Aspect: Stative or Non-stative 40
2.5 Summary: Organizational Framework of the Main Data
Analysis 45
CHAPTER
3 Verbs of Emotion and the Historical Thesaurus of the
Oxford English Dictionary 47
3.1 Limiting the Field of Investigation 47
3.2The Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary
(HTOED) 50
3.3 Problems with Using the HTOED 53
CHAPTER
4 Old and Middle English Impersonal Verbs of
Emotion: Analysis from Dictionary Meanings 56
4.1 Initial Processes of List-Compiling 56
4.2Pleasure/Enjoyment 60
4.3 Mental Pain/Suffering 67
4.4Anger 76
4.5Hatred/Enmity 79
4.6Pity/Compassion 82
4.7Humility 84
4.8Fear 86
4.9 Summary: Regularities across Semantic
Categories? 90
vi | Contents
CHAPTER
5 Semantic Distinctions between Impersonal and Nonimpersonal Verbs of Emotion: Evidence from Entries
in the Middle English Dictionary 95
5.1 Choice of Corpora: Using the MED Entries as a
Database 96
5.2 Factors to Examine Revisited 98
5.3 Verbs of Fear 103
5.3.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions 103
5.3.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs
Compared 108
5.3.2.1 Before the Fourteenth Century 109
5.3.2.2From the Fourteenth Century 117
5.4 Verbs of Anger 129
5.4.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions 129
5.4.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs
Compared 132
5.4.2.1 Before the Fourteenth Century 133
5.4.2.2From the Fourteenth Century 138
5.5 Verbs of Pity/Compassion 149
5.5.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions 149
5.5.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs
Compared 151
5.6 Verbs of Humility 156
5.6.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions 156
5.6.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs
Compared 158
5.7 Verbs of Hatred/Enmity 166
5.7.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions 166
5.7.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs
Compared 168
5.8 Verbs of Pleasure/Enjoyment 175
5.8.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions 175
5.8.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs
Compared 178
5.9 Verbs of Mental Pain/Suffering 195
5.9.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions 195
5.9.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs
Compared 199
Contents | vii
5.10 Other Verbs of Emotion 213
5.10.1 Verbs of Jealousy/Envy 213
5.10.2 Verbs of Pride 217
5.10.3 Verbs of Courage 221
5.11 Summing Up 225
CHAPTER
6 Concluding Remarks 232
6.1 Transitivity of Impersonal Verbs of Emotion Revisited 233
6.2 Constellations of Properties in Diachrony 235
6.3 Correlation with Psychological Definitions and
Classifications of ‘Emotion’ 238
6.4 Topics for Further Research 243
Notes 245
References 263
Index 283
viii | Contents
LIST OF TABLES
4.1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
Distribution of impersonal verbs in the HTOED ‘Emotion’
categories 91
Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with
impersonal verbs of Fear 103
Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear
before the fourteenth century: Examples of Experiencer-subject
intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions 110
Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear
before the fourteenth century: Examples of ToE-subject transitive
constructions 114
Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear
before the fourteenth century: Examples of (in)animate Targets of
Emotion 116
Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of word pairs and MS
variants 118
Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of Experiencer-subject
intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions 119
Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of ToE-subject transitive
constructions 123
Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of (in)animate Targets of
Emotion 127
Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with
impersonal verbs of Anger 130
ix 5.10 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger
before the fourteenth century: Examples of Experiencer-subject
intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions 134
5.11 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger
before the fourteenth century: Examples of ToE-subject transitive
constructions 135
5.12 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger
before the fourteenth century: Examples of (in)animate Targets of
Emotion 137
5.13 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of word pairs and MS
variants 139
5.14 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of
Anger in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of
Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive
constructions 141
5.15 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of ToE-subject
transitive constructions 145
5.16 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of (in)animate
Targets of Emotion 148
5.17 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with
impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion 150
5.18 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pity/
compassion: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive,
passive, and reflexive constructions 152
5.19 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pity/
compassion: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion 156
5.20 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with
impersonal verbs of Humility 157
5.21 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Humility:
Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive, and
reflexive constructions 159
5.22 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Humility:
Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions 161
5.23 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Humility:
Examples of word pairs and MS variants 161
5.24 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Humility:
Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion 163
x | List of Tables
5.25 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with
impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity 166
5.26 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Hatred/
enmity: Examples of word pairs and MS variants 169
5.27 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Hatred/
enmity: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive,
passive, and reflexive constructions 170
5.28 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Hatred/
enmity: Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions 171
5.29 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Hatred/
enmity: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion 174
5.30 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with
impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment 175
5.31 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with formal
it with impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment 178
5.32 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment: Examples of word pairs and MS variants 180
5.33 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment: Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions 181
5.34 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive,
passive, and reflexive constructions 185
5.35 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion 192
5.36 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with
impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering 195
5.37 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with formal
it with impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering 198
5.38 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with formal
that with impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering 198
5.39 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Mental
pain/suffering: Examples of word pairs and MS variants 200
5.40 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of
Mental pain/suffering: Examples of ToE-subject transitive
constructions 203
5.41 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Mental
pain/suffering: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive,
passive, and reflexive constructions 205
5.42 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Mental
pain/suffering: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion 211
List of Tables | xi
5.43 Verbs of Jealousy/envy: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive,
transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions 214
5.44 Verbs of Jealousy/envy: Examples of (in)animate Targets of
Emotion 215
5.45 Verbs of Pride: Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions 217
5.46 Verbs of Pride: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive,
passive, and reflexive constructions 218
5.47 Verbs of Pride: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion 220
5.48 Verbs of Courage: Examples of ToE-subject transitive
constructions 221
5.49 Verbs of Courage: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive,
transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions 222
5.50 Verbs of Courage: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion 224
6.1 Diachronic changes in parameters of impersonal usage 236
xii | List of Tables
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
T
his book is a revised version of my PhD thesis submitted to the University
of Manchester in September 2011 and accepted with no corrections in November of the same year. The three-year research project received generous
financial support from Overseas Research Students Award Scheme, School of
Languages, Linguistics and Cultures (now School of Arts, Languages and Cultures) at the University of Manchester, and Rotary Foundation Ambassadorial
Scholarships.
I owe my utmost gratitude to my PhD supervisors Professor David Denison
and Dr Nuria Yáñez-Bouza. Ever since I started the programme they have endeavoured to provide me with all the guidance that they could think of in order
to make me a better scholar and improve the quality of my thesis. They always
generously afforded the time out of their extremely busy academic life to listen
to my ‘yells’ with genuine sympathy and thought earnestly about what they
should do to help me. Their feedback on my various (often unstructured) ideas
and writings at supervision meetings, via email and Skype was most meticulous and sincere. They never lost faith in me and my work but continued to
encourage me with warmest smiles and showers of heartfelt compliments.
That I was supervised by them is my most precious treasure in my life in Manchester, and it will certainly remain to be my strongest emotional support in
the future.
I am also deeply obligated to my advisor Dr Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero and my
‘unofficial’ advisor Dr Andrew Koontz-Garboden. At each research panel meeting Ricardo offered a number of helpful criticisms about my work and prompted
me to think more constructively and from different perspectives, often in ways
which did not occur to me, David, or Nuria. Andrew was never my advisor legally but willingly invested a great deal of time and effort to share his expertise
over some fundamental issues in this book. The knowledge that I have accumulated about lexical semantics and psych-verbs is all thanks to Andrew’s reliable
instruction. Thanks also go to the examiners of my thesis, Professor John Payne
xiii
and Professor Jeremy J. Smith, for their thought-provoking discussions during
the viva voce, results of which are duly incorporated into this book, and for their
strong recommendation to publish the thesis.
Among those outside my supervision and examination team, I am most
grateful to Dr Cynthia Allen and Dr Ruth Möhlig-Falke. Cindy encouraged me
that the topic of my thesis was an area where there was still work to be done
and offered detailed comments when I consulted her on some challenging
matters. I hope that this book is a better product than the thesis while still
maintaining its original strengths. Ruth’s outstanding PhD thesis and her
monograph based on it (Möhlig-Falke 2009, 2012) as well as all the personal
exchanges with her over the years (re)taught me much about impersonals. In
publishing yet another book on impersonals, I never intend to deny the value
of her study, but I hope that our books will be seen as complementary.
I also benefited considerably from the feedback which I received at various
opportunities. I am much indebted to Professor Sylvia Adamson, Dr Ruth Carroll, Dr Philip Durkin, Dr Julia Fernández Cuesta, Professor Susan Fitzmaurice, Professor Dr Marianne Hundt, and Professor Geoffrey Russom for their
valuable comments on my conference presentations while I was still working
on my thesis. I am especially grateful to Marianne for her continued sincere
encouragement. Professor Martin Durrell, Dr Susen Faulhaber, and Professor
Elizabeth Traugott gave me insightful opinions about preliminary ideas in this
book. I also learned from the feedback given by the audience at conferences
after the project was completed.
Choosing one of the most researched topics in English historical syntax inevitably resulted in the need to acquire a vast amount of literature and other
resources. Professor Hans-Jürgen Diller, Dr Lucía Loureiro-Porto, and Professor Dr Janusz Malak kindly sent me copies of their own valuable works, from
which I learned immensely. Dr Gabriela Alboiu, Dr Geri Popova, Dr Shogun
Seki, and Lucía again helped me obtain important publications which were
completely out of my reach. Dr Kate Wild gave me near-final Excel files of the
relevant ‘Emotion’ categories in the HTOED, which greatly facilitated the compilation of the list of verbs studied in this book, while Professor Christian Kay
patiently answered all my minute queries about the thesaurus.
Among those involved in the production of this book, I owe a deep debt of
gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their extremely thorough reading of the original manuscript and numerous constructive comments and suggestions, which made me realize infelicities in my argument and data analysis.
Neither of them nor anyone else acknowledged here is to be held responsible
for any errors that remain in the completed book. I am indebted to Professor
Terttu Nevalainen for accepting the book in her series and to Ms Debra Shafer
for issuing a permission to reproduce definitions and quotations extensively
from the Middle English Dictionary, all editions, by Robert E. Lewis et al. (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1920s–2001).
Although my project formally started after I moved to Manchester, it is
founded solidly on my education and research experience while I was in Japan.
xiv | Acknowledgements
I am obliged particularly to Professor Jun Terasawa for his attentive instruction during my postgraduate days at the University of Tokyo. I would also like
to thank my BA supervisor Professor Kazuyuki Urata for teaching me the joy
of studying the history of the English language and Professor Osamu Fukushima for offering me the first training in reading Old and Middle English
(and for first letting me notice that impersonals are interesting).
My friends and colleagues in Japan, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere,
both in and out of the academia, provided constant mental and often material
support. I truly appreciate their sharing pleasant time with me and thinking of
me, often from afar. My Rotary host counsellor couple Dr Vikram Tanna and
Mrs Rita Tanna treated me as one of their family members and offered the best
hospitality that one could ever expect in a foreign country.
My family have always offered unconditional support to me and respected
my every decision about life. I hope that they will be proud of what I accomplished during the journey away from them and what I will continue to achieve
in my life back in Japan.
June 2013
Ayumi Miura
Acknowledgements | xv
ABBREVIATIONS
accaccusative
AFAnglo-French
ANAnglo-Norman
AND
Anglo-Norman Dictionary
BT
the main volume of Bosworth & Toller’s An Anglo-Saxon
Dictionary
BTS
Supplement of Bosworth & Toller’s An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary
BT(S)
the main volume and Supplement of Bosworth & Toller’s An
Anglo-Saxon Dictionary
CL
finite clause
datdative
DOE
Dictionary of Old English
eOE
early Old English
ExpExperiencer
exx.examples
gengenitive
HTOED
Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary
impers.impersonal
INFinfinitive
LLatin
lOE
late Old English
ME
Middle English
MED
Middle English Dictionary
MSmanuscript
nomnominative
non-impers.non-impersonal
NP
noun phrase
NP-OBJ
object noun phrase
NP-SBJ
subject noun phrase
xvi objobjective
OE
Old English
OED
Oxford English Dictionary
OF
Old French
ON
Old Norse
partpartitive
PDE
Present-day English
plplural
PP
prepositional phrase
ppl
past participle
refl
reflexive pronoun
sgsingular
ToE
Target of Emotion
TOE
Thesaurus of Old English
3sg
third person singular
Unless otherwise stated, abbreviations of references for Old and Middle English examples are those used in the Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus and
Middle English Dictionary respectively. List of short titles cited in the DOE Web
Corpus is available at <http://www.doe.utoronto.ca/st/index.html>, while the
list of stencils in the MED can be browsed under the HyperBibliography
<http://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/hyperbib/>.
Abbreviations | xvii
Middle English Verbs of Emotion
and Impersonal Constructions
CHAPTER
1
Introduction
1.1 Aims of the Book
Impersonal constructions in Old and Middle English have been one of the
most favoured research topics in English historical syntax. The mass of publications which extends over a century—from van der Gaaf (1904) to MöhligFalke (2012)—can easily prompt the assumption that there is no room for
further research (see e.g. Tripp 1978: 177 and Palander-Collin 1999: 5), but I
incline towards Florica Băncilă’s observation reproduced below:
[A]lthough the problem under discussion has been repeatedly explored in the
literature, a slight change of angle of view may shed new light on the data as well
as on the forces of work in the dynamics of language change in general and of
the evolution of the impersonal Sentence pattern in particular. (Băncilă 1991: 1)
More than twenty years have passed since Băncilă (1991) was published,1 and
numerous works on this subject matter have appeared in the meantime. Nevertheless, Băncilă’s remark above is still valid today, as is evidenced by a series
of fairly new, some very extensive, studies like Loureiro-Porto (2005, 2009,
2010), Haugland (2006), Malak (2008), Trousdale (2008),2 and Möhlig-Falke
(2009, 2012), all of which examine impersonal constructions in the history of
English from different standpoints.3 These works clearly demonstrate that
there is more that remains to be done, especially by the use of recent theoretical frameworks.
Whilst there has been much discussion of the definition, subclassification,
and, above all, development and loss of impersonals from syntactic perspectives, less attention has been directed to their semantics, in spite of its crucial
role in the history of impersonal verbs and constructions (Loureiro-Porto
2005: 88). Lack of research is especially conspicuous in lexical semantics,
namely why certain verbs participate in impersonal constructions while others
do not, even though they appear almost synonymous to the modern eye. Compare the following pairs of examples, which are all taken from the Middle English Dictionary (MED):
(1-1) (a) Me
liketh
nat to lye.
me-obj pleases-3sg not to lie
‘I do not like to lie.’
[c1425(a1420) Lydg. TB (Aug A.4) 4.1815]
(b) I
loue well to make mery.
I-nom love well to make merry
‘I love much to make merry.’
[c1475 Mankind (Folg V.a.354) 266]
(1-2) (a) Of oure liffe vs
lothis;
we leve to lange.
of our life us-obj loathes-3sg we live too long
‘We loathe our life; we live too long.’
[a1450 Yk.Pl.(Add 35290) 448/8]
(b) For he schold lese his lemman, his liif þan he
hated.
for he should lose his lover
his life then he-nom hated
‘For he should lose his lover, he then hated his life.’
[a1375 WPal.(KC 13) 1484]
Like and loathe were used in impersonal constructions in Old and Mid­
dle English as in (1-1a) and (1-2a), where a nominative subject is absent, the
(pro)nominal argument of person is represented in the objective case (Me and
vs), and the verb is in the third person singular form (liketh and lothis), irrespective of the number and person of the (pro)nominal argument. By contrast,
love and hate are not known to have shared the same usage but regularly
selected a nominative (pro)nominal argument of person, as far as we can tell
from the previous literature and historical dictionaries; see I in (1-1b) and he in
(1-2b). 4 While a number of researchers have referred to these fuzzy semantic
boundaries of verbs which can be used in impersonal constructions and those
which apparently cannot, to the best of my knowledge, no serious study has
been conducted up to this day. Such a situation stands in sharp contrast with
the linguistics of Present-day English, where the interface between verb meaning and syntax has seen lively discussion (Kearns 2006: 566).5
The present investigation will tackle this under-discussed issue of the semantics of verbs which occurred in impersonal constructions and those which
did not as well as their diachronic development, with special reference to verbs
of emotion in the Middle English period. By examining not only verbs which
were actually employed in impersonal constructions (e.g. like and loathe) but
also verbs which are semantically closely related but which are not known to
have had impersonal usage (e.g. love and hate), I will attempt to identify what
might have conditioned verbs of emotion to appear in an impersonal construction during Middle English and what might have prevented their contemporary
near-synonyms from being used in the same way. In doing so, this research will
offer a new contribution to the study of impersonal constructions in the history
of English as well as to English historical syntax and semantics in general.
2 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
In the remainder of this chapter, I will first describe the controversy over
the term ‘impersonal’ and then review morphosyntactic and semantic definitions of impersonals as discussed in previous studies (section 1.2). During
that process, an overview of the historical evolution of impersonals will also be
provided. I will next present the three important characteristics which distinguish the present investigation from previous studies of impersonal constructions in the history of English: special focus on semantic differences between
verbs which are attested in impersonal constructions and those which are not,
emphasis on the Middle English period, and adoption of ideas from the literature of psych-verbs in modern languages (section 1.3). The last section provides an outline of the entire book.
1.2 Definitions of ‘Impersonals’ in Previous Studies
Despite being a much-disputed subject, there has been a lack of solid consensus on what exactly counts as ‘impersonal’, syntactically and semantically
(Denison 1993: 61). As a result, different researchers have delimited them differently depending on the purpose and extent of their studies. In short, impersonals are yet to be a well-defined area (Denison 1990: 122).
1.2.1 Terminological Controversy
There have always been misgivings about using the label ‘impersonal’, which
is traced back to the Stoics (Haugland 2006: 54–6). Strictly speaking, it should
apply to the type of construction which does not involve any personal argument.6 However, it is often extended to clauses which do have a personal argument, such as the now archaic methinks.7 This is because methinks lacks a
nominative subject, personal or not, and the absence of a nominative subject
has been considered as one of the most critical features of impersonal constructions, as we will see below. Méndez Naya & López Couso (1997: 186) provide a succinct explanation of the confused state of affairs surrounding the
term ‘impersonal’:
The ambiguous character of this label derives mainly from its polyvalent reference, which ranges from generic to more restrictive uses. In Wahléns [sic]
words, the term fails to give an adequate idea of what the essential characteristics of the category of expressions in question are, and it admits of being variously interpreted (1925, 5). Thus, it can be applied either to a group of verbs and
expressions (impersonal verbs and expressions) defined on semantic grounds, as
well as to a certain type of construction described from a syntactic viewpoint
(impersonal construction), in which the so-called impersonal verbs typically
occur. Moreover, further complications arise due to a lack of consensus among
scholars as to the scope of the semantic and syntactic criteria in question.
In an attempt to avoid the ambiguity inherent in the term ‘impersonal’, alternatives such as ‘subjectless construction’ (Elmer 1981, von Seefranz-Montag
introduction | 3
1983; ‘subjectless clauses’ in Malak 2008) and ‘inversion construction’ (Harris
& Campbell 1995) have been proposed. Nevertheless, they have been unsuccessful in replacing ‘impersonal’, which has commonly been retained as a
label of convenience (Loureiro-Porto 2009: 45–6). Discarding ‘impersonal’ in
favour of another term only yields further terminological confusion and may
even make this study look unrelated to previous works which, though often
unwillingly, maintain the label. The time-honoured label is thus kept in the
present investigation too.
1.2.2 Morphosyntactic Definitions of Impersonals
Möhlig-Falke (2012: 5–14) offers a very useful summary of how scholars have
defined the morphosyntax of ‘impersonal constructions’ in the previous literature. She presents the following four formal properties shared by early English impersonal constructions (2012: 6):
(i) The predicate verb is invariably marked for third-person singular, independent of the person and number coded by any of its nominal arguments.
(ii) A nominative argument controlling verbal agreement (i.e., a grammatical
subject) is missing.
(iii) If it is encoded at all, the first argument appears in accusative or dative case
in Old English and in object case in Middle English.
(iv) If more than one nominal argument is encoded, the second one is in genitive case, appears as a prepositional phrase, or is a clausal complement,
most commonly a þæt-clause or a nonfinite clause.
As far as full lexical verbs are concerned, these characteristics allow the following seven basic types of complementation patterns.8 Instances are all reproduced from the quotations in Möhlig-Falke (2012: 6–8), which she assembled from the Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus:9
A. No complement at all
(1-3) Nap
nihtscua, norþan
sniwde,
grew dark night-shades from north snowed-3sg
‘the shades of night grew dark, it snowed from the north,’
[Sea 0008 (31)]
B. A single complement
(a) finite clause (typically a þæt-clause)
(1-4) Æfter ðisum gelamp
þæt micel manncwealm becom ofer ðære
after
this
happened-3sg [that great pestilence
came over the
romaniscan
leode.
Roman
people]-cl
‘After this it happened that a great pestilence came over the Roman people.’
[ÆCHom II, 9 [0042 (75.89)]]
4 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(b) accusative/dative (pro)nominal argument of person
(1-5) Me
hyngrede,
& ge me nawuht ne sealdun etan.
me-dat/acc hungered-3sg and you me nothing not gave
eat
‘I was hungry, and you did not give me anything to eat.’
[CP [1604 (44.327.24)]]
C. Two complements
(a) accusative/dative (pro)nominal argument of person + genitive (pro)nominal
argument
(1-6) ðætte oft
ðone geðyldegestan
scamað
ðæs siges
that often [the most patient]-acc feels shame-3sg [the victory]-gen
‘so that often the most patient one is ashamed of the victory’
[CP (Cotton) [0074 (33.226.18)]]
(b) accusative/dative (pro)nominal argument of person + prepositional phrase
(1-7) men
sceamað
for godan dædan swyðor þonne for yfelan
men-acc/dat feels shame-3sg [ for good deeds]-pp more than [ for evil
dædan,
deeds]-pp
‘men are more ashamed of good deeds than of evil deeds,’
[WHom 20.1 [0031 (103)]]
(c) accusative/dative (pro)nominal argument of person + non-finite clause
(1-8) Me
gedafenæð to wyrcenne his weorc
me-acc/dat befits-3sg [to make]-inf his work
‘it befits me to do his work’
[ÆHomM 2 (Irv 3) [0068 (177)]]
(d) accusative/dative (pro)nominal argument of person + finite clause (typically a
þæt-clause)
(1-9) ðu goda cyningc, licað
ðe
wel þæt Apollonius [. . .]
you good king
pleases-3sg you-acc/dat well [that Apollonius
þus heonon fare [. . .]?
thus hence go]-cl
‘Good King, does it please you well that Apollonius [. . .] departs from here thus
[. . .]?’
[ApT [0179 (17.22)]]
Not all of the seven patterns illustrated from (1-3) to (1-9) have been dealt
with in previous studies of impersonal constructions in the history of English.
The pattern with no complement (A), for instance, is rarely covered. Such general neglect in the literature, except for some brief remarks (Loureiro-Porto
2009: 47; see also Fisiak 1976, Nagucka 1978, Krzyszpień 1985), is due to the
lack of major diachronic developments in this complementation pattern, although Fischer et al. (2000: 76–7) argue that it should be taken into account
‘in a full history of impersonals’. The pattern (A) is observed with only ‘a small
introduction | 5
number of OE verbs denoting natural phenomena’ (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 8), or
‘really impersonal verbs’ in van der Gaaf’s (1904) terminology, such as rignan
‘to rain’ and snīwan ‘to snow’. In Old English these verbs could occasionally
appear without a nominative subject, but a formal subject (h)it became mandatory around the ninth century (von Seefranz-Montag 1984: 526; see also
Allen 1995: 59–64 and Haugland 2006: 46).10 Allen (1995: 63) attributes the
lack of a nominative subject in (1-3) to the result of the scribe faithfully retaining the early Old English usage which was not possible in his own late Old
English usage as well as to the general tendency of Old English poetry to preserve constructions not found in late Old English prose. Möhlig-Falke (2012:
110 n. 1) notes that (1-3) is the ‘only clear instance’ in Old English where snīwan
lacks a nominative subject.11 Examples without the formal (h)it were ‘only
sparsely found’ in Middle English (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 14; see also Fisiak 1976:
263) and were lost after the early fourteenth century.
The majority of researchers have concentrated on the pattern B-(b) and the
patterns with two complements (C), although they often diverge in subclassifications (Elmer 1981, Fischer & van der Leek 1983, Krzyszpień 1990, Denison
1993, de la Cruz 1994, Allen 1995, Kim 1996, Waltz 1997). The accusative or
dative (pro)nominal argument of person in B-(b) and C is commonly assigned
the semantic role of Experiencer, which denotes an ‘animate being inwardly
affected by an event or characterized by a state’ (Traugott 1972: 34; see also
Möhlig-Falke 2012: 31 n. 12).12 The other complement has been called Source,
Cause (Fischer & van der Leek 1983), or Theme (Anderson 1986), namely
‘something from which the experience emanates or by which the experience
is effected’ (Fischer & van der Leek 1983: 346; see also Landau 2010: 5).
‘Impersonal constructions’ in the present study refer exclusively to the patterns B-(b) and C, since it will tackle the question of why some verbs allowed
for an objective Experiencer while other verbs occurred regularly with a nominative Experiencer despite their apparent near-synonymity, and such variation is possible only with the patterns B-(b) and C, which involve an overt Experiencer. The essential properties of impersonal constructions in this study
are therefore lack of a nominative grammatical subject, presence of an objective Experiencer, and a lexical verb in the third person singular form. Personal
constructions, on the other hand, refer to the constructions which involve a
nominative Experiencer that agrees with the verb in number and person, as in
(1-1b) and (1-2b) above.
In addition to these, I will use ‘impersonal constructions with formal it’ for
constructions of the following type, where a dummy, non-referential subject
(h)it is added to any of the patterns in B-(b) and C (here B-(b)):
(1-10) I am free To wedde, a goddes half, wher it
liketh
me.
I am free to wed
on God’s half where it-nom pleases-3sg me-obj
‘I am free to marry, for God’s sake, where it pleases me.’
[(c1395) Chaucer CT.WB.(Manly-Rickert) D.50; MED]
6 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Möhlig-Falke (2012) does not consider these constructions as impersonal constructions, since the presence of a nominative argument violates one of her
criteria for impersonalhood, i.e. property (ii) at the beginning of this section.
Instead, she discusses these constructions under the term ‘hit-construction’
or ‘hit-extraposition’, the latter with specific reference to those which involve a
clausal complement as follows:
(1-11) Hit
þe
likede
wel þat þu us adun læidest.
it-nom you-obj pleased-3sg well that you us down laid
‘It pleased you well that you laid us down.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 8746; MED]
However, it seems better to treat constructions like (1-10) and (1-11) as a subtype of impersonal constructions in view of their close relationships. As we
will see in Chapters 4 and 5, a number of verbs are attested both in impersonal constructions and in impersonal constructions with formal it, and
some are attested in the latter constructions earlier (e.g. overthinken ‘to
grieve’, plēsen ‘to please’). Furthermore, a few verbs are apparently restricted to impersonal constructions with formal it (e.g. joien ‘to gladden’,
tikelen ‘to tickle’, wērīen ‘to weary’) in spite of being near-synonymous
with the verbs recorded in impersonal constructions (i.e. without it). Excluding these verbs, though not large in number, from the object of investigation may lead to missing some important facts about the development of
impersonal constructions, especially their further spread during Middle
English.
It has been customary to define ‘impersonal verbs’ as those which occur
in impersonal constructions.13 Méndez Naya & López Couso (1997) argue,
however, that such a tautological definition ignores the fact that the use of
these verbs is often not restricted to impersonal constructions. They claim
that it is more suitable to say impersonal ‘uses’ of verbs or verbs used impersonally, rather than impersonal verbs. Möhlig-Falke (2012: 14) also considers
impersonalhood not as a property of individual verbs but as that of morphosyntactic patterns (see also Allen 1995: 21). While acknowledging that the
label ‘impersonal verb’ may not be ideal, in this study I retain it as a convenient way of distinguishing verbs which were actually used in impersonal
constructions from those which apparently were not. Thus, ‘impersonal
verbs’ in this book refer to the verbs which are known in the literature to
have appeared in impersonal constructions, even though they may also have
been employed in other syntactic patterns. Following the example of Fischer
& van der Leek (1983: 357), Denison (1990: 133), and Fischer et al. (2000: 75),
I use ‘non-impersonal verbs’ to refer to the verbs which are not known to
have been used in impersonal constructions. In the next section I will outline the development of impersonal verbs and constructions in the history of
English.
introduction | 7
1.2.3 Historical Outline of Impersonals
The acute scholarly interest that impersonal constructions have attracted for
many decades is ascribable to their complex and diverse syntactic and lexical
histories. In Möhlig-Falke’s (2012) survey, there were about forty-seven verbs,
including prefixed derivatives, which could be used in impersonal constructions during Old English.14 Seventeen of them either do not survive into
Middle English or are only rarely found in the thirteenth-century manuscripts
of Old English texts. However, the Middle English period witnesses a significant expansion of the number of impersonal verbs. According to Möhlig-­
Falke’s (2012: 15, 209–11) study of the OED and MED and some representative
previous works, approximately sixty-three verbs were first found in impersonal constructions in Middle English,15 of which thirty-one have their origin
in Old English (e.g. glāden ‘to rejoice’, ofdrēden ‘to be afraid’), nine are new
coinages in Middle English (e.g. happen(en) ‘to take place, occur’, misteren
‘to be needful’), and twenty-three are borrowings from either Scandinavian
(e.g. irken ‘to be disgusted with’,16 sēmen ‘to appear’) or French (e.g. chauncen ‘to happen’, merveillen ‘to feel wonder at’). Waltz (1997: 341) assumes
that these new additions from Old French were not made for the sake of functional need of impersonal constructions but ‘for the purpose of creating a
more sophisticated literary style’.
The impersonal usage continued to spread to new verbs until the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries, which is traditionally attributed mostly to semantic
analogy with some synonymous existing verbs capable of impersonal use (van
der Gaaf 1904: 143–54, Möhlig-Falke 2012: 15, 212). Meanwhile, impersonal
constructions gradually shifted to various constructions with a nominative
grammatical subject in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Möhlig-Falke
2012: 217–18): constructions with a nominative Experiencer (= personal constructions), constructions with a nominative Cause or Theme, constructions
with a formal subject it and a clausal complement (e.g. me semeth that . . . >
it seems to me that . . .), reflexive constructions, and copula constructions involving an adjective or adjectival participle (e.g. me hungreth > I am hungry; me
shameth > I am ashamed). There was a great amount of lexical variation in the
development and loss of impersonal constructions (for details, see e.g. Allen
1995, Kim 1996).
Impersonal constructions ultimately lost their productivity around 1500
(van der Gaaf 1904: 142, Allen 1995: 441). Lightfoot (1979: 229) refers to the
still lively use of them in Sir Thomas More’s works (see also Visser 1963: §43)
and suggests that the date of their final disappearance should accordingly be
extended to the middle of the sixteenth century. However, these examples are
better regarded as fixed expressions, not as evidence for any real productivity.
The twenty instances cited by Visser actually involve only five verbs (list,
need, rue, seem, think) and even include two examples with a nominative
pronoun ye, rather than an objective pronoun (ye . . . may desceyue an ye list; ye
would seme that it were well proued). Allen (1995: 279) finds that, although
8 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
More indeed used impersonal constructions most vigorously of his contemporaries, the usage was frequent only with seem and think, and that other authors of his time (e.g. Lord Berners, Bishop Fisher) choose even fewer verbs in
impersonal constructions. Traugott (1972: 130–1) notes that examples that can
still be found in the sixteenth century are either ‘conscious archaisms’ or idiomatic expressions (see also Malak 2008: 191 and Möhlig-Falke 2012: 14–15).
This general history of impersonal constructions remains fundamentally
unchanged in the literature. On the other hand, what exactly caused their
disappearance and gradual shift to personal constructions has been subject
to multiple hypotheses and has not been fully resolved yet. The most traditional explanation is the so-called reanalysis theory formulated by Jespersen
(1894, 1927) and van der Gaaf (1904), which claims that the case syncretism
between nominative, dative, and accusative and the establishment of the
Subject-Verb-Object word order caused a preverbal Experiencer in the objective case to be replaced with one in the nominative case—the often-called
‘transition’ from impersonal to personal constructions. This hypothesis has
essentially been supported, though with some variations in the explanatory
frameworks, by a large number of scholars such as Mustanoja (1960), Visser
(1963), Fisiak (1976), Lightfoot (1979, 1991), Elmer (1981), Krzyszpień (1984),
and Pocheptsov (1997). On the other hand, numerous counter-argument and
counter-evidence have been presented by Šimko (1968), McCawley (1976),
Fischer & van der Leek (1983), von Seefranz-Montag (1983, 1984), Ogura
(1985, 1986a, 1990, 2004), Allen (1986, 1995), Kovatcheva (1986), Anderson
(1988), Kopytko (1988), Mair (1988), Băncilă (1991), Kim (1996), Osawa (1996,
2013), Malak (2008), Nawata (2011), and Möhlig-Falke (2012). However, the
majority of them admit that one or the other of the breakdown of the inflectional system and the rigidification of the canonical word order played some
role, if not a determining one, in the demise of impersonal constructions.
Denison (1993: 61–102), Loureiro-Porto (2005: 81–90), Malak (2008: 30–55),
and Möhlig-Falke (2012: 16–20) offer helpful reviews of some of the representative theories about the evolution of impersonal constructions in the history of English. In this book, I do not intend to put forward any novel hypothesis about how and why impersonal constructions eventually disappeared
from the English language, for which a large corpus-based study of not just
Old and Middle English but also early Modern English is indispensable,
whereas the main period to be examined in the present study is Middle English. However, where appropriate, I will attempt to make some provisional
observations about the causes and processes of the loss of impersonal
constructions.
1.2.4 Semantic Definitions of Impersonals
Meanings of ‘impersonal’ have been studied with regard to what meanings
‘impersonal constructions’ express, especially in contrast to personal constructions (section 1.2.4.1), and the semantic range of verbs which occur in
introduction | 9
impersonal constructions (section 1.2.4.2). The former topic has received
more scholarly interest. The second topic is the main concern in this book.
1.2.4.1 Meanings Expressed by ‘Impersonal Constructions’
There is general agreement that impersonal and personal constructions are
semantically distinct from each other. McCawley (1976), the first serious
study devoted to semantic aspects of impersonal constructions (see also
Tripp 1978 from a contemporary period), proposes that the notion of involuntary activity or ‘unvolitional/unself-controllable’ involvement in the situation
is crucial for a verb to be used in impersonal constructions (but see Malak
2008: 131–2). She also argues that impersonal constructions were basically
used to express ‘the 1st person’s inherently personal subjective experiences’
(McCawley 1976: 198).17 Fischer & van der Leek (1983) likewise maintain that
the difference between impersonal constructions and personal constructions (their ‘experiencer-subject constructions’) lies in volitionality: in the
latter the nominative animate Experiencer is ‘the initiator of the “action”,
fully involved in what the verb expresses’, while in impersonal constructions
the dative or accusative Experiencer is ‘only passively related to what is expressed in the verb’ (1983: 351; but see Krzyszpień 1987: 26). Allen (1997: 15)
joins this line of argument by observing that the impersonal usage was ‘a
useful way of showing that the Experiencer was not in control of the situation, i.e., not agentive’. Möhlig-Falke’s (2012) recent analysis based on
cognitive-­f unctional grammar also concludes that the degree of control and
intention on the part of the Experiencer is crucial to semantic distinctions
between impersonal and personal constructions, especially with regard to
verbs of emotion:
a personal construction with nominative case for the Emoter [= Experiencer] [. . .]
seems to be chosen in Old English when the Emoter is involved more intentionally and when the emotional process is conceived of as being more or less controlled by the Emoter and as happening less spontaneously. In contrast, dative
case for the Emoter [. . .] seems to be chosen when the Emoter is conceived of as
being involved less intentionally, that is, when the process is not controlled by
himself or herself but when the emotion [. . .] overwhelms the Emoter spontaneously. (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 91–2; see also Croft 1991: 219, 1993: 64, 2012: 235, 265
and Parodi & Luján 2000: 220)
(1-12) Hit is cyn ðæt we
ure
scomigen, ðonne he us æfter cliopað,
it is known that we-nom.pl our-gen shame-pl when he us after calls
gif we us nyllað ondrædan his ryhtwisnesse,
if we us not want fear
his justice
‘it is known that we feel shame about ourselves, when he calls after us, if we
do not choose to fear his justice,’
[CP [2062 (52.407.15)]]
10 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(1-13) ðætte oft ðone geðyldegestan
scamað
ðæs siges
that often [the most patient]-acc.sg feels shame-3sg [the victory]-gen
‘so that often the most patient one is ashamed of the victory’
[CP (Cotton) [0074 (33.226.18)]; = (1-6)]
The two examples here are provided in Möhlig-Falke (2012: 160–1) to illustrate her point: in (1-12) with a personal construction, the emotion of shame is
controlled by the Experiencer, whereas in (1-13) with an impersonal construction, the emotion is uncontrolled and arises inadvertently or spontaneously.
Möhlig-Falke observes that the use of impersonal constructions until the late
fifteenth century, even after constructions with a nominative argument of
person increasingly developed from the thirteenth century, is related to stylistic differences between the two constructions (2012: 236; see also Waltz 1997:
341). Earlier, Ogura (1990: 44–5) similarly proposed stylistic distinctions between impersonal and personal constructions in Old and Middle English: the
former are selected as indirect ways of expressing one’s feelings, while personal constructions are more direct.
These explanations seem plausible enough from a modern linguistic point
of view. Croft (1991: 220–1, 1993: 65–7) shows that correlation between impersonal constructions and lack of control, on the one hand, and between personal constructions and presence of control, on the other, is supported by the
intuitions of modern native speakers, at least in Spanish and Yoruba. Nevertheless, a more cautious stance is required for historical languages like Old
and Middle English, for which such intuitions are not available. A common
problem with previous attempts at explaining semantic-pragmatic distinctions between impersonal and personal constructions is that it is not quite
clear how long these proposed distinctions are supposed to have lasted (Tani
1997: 55 n. 2). Möhlig-Falke advances the hypothesis that impersonal constructions in Old English had different perspectival functions from those of
(in)transitive constructions: they expressed a shift of perspective on an inherently transitive event by backgrounding or suppressing the nominative subject which controls the State of Affairs (SoA) and by simultaneously foregrounding the objective argument of person to the topic position, thus making
it possible for the SoA to be viewed from the perspective of this affected
human endpoint. This whole process syntactically enforces a middle event, in
that the experience takes place wholly within the primary participant (Kemmer
1993). Möhlig-Falke argues that the use of impersonal constructions was extended to some causative emotion verbs such as grēmen ‘to cause anger’ and
quēmen ‘to cause pleasure’ between 1300 and 1400 ‘to view the emotional
process from the perspective of the Emoter [= Experiencer]’ (2012: 211), concluding that these constructions were still productive at that time, or possibly
even until the fifteenth century, in her proposed function of expressing a shift
of perspective. However, the following instances suggest that, in late
fourteenth-­century English, impersonal constructions may not necessarily
have possessed clear functional distinctions from personal constructions:18
introduction | 11
(1-14) ‘Madame,’ quod he, ‘how thynke ye
herby?’
madam said
he how think you-nom hereby
‘How that me
thynketh?’ quod she.
how that me-obj seems
said she
‘“Madam,” he said, “how do you think about this?” “How do I think?” she said.’
[The Canterbury Tales, III 2204–5]
(1-15) Of pacience comth obedience, thurgh which a man is obedient to Crist
of patience comes obedience through which a man is obedient to Christ
and to alle hem to whiche he
oghte to been obedient in Crist. [. . .]
and to all them to which he-nom ought to be obedient in Christ
Obedience generally is to parfourne the doctrine of God and of his
obedience generally is to perform the doctrine of God and of his
sovereyns, to whiche hym
oghte to ben obeisaunt in alle rightwisnesse.
sovereigns to which him-obj ought to be obedient in all righteousness
‘From patience comes obedience, through which a man is obedient to Christ
and to all those to whom he ought to be obedient in Christ. [. . .] Obedience is
generally to practise the doctrine of God and of his sovereigns, to whom he
ought to be obedient in all righteousness.’
[ibid., X 674–6]
In (1-14) an impersonal construction (me thynketh) is used to repeat the
question formed in a personal construction (thynke ye), while in (1-15) the two
constructions are used in a very similar context (he oghte to been obedient in
Crist; hym oghte to ben obeisaunt in alle rightwisnesse). It is tempting to propose that formal differences are associated with semantic differences, and
Palander-Collin (1999: 127–8) argues that the degree of the Experiencer’s
commitment to the proposition differs even in examples that look like free
variation between an impersonal and a personal construction. Nevertheless,
it seems very difficult to claim remarkable semantic differences between
these two constructions in (1-14) and (1-15).19 Croft (1991: 222, 1993: 68) also
notes with regard to some modern languages that the same verb can occur in
Experiencer-subject and Experiencer-object constructions ‘without any clear
semantic difference’.20 This may be particularly true for the verbs which occurred in impersonal constructions for the first time and only sporadically in
late Middle English, for which personal constructions are the standard
option, in contrast to the verbs which have been impersonal since Old English. Semantic or stylistic differences between impersonal and personal constructions are very likely not to have remained fixed over the long course of
their coexistence in English, but it will be challenging to generalize over the
intermediate stages of such changes, in view of the fact that developmental
patterns of impersonal constructions are widely different from one verb to
another (Allen 1995, Kim 1996). At least it is advisable to be more careful
about trying to identify systematic semantic differences between impersonal
12 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
and personal constructions, especially in late Middle English and early
Modern English, the periods before and after impersonal constructions
ceased to be productive (Allen 1995: 441).
1.2.4.2 Meanings Expressed by ‘Impersonal Verbs’
Like meanings of ‘impersonal constructions’, meanings of verbs that can
appear in impersonal constructions (i.e. ‘impersonal verbs’) have been variously defined and classified. These verbs are known to spread across wide
semantic fields. In McCawley’s (1976: 194) classification, the semantic range
in which Old and Middle English impersonal constructions could appear
spans:
• non-intentional sensory and mental experiences (e.g. þyncan ‘to seem’,
mǢ tan ‘to dream’, sēmen ‘to seem’)
• emotional experiences (e.g. eglian ‘to trouble’, hrēowan ‘to cause sorrow;
grieve’, langian ‘to cause desire, longing’)
• physical and biological experiences (e.g. hyngrian ‘to hunger’, þyrstan
‘to thirst’, smerten ‘to cause pain’)
• need/duty/obligation (e.g. myster ‘to be necessary’, nēden ‘to be necessary’, behofian ‘to be necessary’)
• (inalienable) possession/existence (e.g. lakken ‘to be wanting’, wanten ‘to
be deficient’)
• happenstance (e.g. hap(pen) ‘to come to pass’, geynen ‘to profit’)
The semantic fields outlined here generally agree with the cross-linguistic
generalization provided by von Seefranz-Montag (1984: 524): ‘In many languages, impersonal constructions with oblique experiencer arguments are a
productive syntactic device to encode expressions of a specific semantic class:
verbs denoting physical, emotional and mental experiences (hunger, thirst,
chill, heat, pain; joy, grief, anger, shame; doubt, recollection etc.), but also
needs and obligations, possession and sometimes perceptions and abilities,
existence and happenstance.’ Most recently, Möhlig-Falke (2012: 85–6) showed
that the Old English verbs capable of impersonal usage constitute heterogeneous lexical fields of physical sensation, emotion, cognition, existential experience, motion, ownership/appropriateness, (non)availability, and benefaction.
She also mentions that many of these verbs, especially verbs of emotion, have
lexically inherent middle-voice meanings (Kemmer 1993).
These generalizations certainly cover the broad semantic categories of
the verbs which were recorded in impersonal constructions, but they are
not sufficiently restrictive, since not all the verbs that belong to these extensive semantic classes are known to have had impersonal usage. Denison
(1990: 124, 1993: 94–5) points out, for example, that Old English verbs fric­
lan ‘to desire’ and gitsian ‘to covet’ do not behave impersonally, despite
being roughly synonymous with lystan ‘to desire’, which is very commonly
found in impersonal constructions in Old and Middle English.21 Other apparent non-impersonal verbs which Denison (1990: 126) brings up are
introduction | 13
blissian ‘to rejoice’, hātian ‘to hate’, hēdan ‘to heed’, irsan ‘to be angry’,
lufian ‘to love’, and murnan ‘to mourn’. A number of researchers have
presented their own semantic classifications of impersonal verbs (e.g.
Wahlén 1925, Ito 1974, Elmer 1981 (slightly revised in Kim 1996), Ogura
1986a, Krzyszpień 1990, Pocheptsov 1997, Díaz Vera 2000a), but the objects of research have generally been the verbs which are actually employed
in impersonal constructions, and hardly any attention has been paid to the
verbs which have an apparent semantic potential for impersonal usage but
which are not known to have occurred in impersonal constructions, namely
‘non-impersonal verbs’.
Several scholars have referred to the question of the fuzzy semantic boundaries between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs, though mostly briefly.
López-Couso (1996: 154) and Anderson (1997: 257), for instance, acknowledge
the fact that Old English already had some lexical restriction on the verbs that
could occur in impersonal constructions, but neither of them offers any analysis on this topic. Krzyszpień (1990) similarly notes that verbs appearing in
impersonal constructions are an open category. He mentions in passing the
‘gaps’ in the semantic areas of those verbs: verbs of remembering such as remembren and mēnen ‘to remember’, verbs denoting shame like (for)sceamian ‘to be (greatly) ashamed’, and verbs expressing cold like calan ‘to be or
become cold’ are employed in impersonal constructions, whereas verbs of forgetting, envy, and warmness are not (1990: 77).22 Krzyszpień tentatively hypothesizes as follows, without attempting to deal further with this problem
(see also Malak 2008: 262):
Though it is difficult to account for the absence of such verbs in the impersonal
construction, one may hypothesize that they either did not appear in this construction as a matter of usage or they did enter this construction on occasion but
this use was not recorded in writing. (Krzyszpień 1990: 77)
Allen (1995: 129 n. 35) notes that non-impersonal verbs ‘usually refer to
quite a strong emotion’ such as love and hate (see also Croft 1991: 296 n. 34)
but admits that there are ‘enough exceptions’. This leads her to conclude that
‘it is difficult to make a watertight semantic generalization about when dative
case was required’. Most recently, Möhlig-Falke (2012: 67) observed that dif­
ferent choices in the morphological realization of Experiencers (e.g. nominative case for lufian ‘to love’ and objective case for līcian ‘to please’) might
have been made available by the double properties exhibited by Experiencers
(i.e. ‘proto-agent property of sentience’ and ‘proto-patient property of affectedness’). This is because Experiencers are animate and prototypically human
and thus potentially capable of sentience, intention, and control, and they are
also emotionally affected by undergoing an experience. Apart from this brief
hypothesis, which appears to suggest that verb meanings did not play an important part in drawing boundaries between impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs (see also Malak 2008: 30, 259, 265), no further investigation of the topic
is offered in her study.
14 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
It is now clear enough that, regardless of intensive research into impersonal constructions in the history of English, there is more that remains to be
done, especially lexical semantics of these constructions, and that any references to this topic in previous studies have not been much more than short
and provisional observations, partly due to the assumed difficulty of the question. Nevertheless, in order to understand impersonals, one should look at not
only ‘the internal boundaries’ but also ‘the outer perimeter’ (Denison 1990:
122), namely a point of contact between impersonal verbs and non-impersonal
verbs. This problem will be taken up again at the beginning of the next section, which summarizes three issues which have been under-discussed in
previous studies of impersonal constructions and will therefore be addressed
specifically in the present study.
1.3 Issues to be Addressed
1.3.1 Feasibility of Making Semantic Distinctions between Impersonal
and Non-impersonal Verbs
Considering that Old and Middle English texts which have survived till today
are limited in number, we can never entirely reject the possibility that some of
the apparent non-impersonal verbs may actually have been used in impersonal constructions in non-surviving texts or manuscripts, as hypothesized by
Krzyszpień (1990: 77). Nevertheless, granted that a ‘watertight’ semantic generalization may indeed be ‘difficult’, as Allen (1995: 129 n. 35) observes, it is
still worth examining whether we can make at least partial generalizations.
When some verbs have a certain syntactic feature while others do not, it is
highly likely that the latter verbs lack some of the properties shared by the
former, even though the semantic boundaries between them may at first
appear to be rather unclear. As we will see in Chapter 2, there have been a
number of investigations into the question of why apparent near-synonymous
verbs in early English have different syntactic features, which may provide
crucial frameworks for tackling the question with regard to impersonal and
non-impersonal verbs. Through a close comparison of their occurrence properties, this study will attempt to identify what might have contributed to subtle
distinctions between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs, at least as far as
Middle English verbs of emotion are concerned.
A potentially interesting line of inquiry for the purpose of the present study
is offered in Pishwa (1999). Pointing out that semantic features differentiating
between nominative and oblique Experiencers ‘can best be understood if verbs
with an oblique argument are contrasted with verbs with a nominative subject’ (1999: 133), Pishwa offers the following brief comparison of lufian and
līcian from a semantic and psychological point of view:
A comparison of lufian with a nominative subject and lician with a dative argument, we can assume the following: while love tends to be analysable and
introduction | 15
eventually controllable long-term feeling, liking is rather an immediate and
unanalysed feeling for the experiencer and cannot therefore be controlled;
what is more important is that in ‘liking’ the properties of the object, i.e. the
source of the feeling, are of more importance than in ‘loving’, in which the
feeling of the experiencer is the salient part. Confirmation for this assumption
can be found in many languages, in which the preverbal argument appears in
the dative (German and Latin) or in the partitive (Finnish) with ‘like’; in these
languages, the verb ‘love’ appears with a nominative subject.
Croft (1991: 296 n. 34) observes that he is not aware of the case where the verb
meaning ‘to love’ can be used as an Experiencer-object verb, in modern languages at least, so the non-impersonal use in this case may be universal.
Pishwa’s assumption about the semantic differences between lufian and
līcian is not supported by any independent analysis of actual Old English
data. In addition, her claim that the source of the feeling is more important in
liking seems to be incompatible with Allen’s (1995: 144–9, 328–38) statistical
study, which indicates that with līcian the focus is on the reaction of the Experiencer, whereas with its near-synonymous cwēman and Middle English
plēsen the source of the emotion is more likely to be the topic of discourse
(see section 2.2.3 below). Nevertheless, Pishwa’s argument concerning the
different lengths of the feeling between love and liking is interesting in view
of Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 160–2) hypothesis that, at least for some Old English
impersonal verbs (e.g. (ge)hrēowan ‘to rue’, (ge)sceamian ‘to be ashamed’,
(ge)twēogan/twēon ‘to doubt’), the impersonal construction could be used
to express that the emotion arises spontaneously or with less control on the
part of the Experiencer, while the personal construction might involve the
Experiencer’s contemplation of the situation or more control over the emotion. If we can find textual evidence which illustrates that non-impersonal
verbs such as love tend to denote longer or less immediate feelings than impersonal verbs such as like, we will add an important semantic-psychological
generalization about why some verbs are impersonal and others are not.
1.3.2 Emphasis on Middle English
Other than the lack of serious discussion of verbal semantics, a notable tendency in previous studies of impersonal constructions is that Old English has
always received much more attention than Middle English. Studies which are
dedicated (almost) exclusively to Old English include Wahlén (1925), Fischer
& van der Leek (1983, 1987), Lagerquist (1985), Anderson (1986, 1988), Ogura
(1986a), Brody (1989), Denison (1989, 1990, 1993), van der Wurff (1992),
Warner (1992), de la Cruz (1994), Miranda García & Calle Martín (1999),
Pishwa (1999), Haugland (2006), and Möhlig-Falke (2009, 2012). Some of
these works are fairly comprehensive in their scope of investigation, whereas
studies concentrated on the Middle English period tend to deal with a specific
group or characteristic of impersonal verbs (e.g. Ito 1974, Fisiak 1976, Butler
1977, Nagucka 1978, Lightfoot 1979, Moessner 1984, Kovatcheva 1986, Mair
16 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
1988, Tani 1997, Pantaleo 2002, Yoshikawa 2006, Miura 2008, Ohno 2010).
This scholarly trend is not well-balanced with the widely known fact that
Middle English experienced substantial syntactic and lexical changes in the
use of impersonal constructions. They gradually lost their productivity to
personal constructions, while numerous verbs of native and foreign origin
made their first appearances in impersonal constructions throughout the
period, and the range of semantic fields licensing impersonal uses became
more diversified than in Old English (see section 1.2.3). For this reason the
data analysis of this book focuses on the Middle English period, although in
Chapter 4 I will refer to the Old English situation in order to gain a general
understanding of how semantics of impersonal verbs of emotion developed
diachronically.
1.3.3 Insights from Psych-Verbs in Modern Languages
A large number of Old and Middle English impersonal verbs overlap semantically, and often lexically, with modern English psychological verbs, which are
commonly known as ‘psych-verbs’. Landau (2010: 137) offers a helpful definition of these verbs:
A psych verb is any verb that carries psychological entailments with respect to
one of its arguments (the experiencer). A psychological entailment involves an
individual being in a certain mental state. Thus, frighten is a psych verb since
Mary frightened Bill entails that Bill is in a certain mental state (i.e., fright);
whereas invite is not a psych verb, since Mary invited Bill carries no entailments
as to Mary’s or Bill’s state of mind (although it does entail that both are human).
Research on psych-verbs in Present-day English and other modern languages
is abundant (see Levin 1993: 188–9). A great amount of attention has been
devoted to the argument realization of these verbs, which are usually classified into Experiencer-subject verbs (e.g. fear, hate, love) and Experiencerobject verbs (e.g. anger, frighten, please; see Belletti & Rizzi 1988 among
others).
Lightfoot (1991: 129) assumes that Old and Middle English impersonal
verbs do not constitute an arbitrary class but ‘in most cases’ denote psychological or sometimes bodily states. However, these verbs have not been studied in
the light of research on Present-day English psych-verbs (but see van Gelderen
2012), presumably because quite a few of the modern psych-verbs were borrowed from French after the demise of impersonal constructions (see Matsuzaki 2010), and links between the two areas of study are not immediately evident. By the same token, studies of modern English psych-verbs tend not to
adopt a historical perspective. The present study will therefore aim to build
bridges between the two very active areas of research which have so far not
been linked with each other. Particular attention will be paid to notions related to the event structure of the verbs, which ‘are a promising direction in
characterizing verbs’ syntactic behavior’ (Arad 1999: 16; see also Croft 2012).
introduction | 17
The relevance of some of the key factors in the psych-verb literature to the differentiation between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of emotion will be
discussed in section 2.4.
1.4 Outline of the Book
This introductory chapter has provided a careful examination of research context of impersonal constructions in the history of English, with special reference to the different syntactic-semantic definitions and classifications of ‘impersonals’. This process has brought to light an under-discussed area in one of
the most intensively discussed issues in English historical syntax: the interface between the syntax, semantics, and lexis of Old and Middle English impersonal constructions. I will investigate how far a close study of available
evidence will allow for generalizing about the lexical semantics of impersonal
constructions, with particular reference to verbs of emotion in Middle
English.
The next chapter will begin by addressing some general difficulties which
one will face when trying to find evidence for the syntax of a historical language. I will then consider possible methodological approaches to be adopted
in this book, by carefully reviewing several case studies of apparent near-­
synonymous verbs in early English: Elmer (1983) on late Middle English
sēmen and thinken ‘to appear to’, Denison (1990) on some Old English impersonal and non-impersonal verbs, Loureiro-Porto (2009) on verbs of need
from Old to early Modern English, Allen (1995) on Old and Middle English
līcian/līken and (ge)cwēman/quēmen ‘to please’, and Carroll (1997) on
fourteenth-­century cooking verbs. These studies identify different factors that
determine different syntactic behaviour of the verbs in question, and I will
examine their usability for this book. Some of these studies and most of the
previous works on impersonal constructions make use of semantic roles such
as Experiencer and Cause. Concepts of semantic roles have not been uncontroversial in the semantic description of the language, but employing some labels
is inevitable in discussions of impersonal constructions, or any verbal constructions. I will thus provide a brief account of how semantic roles have been
treated, especially in previous studies on impersonal constructions. Finally, as
proposed in section 1.3.3 above, I will discuss two of the concepts regarding
event structures, namely causation and aspect. They have been crucial in approaches to psych-verbs in modern languages, and they will also be shown to
be potentially important in distinguishing impersonal verbs of emotion from
near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs.
Chapter 3 will first emphasize the need for narrowing down the targeted
domains, not only because verbs with impersonal usage belong to a vast range
of semantic fields but also because, despite several apparently thorough lists
compiled by scholars over the years, it is not practical to produce a truly comprehensive list of all the impersonal verbs in the history of English. This book
18 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
will centre on verbs of emotion, which represent the largest semantic class
that allowed occurrence in impersonal constructions in Old and Middle English. The membership of ‘verbs of emotion’ will be based on the classification
in the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary (HTOED), which
records virtually all the words from Old to Present-day English which have
been used to express a certain concept. Very useful and now essential as it is
for any historical study of the English lexis, the HTOED has some peculiarities to be borne in mind, which will be explained in the last section of the
chapter.
Having selected the lexical field of investigation, in Chapter 4 I will trace
the presence, absence, and spread of impersonal usage with verbs in each of
the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories. I will resort to the information provided in
historical dictionaries such as Bosworth & Toller’s An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary,
the Dictionary of Old English, and the Middle English Dictionary in order to examine whether any common semantic feature exists among verbs which occurred in impersonal constructions, within a single category as well as across
different categories. There is always a risk in depending too much on dictionary definitions for a semantic analysis. Nevertheless, with due caution, these
definitions can offer interesting generalizations to be tested against actual
examples (see Diller 2008: 124, 127).
Chapter 5 on data analysis constitutes the central part of this book, with an
exclusive focus on the Middle English period. Examples will be taken from the
entries of the relevant verbs in the Middle English Dictionary. The chapter
therefore does not form a corpus-based analysis in the strict sense of the term
(McSparran 2002: 130): it is qualitative rather than quantitative. The criticism
below is addressed specifically to the OED, but it generally applies to the MED
as well:
Such work [= citation slips], however, differed greatly from the use of a corpusbased approach today. First of all, these earlier text collections were not meant to
be representative of the language [. . .]. Even other dictionaries, which were
meant to be more complete and objective, were limited by the methods available
for collecting and analyzing citations. The entries in the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, were dependent upon what the volunteer readers happened to
notice, [. . .]. (Biber, Conrad & Reppen 1998: 22; see also Molina 2008: 4)
In contrast to the OED, illustrative quotations in the MED are not much employed in lexical studies of Middle English. However, for the purpose of the
present investigation, which deals with a large number of rather infrequent
verbs which are rarely or even never attested in some standard corpora, the
MED entries have real advantages over conventional corpus material and allow
one to discuss every verb on an impartial basis. This will be demonstrated by
the full and careful use of the available data, which will be examined according to the factors to be discussed in Chapter 2. Each of these factors—constructional patterns, animacy of the Target of Emotion, argument alternation,
causation, and aspect—will be discovered to play important roles, of varying
introduction | 19
degree, in licensing impersonal usage with Middle English verbs of emotion.
It is thus viable to make reasonable predictions about when a verb of emotion
is most likely to be employed in impersonal constructions during the Middle
English period.
Concluding arguments from issues raised throughout the book will be presented in Chapter 6, adopting further ideas from psychology. It will be shown
that boundaries between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of emotion
have interesting correlations with how emotions are defined and classified in
psychology. I will also suggest some research topics that can be pursued from
the findings of this study.
20 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
CHAPTER
2
Theoretical and Methodological
Considerations
this chapter is devoted to discussing theoretical and methodological matters for addressing the main issue in the present study, i.e. why some verbs
occurred in impersonal constructions while others, near-synonyms, did not.
I will first point out some general concerns in (not) detecting evidence for a
syntactic investigation of a historical language (section 2.1). Next comes a
review of several previous attempts at shedding light on the syntax and semantics of a pair or group of near-synonymous verbs in early English (section 2.2): Elmer (1983), Denison (1990), Loureiro-Porto (2009), Allen (1995),
and Carroll (1997), each of which approaches the topic by using different
theoretical frameworks. I will show that their approaches are all worth following up for the purpose of this book. Some of these works employ semantic roles such as Experiencer and Theme. Considering that they have been
important yet controversial in studies of verbal constructions in general, I
will refer to two of the recent treatments of semantic roles, Herbst et al.
(2004) and Möhlig-Falke (2012), both of which target wide-ranging semantic fields, in contrast with the studies cited above (section 2.3). Section 2.4 is
concerned with approaches to psych-verbs in modern languages including
English. The discussion will focus on causation and aspect, critical factors
in the classification of these verbs. They are usually divided into Experiencer-­
subject verbs (e.g. admire, despise, detest, enjoy, esteem, fear, hate,
honour, like, love) and Experiencer-object verbs (e.g. amuse, astonish,
bore, frighten, please, scare, surprise, terrify, thrill; lists taken from
Croft 1991: 214, 1993: 56). The division coincides nicely with the question of
semantic distinctions between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs,
namely why some verbs allow for an objective Experiencer while others consistently choose a nominative Experiencer. A summary of the chapter will be
provided in section 2.5, along with the general research scheme for the data
analysis in Chapter 5.
2.1 Positive and Negative Evidence for Studying the Syntax
of a Historical Language
Positive evidence here refers to data which show that ‘a certain form/­
construction is possible in a specific context’ (Penke & Rosenbach 2007: 7),
while negative evidence concerns the situation where one cannot find a form/
construction in a given corpus. Unlike a study which deals with a modern
language, a study which discusses the syntactic structure of a historical language cannot resort to native speaker intuitions but is obliged to extract evidence from surviving corpora. Whether or not relevant data can be obtained
depends on the size of the corpus and the frequency of the item. To put the
case in the context of this book, if a verb is attested in impersonal constructions several times in texts of different authors, one will be justified in concluding that the usage was idiomatic in the language of that time. If these
texts are later than 1500, however, the examples are likely to be archaic or idiomatic expressions (see section 1.2.3). If a verb is used in impersonal constructions several times but the instances are restricted to a single text or author, it
may just be the idiosyncratic usage of the author.1
Care is required when the construction occurs only once in the entire
corpus or is not found at all. A number of verbs studied in this book have only
one instance of an impersonal construction in the chosen corpus, as we will
see in Chapters 4 and 5. In principle, we should not put too much emphasis
on these isolated examples. Carroll (1997: 66) aptly draws attention to ‘[t]he
danger of a single example distorting the analysis’ by referring to Lightfoot’s
(1991: 111) warning against ‘[t]aking “a single example from the thirteenth century” as evidence that such sentences were grammatical for all speakers of the
language’. These examples certainly ‘can tell us what the language has done’
(Levin, Song & Atkins 1997: 25), but they are better treated as nonce expressions, or even possible scribal errors (Carroll 1997: 66 n. 58; see also Penke &
Rosenbach 2007: 8). This does not mean, however, that these one-off examples must be completely disregarded. Denison (1993: 130) argues that nonceoccurrences and mistakes ‘testify both to the influence of one surface form on
another and to the existence of conflicting choices among variants’. Caution is
certainly needed, but when these instances are put together, they can unearth
interesting trends in language change.
Historical linguists have shown different attitudes towards the lack of a
construction in the corpus (Carroll 1997: 65; see also Penke & Rosenbach
2007: 8). Some consider it as suggestive of the fact that the construction was
ungrammatical (e.g. Traugott 1992: 168), whereas others assume a careful
stance, hypothesizing that the construction presumably existed in the language but happened not to be recorded in the surviving texts (e.g. McMahon
1994: 115; see also Krzyszpień 1990: 77 and Malak 2008: 262). How to deal
with negative evidence, which is ‘of a much weaker type than positive evidence’ (Penke & Rosenbach 2007: 8; emphasis in original), is a critical issue
in the present investigation, since when discussing semantic distinctions
22 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
between verbs which behaved impersonally and verbs which apparently did
not, we have to ensure that there is no known evidence of the latter verbs occurring in impersonal constructions. For this purpose I have consulted previous studies and looked up each verb in historical dictionaries, but the unavailability of examples of impersonal constructions in these sources should not
immediately imply that impersonal usage was ungrammatical with that verb
in the language of the time. After all, the surviving texts are restricted in
number and genres and confined to written language. As rightly observed in
Atkins & Levin (1995: 87–8), ‘no corpus can ever offer negative evidence’, but
‘we have to work with what we have got’.
However, negative evidence has different implications depending on the
frequency of the verb. Supposing that a verb is rather rare and attested ten or
fewer times in the corpus,2 then absence of an impersonal instance may well
be accidental. On the other hand, if a verb is attested more than a hundred
times and never occurs in impersonal constructions in the corpus, this is not
negligible. Love and hate are very common verbs in Old and Middle English,
but neither of them is known to be recorded in impersonal constructions.3
Here we can be convinced that the lack of evidence is systematic or has some
principled cause. For this reason, in this study I will occasionally put some
emphasis on negative evidence, but with due care and with reference to the
relatively high frequency of the verb.
2.2 Case Studies of Near-synonymous Verbs in Early English
Akimoto (2008: 245) observes that rivalry among synonymous verbs in the
history of English ‘has rarely been discussed fully’ (see also Fischer 1997a:
467). His remark may be true as far as the whole history of English is concerned, but there have been a number of attempts to examine the varying
syntactic behaviour of near-synonymous verbs in specific periods of early
English, especially Old English. 4 Among others, the topic was discussed by
Elmer and Allen, two of the most notable scholars who studied impersonal
constructions in the history of English, in Elmer (1981) and Allen (1995) respectively. Although their approaches are inevitably rather specific to the
pairs of verbs that they examined, neither of which are an impersonal/nonimpersonal pair, both Elmer and Allen have recourse to the concepts of semantic roles in case grammar, demonstrating that the idea of a thematic pattern which combines a verb and semantic roles can provide valid evidence for
syntactic differences between near-synonyms. Semantic roles in case grammar have been used in the majority of previous studies on impersonal constructions. Research by Elmer and Allen thus offers a reasonable point of
departure for investigations into semantic differences between impersonal
and non-impersonal verbs. I will also introduce two of the studies which can
be seen broadly as ‘followers’ of Elmer’s ideas, namely Denison (1990) and
Loureiro-Porto (2009).
theoretical consider ations | 23
2.2.1 Elmer (1983) in Valency-Based Grammar
After a detailed, primarily descriptive study of the diachrony of Old and
Middle English impersonal constructions in his 1981 monograph, Elmer
(1983) discusses the syntactic paradigms of sēmen and thinken ‘to appear to’
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The former was a loanword from
Old Norse and entered the English language at the beginning of the thirteenth century, whereas thinken had been the main representative of the
semantic class of seem verbs since the Old English period. Despite being synonymous,5 the two verbs had a systematic gap in their syntactic behaviour in
the thirteenth century. Thinken not only occurred in the construction where
the Experiencer is unspecified, as in (2-1) below, but also appeared with an
overt Experiencer, as in (2-2) to (2-4):6
Type I: Experiencer unspecified
(2-1) þa þuhte hit as þah
a þunre dunede
then seemed it as though a thunder resounded
‘then it seemed as though a thunder resounded’
[Seinte Marherete 48.7]
Type II: Experiencer as a pseudo-subject
(2-2) hem
þuhte þet . . .
them-obj seemed that
‘it seemed to them that . . .’
[Trinity Homilies 149.6]
Type III: formal subject + Experiencer as an indirect object
(2-3) Hit
us
þinchet wunder gef . . .
it-nom us-obj seems wonder if
‘It seems to us surprising if . . .’
[La3amon’s Brut 112.2168]
Type IV: Experiencer + nominal complement
(2-4) him
þincheþ þe sinne swete
him-obj seems
the sin
sweet
‘the sin seems sweet to him’
[Trinity Homilies 103.7]
By contrast, sēmen was restricted to constructions where an Experiencer is
absent, as in (2-5), which is the same syntactic type as (2-1):
(2-5) hit
semde read blod
it-nom seemed red blood
‘it looked like red blood’
[Ancrene Riwle 28.35]
This constraint on sēmen continued up to about the middle of the fourteenth
century. Elmer attributes the non-occurrence of sēmen with an Experiencer to
24 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
the regular thematic pattern of the verb, where the only lexical NP that was allowed to take the prominent initial position of a sentence was ‘entity’:
Type V: entity in the preverbal position, Experiencer absent
(2-6) þe tre þat semed to bren
the tree that seemed to burn
‘the tree that seemed to burn’
[Cursor Mundi 5749]
This so-called raising construction is not attested with thinken, which regularly chose an Experiencer in the preverbal position.7 Differences in the
number and kind of associated semantic roles thus resulted in different syntactic patterns being available with sēmen and thinken in the thirteenth century, although Elmer does not explain why, in the first place, sēmen was
closely associated with entity.
Elmer (1983: 162) observes that, for a diachronic study of the different
semantic-­syntactic patterning of synonyms, it is best to adopt the descriptive
framework of a valency-based grammar. There have been only a few efforts
to tackle the relationship between the semantic structure of early English
verbs and their syntactic behaviour in this particular framework. In addition, available studies are all largely experimental and only examine Old
English verbs, including some comparisons with current usage (e.g. Hickey
1984, Goossens 1985, Mukhin & Yulikova 1991). Schendl (1992a, 1992b) provides a more serious contribution to the application of valency theory for
describing the syntagmatic relations of the early English verbs, although his
study, based on a selected corpus of Alfredian texts, is still rather provisional
and is primarily classificatory. Schendl (1992a: 294) regards verbs used impersonally as ‘[a] possible exception’ to the state of research on Old English
verb patterns. Scholarship in Old English impersonal constructions was certainly abundant at that time, and a number of new contributions have appeared since then. However, as emphasized in Chapter 1, these studies concentrate on the verbs which are attested in impersonal constructions, not on
the verbs which seem to have the semantic potential to occur in impersonal
constructions but apparently did not (i.e. non-impersonal verbs). There is
thus still room for examining semantic distinctions between impersonal
and non-impersonal verbs by using the general framework of a valency-based
grammar.
The valency grammar of Old English verbs outlined in Schendl’s studies does not seem to have been pursued by subsequent researchers. 8 Nevertheless, the fundamental principle behind it, that of describing and analysing near-synonymous verbs by their complementation patterns, has
something of a tradition, if not always theoretically rigorous (e.g. Ono 1975,
Ogura 1981, 1986b, Goossens 1985). Among others, studies by Denison
(1990) and Loureiro-Porto (2009) are especially worth mentioning, since
both of them are concerned with the syntax and semantics of impersonal
verbs.
theoretical consider ations | 25
2.2.2 Denison (1990) and Loureiro-Porto (2009) on Complementation
Patterns
Denison (1990: 127–34, 1993: 95–6) experiments with a matrix for plotting
similarities and differences between Old English verbs which do and do not
occur in impersonal constructions. He employs the framework of gradience
and serial relationship expounded in Quirk (1965), which illustrates the acceptability of argument realizations. For instance, the non-impersonal verb
geyflian ‘to injure, suffer’ patterns with the impersonal verbs calan ‘to
grow cold’, hyngrian ‘to hunger’, onhagian ‘to be convenient’, (ā)þrēotan
‘to grow weary’, þyrstan ‘to thirst’, and twēogan ‘to doubt’ in the ability to
occur with the Experiencer alone, whereas it shares with the non-impersonal
verb slēan ‘to strike’ the possibility of co-occurrence with a nominative
Cause, the pattern not attested with any of these impersonal verbs (Denison
1990: 133, 1993: 95); geyflian thus shows an intermediate stage in the cline
from non-impersonal to impersonal verbs. Denison argues that serial relationship of this kind has descriptive and explanatory power for variation
within the language. He admits that his matrices showing the occurrence or
non-occurrence in certain constructions with plus and minus symbols are
‘provisional and unsatisfactory’ (1990: 136), but his essential ideas may be followed up for identifying boundaries between impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs.
Loureiro-Porto (2005, 2009) examined the development of the verbs expressing ‘need’ from Old English to the end of early Modern English (c750 to
1710)—tharf, betharf, need, behove, and mister—with special reference
to their grammaticalization as auxiliaries, modal meanings they have expressed (in terms of force dynamics), and occurrence in impersonal constructions. All the above five verbs are attested in impersonal constructions
at some point in the history of English. Loureiro-Porto analysed their ‘impersonality’ according to Allen’s (1995) classification of construction patterns of
‘Experiencer verbs’, which is revised from the classification in Elmer (1981):
Type N (dative/accusative Experiencer + genitive Theme), Type I (dative Experiencer + nominative Theme), Type II (nominative Experiencer + genitive
Theme), Type S (non-nominative Experiencer + sentential Theme), Type hit
(non-nominative Experiencer + formal hit or þæt + sentential Theme), and
‘Personal’ (nominative Experiencer + sentential Theme). The French loanword mister, which joined the English language at the end of the fourteenth
century, is fairly infrequent and does not display any unique semantic or
syntactic features. However, the other four verbs turn out to have different
characteristics, notwithstanding the fact that they share the basic meaning of
necessity.
Tharf (OE þurfan), which is the most frequent of these verbs in Old English, exhibits a striking tendency to take sentential Themes, especially bare
infinitives, and features mainly in ‘Personal’ constructions, demonstrating
some degree of grammaticalization as an auxiliary verb. Its prefixed derivative
26 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
betharf (OE beþurfan), by contrast, strongly favours nominal complements
and is frequent in Type II constructions:9
(2-7) Ne þurfan we
us ondrædan þa deoflican costnunga.
not need-pl we-nom.pl us dread-inf the devilish temptations
‘We need not be afraid of devilish temptations.’
[2,524 helsinki\coaelet3; = example (3.43) in Loureiro-Porto (2009)]
(2-8) uncuð hware hwa
oðres
beðurfe
unknown where who-nom others-gen needs
‘it is unknown where and who has need of others’
[4,795 helsinki\cmveshom; = example (3.55) in Loureiro-Porto (2009)]
The two verbs are semantically complementary as well. Tharf is common
in non-affirmative contexts and mainly expresses external forces, while
betharf prefers affirmative contexts and shows a pronounced tendency to
convey internal necessity:
(2-9) Hosoeuer bere þis writyng abowte hym, he
thar not drede hym of
whosoever bears this writing about him he-nom needs not dread him of
non enmy ner sodeyn deth, ner fyer, ner watyr, ner poyson, ner preson, ner
no enemy nor sudden death nor fire nor water nor poison nor prison nor
thonder, . . .
thunder
‘Whosoever bears this writing with him need not fear the enemy, or sudden
death, or fire, or water, or poison, or prison, or thunder, . . .’
[4,585 helsinki\cmreynes; = example (3.24) in Loureiro-Porto (2009)]
(2-10) oððe þæs þe
him lyst
oððe þæs þe
hi
beþurfon
or
the which them pleases or
the which they-nom.pl need-pl
‘either what pleases them or what they need/are in want’
[ÆLS (Christmas), 56; = example (3.54) in Loureiro-Porto (2005)]
Behove (OE behōfian), which shows the highest frequency in early Middle
English, has considerable semantic overlap with betharf in Old English as a
verb of necessity and is also primarily employed in Type II constructions, but
over time it specializes into being a verb of appropriateness ‘to be fitting’. The
development is concomitant with a gradual change in the origin and intensity
of the forces it expresses (internal > external > general > epistemic; weak >
strong) and the choice of Themes (nominal > sentential), and thus an increase
in the variety of syntactic constructions. Behove loses frequency considerably
in late Middle English and is eventually constrained to Type hit constructions
(with and without an Experiencer, but always with an explicit Experiencer in
Present-day English):
theoretical consider ations | 27
(2-11) It
byhoveth the
to ben
obeisaunt to the maneris of thi lady.
it-nom behoves you-obj [to be]-inf obedient to the manners of your lady
‘It behoves you to be obedient to the disposition of your lady.’
[?a1425(c1380) Chaucer Bo.(Benson-Robinson); = example (4.6) in LoureiroPorto (2009)]
In example (2-11) behove takes a to-infinitival Theme, as it does in Present-day
English, but bare infinitives were more common in periods M2 (1250–1350)
and M3 (1350–1420), especially in the former.10 Behove in these periods thus
represented an incipient stage of grammaticalization as an auxiliary verb, but
this development did not continue. Instead, in early Modern English behove
became specialized as a verb taking to-infinitival Themes.
By the end of the Middle English period need (OE nēodian) semantically
replaces tharf, which was the least frequent verb meaning ‘need’ by then.
Need then shows an increasing tendency to appear in ‘Personal’ constructions, undergoing several changes pertinent to grammaticalization. It enters
the group of auxiliary verbs by the end of the early Modern English period,
becoming the only surviving verb of need today. The example below belongs
to the period E2 (1570–1640):
(2-12)I nede not commend this gentleman to ye, but assuredly he ys gretly to be esteemed. I besech further him yf he shall need your favour.
[27.062 ceecs\leyceste; = example (5.77) in Loureiro-Porto (2009)]
The semantic evolution of need complies with the expected development of
modal verbs (physical > physical-metaphorical > socio-physical > root external >
root internal > root general > epistemic).
Loureiro-Porto does not necessarily make it clear why the five semantic
predecessors of Present-day English need exhibit these and other different
syntactic and semantic features in the course of their history. Nevertheless,
just like Denison (1990), her work duly demonstrates that examining complementation patterns is helpful for elucidating the rivalry of near-synonymous
verbs in general and is also potentially useful for investigating the fuzzy
boundaries between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs.
Various constructional patterns have been discussed in previous studies as
syntactic alternatives for impersonal constructions, of which intransitive,
transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions are important for the purpose
of this research:11
(2-13) In þe erþe he wrote anone Þe synnes of hem euer ech one . . .
in the earth he wrote soon the sins
of them ever each one
Þai
schamed þo & were agaste.
they-nom felt shame then and were aghast
‘On the earth he immediately wrote the sins of each one of them . . . they then
felt shame and were aghast.’
[?a1450 MLChrist (Add 39996) 1160]
28 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(2-14) (a) Forwhy I
schame not þe ewangelye, for it is þe vertue
wherefore I-nom feel shame not [the Gospel]-obj for it is the virtue
of god in to hele to alle folc.
of God in to heal to all folk
‘Wherefore I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the virtue of God
into heal for all folk.’
[a1425(a1400) Paul.Epist.(Corp-C 32) Rom.1.16]
(b) Þis gude lif
schamis vs,
And confundis.
[this good life]-nom shames us-obj and confounds
‘This good life shames and confounds us.’
[a1425 Ben.Rule(1) (Lnsd 378) 47/22]
(2-15) Naked war þai bath tuay; þai
were noght schamed.
naked were they both two they-nom.pl were-pl not
shamed-ppl
‘Both of them were naked; they were not ashamed.’
[a1400 Cursor (Göt Theol 107) 636]
(2-16) Noman scholde schame him
to schewen him such as god made
none-nom should shame him-refl to show
him such as God made
him.
him
‘No man should be ashamed to show him such as God made him.’
[?a1425(c1400) Mandev.(1) (Tit C.16) 118/22]
Experiencer-subject intransitive constructions as in (2-13) and Experiencersubject transitive constructions as in (2-14a) correspond to ‘personal constructions’ in the literature. Several previous studies (e.g. Croft 1991, 1993, MöhligFalke 2012) have proposed that personal constructions tend to be selected
when the emotion arises less spontaneously and is more controlled by the
Experiencer, while impersonal constructions are commonly used when the
emotion is more immediate and less controlled (see section 1.2.4.1), but examples (2-13) and (2-14a) may be taken to indicate that such functional distinctions between the two constructions were not always alive in late Middle English at least. In (2-13), the feeling of shame is contextually rather spontaneous
and there does not seem to be much control on the part of the Experiencer, for
which an impersonal construction should theoretically be more suitable. In
(2-14a), on the other hand, the feeling of shame is less immediate and seems
to be more controlled by the Experiencer, which agrees nicely with the
semantic-­pragmatic function of a personal construction proposed in some
studies. The fact that the functional distinctions between personal and impersonal constructions were getting vague may be one of the factors for the continued use of new verbs in impersonal constructions until the very end of the
Middle English period, if only as nonce expressions, and also for the eventual
loss of these constructions.
theoretical consider ations | 29
Example (2-14b) illustrates a transitive construction where the Experiencer
is in the objective case as in impersonal constructions but there is a nominative subject represented by the Source or Theme (Þis gude lif ). This construction will be used as a syntactic diagnostic for causation, which will be discussed in section 2.4.1.
Möhlig-Falke (2012: 193–7) finds that passive constructions like (2-15) are
attested only rarely with Old English impersonal verbs, in spite of sharing
similar functions with impersonal constructions, namely a shift of perspective by backgrounding the initiator and simultaneously foregrounding the
endpoint of the State of Affairs. Should there be some correlation between
impersonal and passive constructions, there might be some difference in the
formation of passives between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs. It will
thus be worth examining whether the availability of passive constructions distinguishes impersonal verbs from near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs in
any noticeable way.
Reflexive constructions as in (2-16) have often been discussed in relation to
impersonal constructions (e.g. Ogura 1990, 1991, 2003). Möhlig-Falke (2012:
187–92) argues that impersonal and reflexive constructions shared semantic
properties in that they both expressed middle events (Kemmer 1993) and finds
that the reflexive use is scarcely attested with Old English impersonal verbs. The
reflexive use or construction in this context refers specifically to middle-reflexive
use or constructions, where the nominative subject and the reflexive pronoun
share the same participant role (i.e. ‘Emoter’ in Möhlig-Falke’s terminology) and
the reflexive pronoun, which is semantically redundant, is usually a simple pronoun in Old English—Peitsara’s (1997) ‘simple strategy’. Example (2-16), where
the reflexive pronoun him is pleonastic, illustrates the middle-reflexive use. In
the other type of reflexivity, transitive-reflexive (e.g. He loved himself ), the nominative subject and the reflexive pronoun represent different participant roles of
the verb (e.g. ‘Emoter’ and ‘Loved’ in Möhlig-Falke’s terminology), though they
have identical referents. In Old English this type of reflexivity, which is more
emphatic than the simple strategy, is usually expressed by the ‘self-strategy’
(Peitsara 1997), i.e. the personal pronoun plus a form of sylf ‘self’. The number of
verbs which are found both in impersonal and in reflexive constructions is
known to have increased in Middle English (Ogura 1991, 2003), and MöhligFalke (2012: 223) notes that French loanwords reinforced the middle-reflexive
use of impersonal verbs in Middle English. If impersonal constructions correlate
closely with middle-reflexive uses, we might expect that non-impersonal verbs
are either absent from middle-reflexive uses or generally found in transitive-­
reflexive uses. This point should also be investigated in the data analysis.
2.2.3 Allen (1995) and the Role of Animacy
Allen’s (1995: 144–9, 331–8) close examination of līcian/līken and (ge)­
cwēman/quēmen in Old and Middle English highlighted the importance of
looking into properties of verbal complements for identifying subtle semantic
30 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
distinctions between apparent synonyms (see also Allen 1986: 403–5). Both
līcian and (ge)cwēman are normally glossed as ‘to please’, and in Old English
they assigned the dative case to the Experiencer and the nominative case to the
Theme. Līcian eventually underwent a change in the case marking of the
Experiencer, namely from dative to nominative. This did not happen with
(ge)­c wēman, even though it survived into and beyond the Middle English
period. The OED records the sense ‘to please’ until 1628 (s.v. queem, v. †2. a.).
The verb itself is last recorded in 1991 under the sense ‘to join or fit (a thing)
closely; to fit exactly with’ (ibid., 4.).
Through an extensive study of Old and Middle English texts, Allen finds
that crucial differences between līcian/līken and (ge)cwēman/quēmen lie
in the animacy of Theme, or ‘Target of Emotion’ in her terminology, and the
weight of the arguments. The Target of Emotion of līcian/līken was typically
non-human in Old and Middle English,12 whereas that of (ge)cwēman/
quēmen was nearly always a human being, potentially volitional and bearing
some measure of responsibility for the emotion. It thus played a higher semantic role than Theme, i.e. Cause:13
(2-17) ac Gode
ne licode na heora geleafleast,
ne heora
but God-dat|Exp not pleased no their unbelief-nom|ToE nor their
ceorung,
ac asende him to fyr
grumbling-nom|ToE but sent them to fire
‘but God did not like their unbelief or their grumbling, but sent fire to them’
[ÆHom 21 [0014 (68)]; Allen 1995: 114–15]
(2-18) gif hig
gode
willan rihtlice cweman
if they-nom.pl|ToE God-dat|Exp will-pl properly please
‘if they wish to please God properly’
*hig = þa þe þyssere þeode nu sceolan rædan ‘those who must now advise this
people’
[HomU 40 (Nap 50) [0021 (66)]; Allen 1995: 146]
In addition, with līcian/līken, the Experiencer was likely to be pronominal and was thus the more topical argument, while with (ge)cwēman/quēmen
the Target of Emotion was more likely to be pronominal and played the more
topical role:
(2-19) Ac swa þeah soðlice me
liciaþ ealle
þa þe
þu
but however truly me-dat/acc|Exp pleases all-acc|ToE those which you
sægst
say
‘but, however, all those that you say truly please me’
[GDPref and 4 (C) [0099 (6.270.21)]; Allen 1986: 395]
theoretical consider ations | 31
(2-20) ic
cweme drihtne
on rice
lyfigendra.
I-nom|ToE please Lord-acc|Exp in kingdom of the living
‘I please the Lord in the kingdom of the living.’
[PsGlF (Kimmens) [1915 (114.9)]; DOE s.v. cwēman]
Allen concludes that the choice between the two verbs was ‘essentially a
choice about what to emphasize’ (1995: 147): with (ge)cwēman/quēmen the
emotion was portrayed as something that stemmed from actions or characteristics of the Target of Emotion, whereas with līcian/līken the focus was on
the reaction or some personality trait of the Experiencer. This emphasis upon
the Experiencer caused the dative Experiencer of līcian/līken to be reana­
lysed as a nominative argument during the Middle English period.
Allen also shows that please, which was borrowed from Old French in the
late fourteenth century, took over the functions of (ge)cwēman/quēmen: its
Target of Emotion in Chaucerian works was typically animate and was likely
to be pronominal and thus the topic of discourse. The Target of Emotion of
please must be regarded as a Cause, just like that of (ge)cwēman/quēmen, in
view of the greater responsibility attributed to it by the speaker. The Experiencer of please thus remained an object in the construction where both the
Experiencer and Target of Emotion are denoted by NPs.14
For the purpose of the present study, what is particularly important regarding līcian/līken and (ge)cwēman/quēmen is that, while the former
was used in impersonal constructions in Old and Middle English, the
latter did not behave impersonally until the fourteenth century (see Ogura
2004: 501):
(2-21) Of Demephon riht wel hire
qwemeth, Whan he was come.
of Demephon right well her-obj pleases
when he was come
‘She was very well pleased with Demephon when he came.’
[(a1393) Gower CA (Frf 3) 4.746; MED s.v. quēmen 1c.]
Considering that (ge)cwēman is attested in Old English quite frequently (approximately 160 occurrences; DOE s.v. cwēman, gecwēman), the lack of impersonal usage before the fourteenth century is very likely to be a systematic gap.
The OED does not recognize the impersonal use of queem at all, and four of
the seven instances of impersonal constructions (with formal it) quoted in the
MED entry are from Gower. It is therefore safe to assume that queem is one of
those verbs which occurred in impersonal constructions only sporadically or
exceptionally during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (see section 1.2.3):
it is not a core member of the impersonal verbs. Putting together these facts
and Allen’s findings, one may hypothesize that there is some link between the
presence or absence of impersonal usage and the animacy of the Target of
Emotion. Indeed, Möhlig-Falke (2012: 109, 150) observes that, for most Old
English impersonal verbs, the second participant is ‘typically inanimate’. It
will therefore be worthwhile to examine whether Middle English impersonal
32 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
verbs also generally favour inanimate Targets of Emotion or whether these
verbs are distinguishable from near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs by the
animacy of their Targets of Emotion.
2.2.4 Carroll (1997) in Levin’s (1993) Framework
The approach taken by Carroll (1997) is not concerned particularly with semantic roles like Elmer (1983) and Allen (1995) but is more syntax-centred.
She conducted a large-scale investigation of the syntax-semantics interface of
a group of Middle English verbs within the theoretical framework of Levin
(1993), which targets Present-day English verbs. Working under the hypothesis that the syntactic behaviour of a verb is determined by its meaning, Levin
provides extensive lists of verb classes and diathesis alternations which she
assumes to be relevant to the classes. Levin identifies verbs of cooking in
Present-­day English as a semantically and syntactically coherent class (1993:
143–4). This motivates Carroll to explore the extent to which their fourteenthcentury counterparts manifest common syntactic and semantic characteristics to form a similarly coherent class (see also Carroll 2000).
Carroll first studies the syntactic behaviour of the four most common verbs
in her corpus, namely boilen ‘to boil’, frīen ‘to fry’, rōsten ‘to roast’, and
sēthen ‘to seethe’, in order to identify their shared construction patterns. She
then proceeds to examine the semantic and syntactic characteristics of contemporary potential cooking verbs, which express actions involving the application of heat to food. The verbs which pattern syntactically with the four basic
verbs are found to share semantic characteristics as well: they all express
‘manner-specific methods of treating foodstuffs with heat, producing irreversible results’ (Carroll 1997: 229). It should be noted that these results are
not lexicalized in the verb. This can be confirmed from the occurrence of the
cooking verbs in the Resultative Construction, which ‘consists of a phrase
describing or further specifying the resultant state of the noun affected by the
verb’ (1997: 147):
(2-22) fry hem broun
fry them brown
‘fry them [= dough balls] brown’15
[Forme of Cury 116/9; = Carroll’s example 50 a., Chapter 4]
The hypothesis that the fourteenth-century cooking verbs form a semantic
class manifesting common syntactic behaviour receives further support from
verbs outside this particular class. As evidence for this, Carroll finds that the
verbs which demonstrate syntactic characteristics at variance with those of the
basic cooking verbs are semantically dissimilar to them in systematic ways.
For instance, verbs of change of state such as chaufen ‘to chafe’, drīen ‘to
dry’, hēten ‘to heat’, and melten ‘to melt’ are not attested in the Unspecified
Object Construction, where the verb lacks an overt object but can be interpreted transitively, and in the full Together Reciprocal Alternation, in which a
theoretical consider ations | 33
construction with a direct object and a prepositional phrase alternates with a
construction with a coordinate NP object and together (Carroll 1997: 172–3,
182–5, 189–91, 197–200).16 By contrast, both patterns are found with the cooking verbs, as in (2-23) and (2-24) below, respectively:17
(2-23) He koude rooste, and sethe, and broille, and frye,
he knew roast and seethe and broil
and fry
Maken mortreux, and wel bake a pye.
make pottage
and well bake a pie
‘He knew how to roast and seethe and broil and fry, make pottage, and bake
a pie well.’
[Chaucer, Canterbury Tales I.383–4; = Carroll’s example 11, Chapter 4]
(2-24) (a) Seþ garlik with coryndre
seethe garlic with coriander
‘seethe garlic with coriander’
[Macer Floridus 68/5; = Carroll’s example 37 a., Chapter 4]
(b) seþe to geder schepes talow, & malwe . . .
seethe together sheep’s tallow and mallow
‘seethe together sheep’s tallow and mallow . . .’
[Medizinbuch 223/26; = Carroll’s example 37 b., Chapter 4]
Unlike the cooking verbs, chaufen, drīen, hēten, and melten do not denote
an irreversible action.18 In addition, they are specific with regard to result, but
not manner, while cooking verbs specify manner, but not result.
Lexicalization of manner and result also distinguishes cooking verbs from
verbs of creation and transformation such as dighten ‘to prepare’, greithen
‘to prepare’, and māken ‘to make’. These verbs are unspecified either for
manner or for result and show syntactic characteristics which are distinct from
those of the verbs of cooking (Carroll 1997: 178–81, 186–9, 192–7, 228–9).
Most importantly, they do not demonstrate Causative/Inchoative Alternation,
where the object of a transitive verb can appear as the subject of an intransitive
verb. The alternation is allowed with a large number of cooking verbs, or verbs
of change of state in general (Carroll 1997: 21):
(2-25) Take þikke almound melk & boyle it,
& as it
boyleth cast yn
take thick almond milk and boil it-obj and as it-nom boils
cast in
a litel wyn
a little wine
‘take thick almond milk and boil it, and as it boils add a little wine’
[Utilis Coquinario 7/1–2; = Carroll’s example 31, Chapter 3]
Carroll refers to Levin & Rappaport Hovav’s (1995: 79–133) account to argue
that the availability of this alternation depends on semantic notions of external causation and spontaneous occurrence which does not require a volitional
34 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
agent. Thus blōmen ‘to bloom’ and blosmen ‘to blossom’, which denote
internally-­caused changes of state, and mōrtheren ‘to murder’, which clearly
requires a volitional agent, do not participate in this alternation but are restricted to the intransitive and transitive uses respectively, despite being verbs
of change of state.
Another distinction between cooking verbs and verbs of creation and transformation observed by Carroll relates to the aspectual classes that they can
denote (1997: 237–9). Carroll regards cooking verbs as Activities on the
grounds that they occur in the Unspecified Object Construction, which is
found with ‘a wide range of activity verbs’ (Levin 1993: 33; see (2-23) above),
and that they can be used with durative expressions:19
(2-26) rost hem til þey be browne
roast them till they be brown
‘roast them till they are brown’
[Utilis Coquinario 23/1–2; = Carroll’s example 17, Chapter 6]
Verbs of creation and transformation, on the other hand, denote Accomplishments, i.e. ‘processes which culminate in a changed (resultant) state’ (Carroll
1997: 239), and do not allow the Unspecified Object Construction. In her introductory chapter Carroll (1997: 24 n. 39) refers to a case where not so much
a semantic component of the verb as its aspectual class could determine its
syntactic behaviour: modern Italian verbs russare ‘to snore’ and arrosire ‘to
blush’. Levin’s hypothesis will expect these verbs, as verbs of bodily processes,
to be syntactically parallel. However, russare is an unaccusative verb, whereas
arrosire is an unergative verb.
Carroll’s work generally provided support for Levin’s hypothesis that the
syntactic characteristics of verbs are semantically determined. The question
that now arises is whether impersonal and non-impersonal verbs are exceptions to Levin’s hypothesis, or whether their semantic differences allow for
some systematic explanations in terms of argument alternations. Quite a few
of the semantic, if not always lexical, equivalents of Old and Middle English
impersonal verbs are subsumed under ‘Psych-Verbs (Verbs of Psychological
State)’ in Levin (1993: 188–93). These are subclassified into amuse verbs
(= Experiencer-object transitive verbs), admire verbs (= Experiencer-subject
transitive verbs), marvel verbs (= Experiencer-subject intransitive verbs), and
appeal verbs (= intransitive verbs which take an Experiencer in a prepositional phrase), with members and their syntactic alternations enumerated for
each subclass. Since Levin deals with verb classes in Present-day English, not
historical English, the verbs that once behaved impersonally are naturally not
distinguished from the other verbs: like and love appear next to each other
in the list of ‘positive’ admire verbs, whereas hate and loathe are both included among ‘negative’ counterparts. The classification may imply that her
framework is not helpful for detecting fine-grained semantic differences between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of emotion. Nevertheless, in
theoretical consider ations | 35
view of its successful application in Carroll (1997) on the fourteenth-century
data, it is still worth testing whether these verbs can be differentiated from
each other according to their argument realization other than their (non-)
participation in impersonal constructions. If no systematic distinctions can
be detected, these verbs will serve as important counter-evidence to Levin’s
hypothesis. If some generalizations are possible, we will have another set of
data which support the hypothesis that word meaning is related to word
behaviour.
2.3 Semantic Roles: Descriptive Adequacy
Semantic roles of verbal complements play a crucial role in Elmer (1983), Allen
(1995), and in the majority of previous studies of Old and Middle English impersonal constructions. However, using a restricted set of semantic roles such
as Experiencer and Cause to describe complementation patterns has often
been questioned (Levin 1993: 189, Croft 2012: 22). To take a recent example
regarding Present-day English, the Valency Dictionary of English (Herbst et al.
2004), which provides a comprehensive description of complementation patterns of English verbs, nouns, and adjectives based on data from the Bank of
English, avoids characterizing each complement by an abstract semantic feature such as ‘+Animate’ or a case-grammar label such as ‘Beneficiary’, on the
grounds that such a presentation has been confirmed to be inadequate for ‘a
sufficiently discrete description of a large corpus’ (Herbst et al. 2004: xxix) as
is attempted in the dictionary.20
The alternative to the use of semantic roles in the Valency Dictionary of
English is to provide the same type of information by means of rather general
terms such as a person, someone or something, or a list of collocates that the verb
takes in that particular sense (Herbst et al. 2004: xxxvii–xxxviii). An approach
similar to the former method is taken by Elmer (1981), who generally uses the
cover term ‘animate-NP’ (abbreviated as NPa) for the Experiencer. This choice,
however, is criticized by Möhlig-Falke (2012: 21) for obscuring ‘the semantic
differences between the participants involved with different impersonal
verbs’.
Möhlig-Falke regards the Experiencer-Cause or Experiencer-Theme frame
in Fischer & van der Leek (1983, 1987) and Anderson (1986) as ‘a misleading
overgeneralization’ (2012: 21). For instance, the use of the label ‘Experiencer’
is questionable with regard to verbs which do not express physical/emotional/
cognitive experiences, such as becuman, gebyrian, and gedafenian, all of
which mean ‘to befit, be suitable/appropriate’ in impersonal usage, and
nēodian, behōfian, and beðurfan, which all denote ‘to need, require; befit’
when used in impersonal constructions (see also Allen 1997: 2).
An alternative approach taken by Möhlig-Falke is grounded on the models
offered by cognitive and construction grammar. It constructs the semantic
frame of each verb with participant roles specific to the verb. Līcian ‘to please;
36 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
be pleased’, for instance, has the initial semantic frame of <Liker, Liked>,
while lāðian ‘to become hateful’ is represented by <Loather, Loathed>. Emotion verbs thus regularly encode two arguments, i.e. Emoter, which is a more
general label for the first participant in emotional events, and some sort of
‘emotive correlative’ (2012: 92), which can be conceptualized either as the
Stimulus or the Target of the emotion depending on which of the two participants is more in control of the emotion and more intentionally involved in the
emotional process in the sentence. Verbs in other semantic fields are similarly
classified on the basis of the nature of the State of Affairs which they denote
and their semantic frames in terms of participant roles.
Employing a restricted set of semantic roles may indeed be problematic for
a comprehensive description of verbs of various semantic fields such as the
one attempted in Herbst et al. (2004) and Möhlig-Falke (2012). However, the
problem should be less serious when we have a narrower focus. In MöhligFalke’s study, all the Old English verbs capable of impersonal use which express physical sensation and emotion encode (to use general labels) ‘Feeler’
and ‘Emoter’, respectively, for the first participant role. On a more specific
level, (ge/of/mis)līcian ‘to (dis)please, be (dis)pleased’ and (ge)lustfullian
‘to rejoice, enjoy, take pleasure, be pleased; desire’ share the semantic frame
<Emoter, Liked>, whereas langian ‘to long for, desire’ and (ge)lystan ‘to
please, cause desire’ are both represented with <Emoter, Desired>. All of these
suggest that, as long as we deal with a reasonably restricted set of verbs, describing their semantic valency with a limited number of semantic roles is
feasible, with some further specification as appropriate.
The present study focuses on verbs of emotion, which will be further defined later in section 3.1. Emotion certainly does not constitute a ‘single’ field
in that there are various kinds of emotion, but all the verbs of emotion unquestionably involve a person who experiences a certain emotion and a person or
thing that triggers the emotion. From Chapter 4 onwards, these are respectively represented with the traditional label ‘Experiencer’ and Allen’s (1995)
‘Target of Emotion’ (abbreviated as ToE). This does not imply that all the instantiations of the Experiencer and Target of Emotion are identical in any context, but they are helpful and justifiable as cover terms. Note that ‘Target of
Emotion’ covers both Cause and Theme, which in principle are distinguished
from each other and not interchangeable (Allen 1995: 144, 147).
2.4 Event Structure of Psych-Verbs in Modern Languages
As introduced in section 1.3.3, ‘psych-verbs’ is a general term for the class of
verbs which express psychological states, including verbs of emotion, the subject of the present investigation. Psych-verbs in modern languages have been
extensively studied with special reference to their different assignment of the
Experiencer, namely as the subject (e.g. I like classical music) or the object (e.g.
Classical music pleases me) of the verb (examples taken from Croft 1991: 214,
theoretical consider ations | 37
1993: 56). This difference in argument realization is closely related to the distinction between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs in Old and Middle
English, i.e. why some verbs chose an objective Experiencer whereas others
occurred consistently with a nominative Experiencer, despite their apparent
near-synonymity. Factors which are known to differentiate between
Experiencer-­subject and Experiencer-object psych-verbs are therefore worth
reviewing in order to identify the determinants of the boundaries between
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of emotion. This section will address
causation and aspect concerning psych-verbs in modern languages. These
event structure concepts are ‘perhaps the two most important components of
lexical analysis’ (Croft 1991: 162) and have also been regarded as playing a vital
part in the analysis of psych-verbs (Arad 1999: 21).
2.4.1 Causation
There is general agreement that, cross-linguistically, Experiencer-object
psych-verbs are lexical causatives, while Experiencer-subject psych-verbs are
not (Croft 1991, 1993, Iwata 1995, Arad 1999, Lavine 2010, Sonnenhauser
2010). Croft (1993: 58) identifies the causal type of psych-verbs as ‘affective
causation—a physical entity bringing about a change in mental state of some
agent’ (see also Croft 1991: 166–7). He proposes that causative and non-­
causative psych-verbs have different semantic structures of events: the former
involve transmission of force, where the Stimulus is required to be the subject
and the Experiencer the object (Croft 1991: 216, 1993: 61; see also Iwata 1995).
In the sentence Classical music pleases me, for instance, the Stimulus subject
classical music transmits force to the Experiencer object me. Non-causative
psych-verbs, on the other hand, do not involve any transmission of force. The
Stimulus is therefore not affected by the Experiencer, and it is often found as
the object, as music in the sentence I like classical music. Waltz (1997: 339) cites
Grimshaw’s (1990) distinction between these two types of psych-verb in terms
of event-sequencing: ‘NOM-C [= nominative Cause] constructions emphasize
event-sequencing, which involves a cause activating the change of a psychological state, for example, two subevents happen in a prescribed order. NOMEXP [= nominative Experiencer] variants, on the other hand, imply that the
cause is absorbed in a neutralized psychological state which does not emphasize event sequencing.’
Croft (1991, 1993) and Waltz (1997) assume that causative psych-verbs imply
a change of state, but opinions vary in this respect. Filip (1996: 139) follows
Croft and argues that the Experiencer of these verbs (‘frighten class’) undergoes a change of state, while Iwata (1995: 114) and Pylkkänen (2000: 431) maintain that the causing eventuality involves the perception of the Cause by the
Experiencer. Arad (1999) and Sonnenhauser (2010) distinguish between
change of state and triggering of state, which go respectively with agentive
Experiencer-object verbs and stative Experiencer-object verbs. Causation
therefore may not necessarily incur a change of state (see section 2.4.2).
38 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Croft (1991: 219, 1993: 63–4, 2012: 233–5) further proposes that, unlike causative psych-verbs, non-causative psych-verbs have no inherent causal directionality that universally determines subject and object choice. They in fact involve
bidirectional transmission of force, with the Experiencer directing attention to
the Stimulus and the Stimulus changing the mental state of the Experiencer
(Croft 2012: 233). The Experiencer and the Stimulus thus act on each other,
forming a two-way causal relation. Möhlig-Falke (2012: 59) notes that in the
Old English period such a relation could be expressed by one and the same
verb with different argument structures, e.g. (ge)līcian, which denoted caused
emotional event when used in personal constructions (‘to please’) and uncaused emotional event when used in impersonal constructions (‘to like’).
The sense of causation has frequently been related to impersonal verbs
since Jespersen (1927: 209) first observed that impersonal constructions generally express a causative meaning (‘give an impression’), whereas personal
constructions have a receptive reading (‘receive an impression’). This hypothesis was adopted later in Lightfoot (1979, 1991; see also Brody 1989: 263, Osawa
1996, and Malak 2008: 40–1). Fischer & van der Leek (1983: 355) associated
three meanings with impersonal verbs depending on the type of construction
in which they occur: Experiencer-subject constructions are receptive, as in
Jespersen’s account, while the causative meaning is associated with Causesubject constructions, and impersonal constructions are neutral. Fischer &
van der Leek assume that the three syntactic patterns apply to every Old English impersonal verb. Denison (1990) pointed out that some of the very
common impersonal verbs such as līcian ‘to please’ and þyncan ‘to seem’
fail to fit these syntactic patterns, but in subsequent studies, Old English impersonal verbs of emotion are generally identified as causative psych-verbs
(Waltz 1997). Allen (1995) and Díaz Vera (2000a), for example, gloss these
verbs explicitly in the causative way, as lystan ‘cause/feel desire for something’ (Allen 1995: 71). Díaz Vera (2000b) argues that impersonal verbs of
emotion in Old English were in general etymologically derived by the addition
of the Germanic causative suffix */ja/ to the relevant nominal root. Explicit
causation is considered crucial even in the Middle English period: MöhligFalke (2012: 211) observes that several causative emotion verbs such as grēmen,
(a)grillen ‘to cause anger’, noien ‘to cause vexation’, and quēmen ‘to cause
pleasure’ were newly attested in impersonal constructions between 1300 and
1400 (see section 1.2.3).
The potential significance of the causative meaning for impersonal verbs of
emotion is strengthened by the fact that love and hate, the two most commonly cited examples of non-impersonal verbs, are not known to have been
used as causative verbs. In this connection, Pylkkänen’s (2000) study of Finnish psych-verbs is of particular interest. Causative psych-verbs in Finnish are
formed by adding the causative suffix -tta to the non-causative psych predicates: e.g. inho-tta ‘disgust’ < inhoa ‘find disgusting’. However, this suffix is
not added to ‘mental states that cannot easily be construed as episodic’ (Pylkkänen 2000: 429), as follows:
theoretical consider ations | 39
rakasta
‘love’
*rakast-utta
‘cause to love’
pitä
‘like’
*pidä-ttä
‘cause to like’
vihaa
‘hate’
*viha-utta
‘cause to hate’
tietä
‘know’
*tiedä-ttä
‘cause to know’
Pylkkänen refers to the fact that none of the Present-day English equivalents
of these verbs has an Experiencer-object form either. We can now hypothesize
that the reason why love and hate did not behave impersonally in the history
of English had much to do with their lack of a causative meaning: they are not
assigned any causative sense in the OED and MED. They thus do not encode
‘causing eventuality’ (Pylkkänen 2000: 431).21 It seems highly promising to
examine whether all the impersonal verbs of emotion had the causative meaning or usage, and whether love, hate, and other non-impersonal verbs of
emotion lacked any causative meaning/usage.
Another important implication of Pylkkänen’s work for the present study is
her reference to the ‘episodic’ meaning absent from the above four verbs. Section 1.3.1 drew attention to Pishwa’s (1999) potentially interesting assumption
that loving involves a long-term controllable feeling while liking is rather an
immediate, uncontrollable feeling. Pylkkänen and Pishwa may appear to disagree about how to conceptualize liking, but this may well be because the
Finnish verb meaning ‘to like’ cannot causativize, whereas like could be used
causatively in early English (‘to please’). Causation and duration of the feeling
thus seem to be mutually related, and this attaches a deeper significance to
investigating textual evidence for potentially different lengths of the emotion
involved in impersonal and non-impersonal verbs, as suggested in section 1.3.1.
2.4.2 Aspect: Stative or Non-stative
Lexical aspect or Aktionsart in psych-verbs has also generated much scholarly
interest. Experiencer-subject verbs are generally agreed to be purely stative
cross-linguistically: ‘the experiencer is characterized as simply being in a
mental state regarding the stimulus’ (Croft 1991: 215, 1993: 56–7; see also Arad
1999: 3). Stativity is explained in more detail in Brinton as follows (1988: 24;
see also Kearns 2000: 150–1, 202, Croft 2012: 34):
States are characterized by the inherent qualities of duration and homogeneity,
as well as by the lack of change, limits, and agency. States exist or endure for an
undefined period of time. They do not change or develop during that period; all
the temporal phases of a state are undifferentiated. States do not happen; they
are not done. Rather, they simply are.
In Present-day English and other modern languages, Aktionsart of
Experiencer-­object psych-verbs has been subject to different opinions (Marín
& McNally 2005: 212, 2011: 468, Landau 2010: 129). Van Voorst (1992) proposed that all psych-verbs are achievements (which are telic; but see Landau
2010: 150), while Filip (1996) argued that causative psych-verbs are atelic.
40 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Arad (1999) developed a theory that Experiencer-object psych-verbs have
both a stative and non-stative reading: the latter involves an agent which
brings about a change of state, whereas the former involves triggering of a
mental state which holds as long as the Experiencer perceives the Stimulus
(see also Pylkkänen 2000: 431–2 and the correlation between ‘affectedness’
and ‘eventiveness’ in Parodi & Luján 2000). Compare the examples below,
where this variation is illustrated with the same verb (Arad 1999: 3):
(2-27) (a) Nina frightened Laura deliberately / to make her go away. [non-stative]
(b) John / John’s behavior / nuclear war frightened Nina. [stative]
Arad further argues that it is stativity that makes the class of psych-verbs deviate syntactically from prototypical transitive verbs, concluding that ‘the “psych”
category does not give us a cohesive syntactic-semantic class’ (1999: 15). Pylkkänen (2000) similarly identified a class of causative psych-verbs in Finnish
which denote temporary ‘stage-level’ states rather than permanent ‘individuallevel’ states (e.g. inho-tta ‘disgust’, sääli-ttä ‘cause to pity’, sure-tta ‘cause to
be sad’; see also Marín & McNally 2005), and another set of causative psychverbs which are non-stative and involve the inchoative morpheme (e.g. raivostu-tta ‘cause to become furious’, kauhi-stu-tta ‘cause to become terrified’,
viha-stu-tta ‘cause to become angry’). Arad’s account is essentially supported
in Sonnenhauser (2010), while Verhoeven (2010) observes that the availability
of the alternation between an agentive/stative and non-agentive/non-stative
reading is subject to typological variation (see also Rozwadowska 2005).
Following Pesetsky (1995), Landau (2010) observes in his recent study of
psych-verbs in various modern languages that Experiencer-object psych verbs, or
Belletti & Rizzi’s (1988) ‘class II’ verbs (nominative Theme + accusative Experiencer; e.g. The show amused Bill),22 are not aspectually uniform. Some verbs (e.g.
scare, startle) favour a non-stative reading; others (e.g. amuse, embarrass) are
neutral, i.e. aspectually ambiguous between eventive and stative readings; yet
others (e.g. concern, depress) are ‘strictly stative’, though they are ‘relatively few’
(Landau 2010: 129). Belletti & Rizzi’s ‘class III’ verbs such as appeal and matter,
which take a nominative Theme and a dative Experiencer, are always stative and
can never be used agentively (e.g. Bob (*deliberately) mattered to his boss).
Marín & McNally (2011: 468 n. 1) similarly note that psych-verbs governing
the dative case are systematically stative, while those governing the accusative
case can have an agentive interpretation of different strength, as illustrated in
the instances below:
(2-28) (a) Marta lo
molesta.
Marta him-acc bothers
‘Marta (actively) bothers/is bothering him.’ [non-stative]
(b) El humo le
molesta.
the smoke him-dat bothers
‘The smoke bothers him.’ [stative]
theoretical consider ations | 41
The examples here are from modern Spanish, but Marín & McNally seem to
think that the same claim can be made for other modern languages.
Landau’s argument is followed by Guidi (2011), who observes briefly that
Experiencer-object psych-verbs in Old English where the Experiencer is accusative are aspectually ambiguous, just as they are in Present-day English:
(2-29) & deofles bearn swa swiðlice motan cristene
bregean
and devil’s son-nom so strongly may Christians-acc terrify
‘and the devil’s son may terrify Christians so strongly’
[WHom 5 [0020 (53)]; = Guidi’s example (37)]
(2-30) Mr Brown annoyed the voters unintentionally/on purpose.
[stative/eventive; = Guidi’s example (15)]
In (2-30) the aspectual difference results from differences in the thematic role
of the non-Experiencer argument: Mr Brown is a Theme in the stative reading
with unintentionally but a Causer in the eventive reading with on purpose,
while the voters is the Experiencer in either interpretation (Guidi 2011: 33). In
the words of Guidi (2011: 41), the Old English sentence (2-29) ‘may be interpreted eventively, where the devil’s son terrifies the christians [sic] on purpose,
say by (appearing in their dreams and) threatening to torture them [. . .], or
statively, if something else caused these people to be scared of the devil’s son
(a story they heard, for example)’. Guidi (2011: 42) notes that these problems in
interpretation emerge for verbs with dative Experiencers too, without further
discussing this issue.23
The lack of unanimous agreement on the aspect of Experiencer-object
psych-verbs in modern languages including English may make one wonder
whether it is useful to examine the aspect of Old and Middle English impersonal verbs. However, as long as aspect has been considered a crucial concept
for psych-verbs and psych-verbs encompass verbs of emotion, the aspect of
impersonal verbs of emotion should not be left undiscussed. Two of the recent
studies of impersonal constructions in fact address this issue, if not with explicit reference to the psych-verb literature.
Referring to his selection of Hopper & Thompson’s (1980: 252) parameters
of transitivity, Trousdale (2008: 309) observes that prototypical instances of
impersonal constructions are ‘atelic, non-volitional and often denote states
rather than actions’; the transitivity of impersonal constructions is lower than
that of prototypical transitive constructions, which are ‘telic, volitional and
denote action’.24 Other parameters associated with low transitivity suggest
that impersonal constructions are non-punctual, with the Agent low in potency and the Object unaffected, while personal, transitive constructions may
be punctual, with the Agent high in potency and Object totally affected. On a
lexical level, Möhlig-Falke (2012: 86, 195) similarly argues that Old English
impersonal verbs are characteristically low in transitivity in that the two profiled participants, i.e. Experiencer and Target of Emotion, are not maximally
opposed to each other, since neither of these participants is highly agentive or
42 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
physically highly affected. She however differs from Trousdale in not assuming any prototypical aspectual type of impersonal verbs: some denote inherently dynamic events (e.g. verbs of emotion), while others express nondynamic
relational situations (e.g. verbs of ownership/appropriateness; Möhlig-Falke
2012: 86). Only the latter are therefore stative. On the one hand, what is maintained by Trousdale and Möhlig-Falke here has an interesting link with what
has been discussed in the psych-verb literature especially since Arad (1999),
namely the relevance of stativity for most of the Experiencer-object verbs, at
least in some contexts. On the other, Trousdale’s remark is not based on any
systematic investigation of the actual data, and Möhlig-Falke does not employ
any of the diagnostics which are commonly used in and beyond the psych-verb
literature to judge the aspect of verbs. There is thus still scope for more systematic investigation into the aspect of impersonal verbs, particularly with
regard to whether they are or can be considered stative indeed.
In English and other modern languages, judgement of (non-)stativity is
usually made by various diagnostics such as combination with certain time
adverbials (e.g. in/for an hour), formation of progressives, interpretation of the
simple present tense (habitual or non-habitual), and occurrence in certain
constructions (e.g. complement to finish and persuade; see Kearns 2000:
204–18 and Croft 2012: 35–6). These tests on modern languages are often difficult to apply to historical languages since researchers cannot resort to native
linguistic intuitions but must depend on the evidence available in surviving
texts (see section 2.1). In addition, most of the patterns in question are too infrequent to be found in the corpora.
Nevertheless, evidence for the interpretation of the simple present tense is
less difficult to obtain, and the usefulness of this diagnostic has been tested
against psych-verbs in different modern languages (Croft 1991: 216, 1993:
57–8, Pylkkänen 2000: 424, Marín & McNally 2005: 214, 2011: 484–5). It is
commonly agreed that non-stative verbs have a habitual reading in the simple
present, whereas stative verbs have a non-habitual interpretation (Kearns
2000: 210; my emphasis):
Non-states
(2-31) (a) Heath bikes to work.
(b) Barry feeds the dogs.
(c) She writes with a fountain pen.
(d) She eats peas but she won’t eat silver beet.
(e) He notices the little details.
States
(2-32)
(a) He believes this rubbish.
(b) All those cupboards contain expensive equipment.
(c) Koalas live on eucalyptus shoots and leaves.
(d) The house stands on a bluff overlooking the upper harbour.
(e) I see the trucks coming.
theoretical consider ations | 43
In the habitual reading the described event is not necessarily occurring at the
time of utterance. In (2-31b), for instance, Barry is not feeding the dogs at the
moment, but he does so habitually. By contrast, states hold at the time of utterance, whether they denote enduring states (2-32a to 2-32d) or temporary situations (2-32e). If impersonal verbs are indeed stative, they should have a nonhabitual interpretation in the simple present, as in (2-32).
It must be admitted here that the present tense in Middle English did not
always have the same functions as in Present-day English. Most importantly,
it could serve the function of the present progressive today (O. Fischer 1992:
240):
(2-33) Thow walkest now in Thebes at thy large,
you walk
now in Thebes at your large
And of my wo thow yevest litel charge.
and of my grief you give little charge
‘You are now walking in Thebes freely and give little care about my grief.’
[Canterbury Tales I.1283–4]
Here walkest has a non-habitual interpretation since the Experiencer is walking at the time of utterance (now), even though it is an uncontroversial eventive verb. It may thus look risky to use the above diagnostic straightforwardly
for the Middle English data. However, the present tense in Middle English
does cover the simple present in Present-day English, and insofar as we make
a careful discussion of habitual versus non-habitual interpretations of specific
examples, with sufficient caution to whether or not they actually involve what
would also be the simple present in Present-day English, the diagnostic is still
worth enough adopting. If impersonal verbs and non-impersonal verbs of
emotion turn out to have different semantics of the simple present tense,
namely whether or not an event must actually hold at the time of utterance,
subtle differences should exist in the nature of the ‘emotion’ expressed by
these verbs, which may ultimately influence the presence or absence of impersonal usage.
Another useful test for (non-)stativity is to examine whether the verb cooccurs with adverbs with eventive meaning, or ‘eventive adverbials’ (Landau
2010: 51). The most clear-cut case concerns rate adverbs such as quickly and
slowly. Compare the following set of examples from Spanish involving the
adverb lentamente ‘slowly’ (Marín & McNally 2011: 480–1; translation as
original):
(2-34) (a) Juan camina lentamente.
‘Juan walks slowly.’
(b) Escribió una carta lentamente.
‘She wrote a letter slowly.’
(c) El agua se enfrió / se evaporó lentamente.
‘The water cooled/evaporated slowly.’
44 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(2-35) (a) *Juan detesta las acelgas lentamente.
‘Juan hates the Swiss chard slowly.’
(b) *Juan admira a su hermano lentamente.
‘Juan admires to [sic] his brother slowly.’
(c) *Maria estaba enferma lentamente.
‘Maria was sick slowly.’
The adverb is compatible with the verbs in (2-34), which are all dynamic, while
it cannot modify any of the verbs in (2-35), which are all stative. If impersonal
verbs are found to co-occur with rate adverbs, the examples serve as evidence
that they are, or at least can be, non-stative.
2.5 Summary: Organizational Framework of the Main
Data Analysis
This chapter has reviewed several theoretical and methodological approaches
which have been adopted in the literature for investigating links between the
syntax and semantics of a pair or group(s) of semantically related verbs in early
English as well as in some modern languages. Several parameters have been
identified as potentially significant for analysing semantic distinctions between
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs. These are now summarized below:
1. Constructional patterns (thematic structure or syntactic patterning)
Are there any noticeable differences between impersonal and near-­
synonymous non-impersonal verbs in (i) the formation and semantics of
Experiencer-subject intransitive and transitive constructions (i.e. personal constructions), which have been claimed in the literature to be
semantically distinct from impersonal constructions, especially regarding control and duration of the feeling, and in (ii) the availability of passive and middle-reflexive constructions, which are said to share similar
functions with impersonal constructions?
2 Animacy of the non-Experiencer argument (Target of Emotion; ToE)
Does animacy play any role in distinguishing impersonal verbs from
near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs? Are inanimate ToEs preferred
with impersonal verbs just as they are with līcian/līken and Old English impersonal verbs in general?
3. Argument alternations
Are there any alternations available only with impersonal verbs or nonimpersonal verbs? Do they provide support or counter-evidence to
Levin’s (1993) hypothesis about the semantic determination of syntax?
4.Causation
Do these verbs have any causative meaning (e.g. ‘frighten’, ‘please’,
‘anger’) or syntactically causative use, namely occurrence in transitive
constructions where the Target of Emotion is the subject (e.g. Classical
music pleases me; see (2-14b) above)?
theoretical consider ations | 45
5.Aspect
Are there any aspectual differences between impersonal and near-­
synonymous non-impersonal verbs? Do they show different results with
aspectual diagnostics (a (non-)habitual interpretation in the simple present, co-occurrence with eventive adverbials)?
A combined approach like this is advisable in view of the common understanding that a single property cannot sufficiently motivate the syntactic behaviour of a class of verbs (Levin 1993: 16, Filip 1996: 143, Levin, Song & Atkins
1997: 25). The above factors will constitute the organizational framework of
the data analysis in Chapter 5, but causation and aspect will also be mentioned
in Chapter 4, where a lexicographical analysis of the semantic history of Old
and Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion will be presented.
46 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
CHAPTER
3
Verbs of Emotion and the Historical
Thesaurus of the Oxford English
Dictionary
in this chapter i will first emphasize the need to be selective about the targeted semantic field, chiefly for practical reasons. Verbs of emotion are chosen
in the present study because they are known to have appeared in impersonal
constructions most commonly. In section 3.2 the Historical Thesaurus of the
Oxford English Dictionary (HTOED) will be identified as an essential tool for
any lexical study of earlier English, although, as with any resource, it has some
specific features that require caution from users, as will be made clear in
­section 3.3.
3.1 Limiting the Field of Investigation
It is not practical for a single researcher to conduct an exhaustive study of the
semantic boundaries between Old and Middle English impersonal and nonimpersonal verbs. Apart from the already stated fact that semantic fields in
which impersonal constructions can appear are immensely broad (see section
1.2.4.2), there has been no absolutely complete list of impersonal verbs in the
history of English. There are several fairly extensive catalogues, mainly for Old
English, in van der Gaaf (1904), Wahlén (1925), Visser (1963), and Ogura
(1986a). The lists of verbs in Möhlig-Falke (2012: 83–4, 206–7, 209–11) may
well be considered most up-to-date and comprehensive at the moment: they
are compiled not only from representative previous studies but also from electronic searches of entries with the label ‘impersonal’ in historical dictionaries
such as the OED and MED. Nevertheless, there are still potentially a large
number of verbs, especially from the Middle English period, which have escaped the eyes of these researchers and lexicographers. The following quotations all come from my own reading of some major works of late Middle English,1 and they all illustrate unambiguously impersonal constructions under
the definition of the present investigation:
(3-1) For if thei bothe pleyne, the poore is but feble,
for if they both complain the poor is but feeble
And if he chide or chatre, hym
cheveth the worse.
and if he chide or chatter him-obj happens the worse
‘For if they both complain, the poor is but feeble, and if he argues or jabbers, it
will turn out worse for him.’
[Piers Plowman B-Text XIV 226–7]
(3-2) And seyde, ‘Ywis, me
dredeth evere mo
and said
indeed me-obj dreads ever more
The sonnes sone, Pheton, be on lyve,
the sun’s son Phaeton be on life
And that his fader carte amys he dryve.’
and that his father’s cart amiss he drive
‘And said, “Indeed, I fear constantly the sun’s son, Phaeton, may be alive, and
that he may drive his father’s chariot awry.”’
[Troilus and Criseyde 5.663–5]2
(3-3) For þoff ȝe gange þus gedy hym gilteles to graue,
for though you go
thus foolish him guiltless to bury
Withouten grounde ȝow gaynes noght swilke greffe to begynne;
without g round you-obj gains not such grief to begin
‘For although you may proceed thus foolishly to bury him who is guiltless,
without reason, it does not gain you anything to begin such hardship.’
[York Plays 26.105–6]
(3-4) The Fader was first as a fust with o fynger folden,
the father was first as a fist with one finger folded
Til hym lovede and liste to unlosen his finger
till him-obj loved and pleased to unloose his finger
‘The Father was first like a fist with one finger folded, until it pleased him to
stretch forth his finger.’
[Piers Plowman B-Text XVII 139–40]3
(3-5) Bensté be herein!
Benedict be herein
So me qwakys,
so me-obj quakes
My hart is outt of skyn,
my heart is out of skin
Whatso
it makys.
whatsoever it makes
‘Bless us! I quake so much, my heart is out of skin, whatever causes it.’
[Towneley Plays XIII 517–20]4
48 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(3-6) Shamefully ȝou
satt to be shente,
shamefully you-obj befit to be ruined
Here combred caystiffes, I call ȝou.
here troubled caitiffs I call you
‘It befit you to be ruined shamefully, troubled caitiffs, I call you here.’
[York Plays 33.202–3]
(3-7) Suffyseth me
to love you, Rosemounde,
suffices
me-obj to love you Rosemond
Thogh ye to me ne do no daliaunce.
though you to me not do no intimate conversation
‘It suffices me to love you, Rosemond, though you may not be sociable to me.’
[Chaucer, To Rosemounde 15–16]
The MED entry for suffīsen ‘to be adequate’ has the label ‘impersonal’ (1c.
‘In impers. and other constructions with hit’), but the verb is missing from
Möhlig-Falke’s list of new impersonal verbs in Middle English.5 The impersonal use of chēven ‘to happen’, drēden ‘to dread’, geinen ‘to avail’,
lŏven ‘to love’, quāken ‘to quake’, and sitten ‘to befit’ is not mentioned in
the sources which she consulted, with the exception of chēven, drēden,
and lŏven in Miura (2008). The impersonal usage with chēven is acknowledged in its MED entry, but relevant quotations are provided without
any explicit label in the definition (s.v. 4. (b)). Instead, editors provide the
gloss ‘him cheveth the worse, worse happens to him, he is worse off; us ~ sore,
it grieves us’. It is very challenging to electronically search for glosses like
this for all the verbs in the dictionary, but they are in fact not uncommon
in the MED. For instance, an unambiguous impersonal use of angren in
the Morte Arthure is quoted only with the gloss ‘me angers, I resent’ (s.v.
angren 2. (b)). By the same token, a single impersonal instance of auen in
Robert of Mannyng’s Handlyng Synne is separated from other senses and
simply annotated as ‘him aueth, he is in awe, he fears’ (s.v. auen (c)). Illustrative quotations of areuen ‘to feel regret or remorse; feel pity or compassion’ and arghen ‘to grow faint or disheartened; be fearful, timid, or reticent’ contain unquestionable instances of impersonal constructions,
but they are only described as ‘with personal obj.’ (s.v. areuen 2. (a); arghen
1. (b)):6
(3-8) Þah
he ȝeue hem cattesdryt to huere companage, ȝet hym
shulde
though he give them cat dung to their food
yet him-obj should
arewen
of þe arrerage.
feel remorse of the shortfall
‘Even though he may give them cat dung for their food, he should feel remorse
for the shortfall.’
[c1325 Of Rybaud3 (Hrl 2253) 63]
verbs of emotion and the htoed | 49
(3-9) Quod þe qwene, ‘me
arȝes of my-selfe; I am all in aunter, sa akis
said the queen me-obj fears of myself
I am all in danger so aches
me þe wame.’
me the stomach
‘Said the queen, “I am fearful for myself; I am completely in danger, so aches
my stomach.”’
[c1450(?a1400) Wars Alex. (Ashm 44) 537]
Faced with these instances even from much-studied texts, one can easily
imagine that there might be numerous verbs with unnoticed impersonal
usage, if only in a nonce expression. There is thus no knowing how many
more verbs occurred in impersonal constructions until one reads all the extant
texts, which is obviously impractical. We must necessarily be selective in our
investigations.
Among a number of semantic fields which allowed impersonal constructions in the history of English, catalogues of verbs in previous studies clearly
indicate that the lexical domain of emotion or feeling is richest in the number
of verbs with the impersonal usage. Băncilă (1991: 44) notes that verbs expressing emotional experiences or psychological states far outnumber verbs of
other semantic classes in their ability to appear in impersonal constructions.
Allen (1997: 2) also points out that many, but by no means all, verbs with an
impersonal use are verbs of emotion, while Malak (2008: 189) claims that impersonal verbs in Old English ‘form one semantic group’, namely ‘emotional
states’. Möhlig-Falke (2012: 113, 148) confirms that the semantic field of emotion exceeds other fields in the type and token frequencies of impersonal uses
in Old English, even though there are some variations in distribution among
its members. Moreover, the majority of verbs which have been mentioned as
having the semantic potential to occur in impersonal constructions denote
emotion, with love and hate the most frequently cited candidates. Verbs of
emotion thus provide the best and largest single lexical domain to examine the
syntax-semantics boundaries between impersonal and non-­impersonal verbs.
3.2 The Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English
Dictionary (HTOED)
The next issue to be tackled is how to identify Old and Middle English ‘verbs
of emotion’. Until very recently, it was rather difficult to know the range of
words associated with a certain concept such as ‘emotion’ throughout or at
some stage of the history of English. The OED allows us to see historical information about individual words, but its alphabetical arrangement of headwords makes it challenging to find out the semantic relationships existing
between those words. The HTOED was designed to make this possible, as is
borne out in Fischer (1989: 74) twenty years before the thesaurus came out:
‘Until the publication of the Glasgow Historical Thesaurus of English it is
50 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
probably impossible for a single researcher to collect all signifiants representing one signifié from early Old English to the present day.’
The main purpose of the HTOED is to provide detailed data concerning the
nature and development of the English vocabulary at all periods of its history
from the Anglo-Saxon time to the present day.7 It extracts and reorganizes the
data from the second edition of the OED.8 The materials from the Thesaurus
of Old English (TOE), which was compiled from Bosworth & Toller’s An AngloSaxon Dictionary, Clark Hall (1960), and the Dictionary of Old English (DOE)
to the extent that it was available, are supplemented in order to remedy the
exclusion from the OED of Old English words which did not survive into
Middle English. All the data, comprising 800,000 words and meanings, are
classified into semantic categories and presented in chronological order with
their dates of use,9 accompanied by regional and stylistic labels where appropriate. The HTOED thus allows the user to see the range of vocabulary for a
given object or idea at any period of the English language.
The semantic classificatory system of the HTOED is a modified folk taxonomy, which is based on an analysis of semantic features of a set of keywords
using a method comparable to componential analysis (Kay & Samuels 1975).
There are three major divisions in this taxonomy: (I) ‘The external world’, including the physical universe, plants, and animals; (II) ‘The mental world’,
covering man’s mental activities; and (III) ‘The social world’, which deals with
social structures and artefacts. These groupings are followed by twenty-six
main category headings as reproduced below,10 which are in turn divided into
numerous semantic fields and subfields.
I The external world
01 The world
01.01 The earth
01.02 Life
01.03 Physical sensibility
01.04 Matter
01.05 Existence in time and space
01.06 Relative properties
01.07 The supernatural
II The mental world
02 The mind
02.01 Mental capacity
02.02 Emotion
02.03 Philosophy
02.04 Aesthetics
02.05 Will/faculty of will
02.06 Refusal/denial
02.07 Having/possession
02.08 Language
III The social world
03 Society
03.01 Society/the community
03.02 Inhabiting/dwelling
03.03 Armed hostility
03.04 Authority
03.05 Morality
03.06 Education
03.07 Faith
03.08 Communication
verbs of emotion and the htoed | 51
03.09 Travel/travelling
03.10 Occupation/work
03.11 Leisure
Within each of these categories the words are arranged in numbered hierarchy according to their meanings, leading from the general to the particular. The abridged example reproduced below shows ‘Knife/dagger’ at
the seventh level of the hierarchy that starts off from ‘Society’, which becomes more specific as the hierarchy descends in numbered stages (Kay
et al. 2009: xxii).
03 Society
...
03.03 Armed hostility
...
03.03.16 Military equipment
...
03.03.16.01 Weapon
...
03.03.16.01.03 Sharp weapon
...
03.03.16.01.03.06 Side-arms
...
03.03.16.01.03.06.02 Knife/dagger
Category headings thus vertically hold a relationship of hyponymy, the semantic relationship ‘is a kind of’: knife/dagger is a kind of side-arms, which are a
kind of sharp weapon, and so on. It is to be noted that the lexis of abstract
qualities and mental processes is less hierarchical in structure: for instance,
the terminology describing emotions is largely organized by degree (‘somewhat X’, ‘very X’, ‘excessively X’, etc.; Kay & Wotherspoon 2005: 49–50). On a
horizontal level, there is a loose relationship of synonymy among members of
a category. Words subsumed under the same heading can therefore be regarded as rough synonyms, and the semantic overlaps between the words increase as we go down the hierarchy.
The words denoting emotion, the subject of the present study, can be found
in the category ‘Emotion’, which forms the second part of Section II and consists of the following subcategories (noun headings only):
02.02 Emotion
02.02.01 Seat of the emotions
02.02.02 Emotional perception
02.02.03 Quality of affecting emotions
02.02.04 Effect produced on emotions
02.02.05 Emotional attitude
52 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
02.02.17 Excitement
02.02.18 Composure/calmness
02.02.19 Pleasure/enjoyment
02.02.20 Mental pain/suffering
02.02.21 Anger
02.02.06 State of feeling/mood
02.02.07 Manifestation of emotion
02.02.08 Capacity for emotion
02.02.09 Sentimentality
02.02.10 Absence of emotion
02.02.11 Types of emotion
02.02.12 Intense/deep emotion
02.02.13 Sincere/earnest emotion
02.02.14 Zeal/earnest enthusiasm
02.02.15 Strong feeling/passion
02.02.16 Violent emotion
02.02.22 Love
02.02.23 Hatred/enmity
02.02.24 Indifference
02.02.25 Pity/compassion
02.02.26 Jealousy/envy
02.02.27 Gratitude
02.02.28 Pride
02.02.29 Humility
02.02.30 Fear
02.02.31 Courage
There are no verb headings for 02.02.01, 02.02.11, and 02.02.13. This book is
not concerned with nouns of emotion, but I will use these headings in Chapters 4 and 5 because these are the ones that are reproduced in ‘Semantic hierarchy: main categories and subcategories’ at the beginning of the HTOED
(Kay et al. 2009: xxix–xxx) and because they are more convenient than the
actual verb headings, which often have different names according to whether
the verbs are intransitive, transitive, or reflexive (e.g. like in 02.02.19: (vi.) ‘Be
pleased’; (vt.) ‘Be pleased with’; (v. refl.) ‘Take pleasure/enjoy oneself’).
3.3 Problems with Using the HTOED
There are several important points to consider regarding the otherwise very
useful list(s) of words obtained from the HTOED. First, one may not necessarily agree with its semantic approach. Unlike dictionaries, where headwords
are arranged alphabetically, the organizational principle of the HTOED is sensitive to nuances of definition, which are bound to be idiosyncratic to some
degree (see Kay & Chase 1990: 305). Ballweg-Schramm (1981: 462–3) claims,
perhaps rightly, that it is ‘impossible to have a semantic classification that is
uniquely and eternally valid’. To borrow the words of Jane Roberts, one of the
editors of the HTOED, ‘[n]o one thesaurus can provide the organisation of
vocabulary all its individual readers might hope to see’ (Roberts 1998a: 13,
1998b: 140). Indeed, opinions are very likely to vary regarding the arrangement of a particular lexeme in a particular semantic category.
This may especially be true of abstract concepts like emotion. Andreas
Fischer (1992: 52 n. 4) notes that there is no agreement among psychologists
about the number of emotions and the method of classifying them (see also
Sauer 2010).11 The HTOED category ‘Emotion’ is therefore inevitably not an
uncontroversial repository of vocabulary of emotion. For instance, Diller
(2007a: 588) notes that Gratitude and Humility, which are subsumed under
the category, ‘play no part in the psychological literature on the emotions’, and
that Envy, Pity, Hate, and Pride are psychologically rather specialized emotions,
verbs of emotion and the htoed | 53
being treated as subtypes of other broader emotions, for instance, Envy and
Hate under Anger (Diller 2008: 125). Even the sections which may unquestionably belong to emotion concepts do not always comprise words which denote
emotions themselves. Some rather express physical, externalized manifestations of emotions (A. Fischer 1992: 51). For example, the section ‘Love’ includes
such headings as ‘Caress/fondle’ (02.02.22.07) and ‘Embrace’ (02.02.22.08).
Opinions also vary among previous studies of Old and Middle English
impersonal constructions regarding the membership of ‘verbs of emotion’.
Krzyszpień (1990) classifies ‘DESIRE/LONGING’ verbs such as lystan and
langian and ‘WONDER’ verbs, which consist of merveillen and wondren
alone, into ‘verbs denoting emotional experiences’. In the HTOED, on the
other hand, these verbs are subsumed respectively under ‘Will/faculty of
will’ (02.05) and ‘Mental capacity’ (02.01), which are in sister relationship
with ‘Emotion’ (02.02). Möhlig-Falke’s (2012) classification, which is guided
by the lexical-field analysis of the TOE, includes wlātian ‘to loathe’ among
verbs of physical sensation, while the same verb appears under the category
‘Emotion’ in the HTOED (02.02.22.03 (vi.) ‘Loathe/abhor’, (vt.) ‘Loathe’).
Möhlig-Falke’s list of verbs of emotion also includes (ge)twēon/twēogan ‘to
doubt’, but in the HTOED this verb is subsumed again under ‘Mental capacity’, not ‘Emotion’.
The overall categorization in the HTOED can be variously modified according to different disciplines. However, I generally follow the editors’ belief,
which is based on their own experience of working with large amounts of lexis
in the thesaurus, that any classification should emerge from the data instead
of being developed from predetermined criteria (Kay et al. 2009: xviii–xx).
Insofar as we use the HTOED as the main reference, it seems best to work
within its major grouping. Diller (2008: 127) has a good point in saying that
‘whether we find the picture offered by the thesauri plausible or not—they
provide the hypotheses which are to be tested against the corpora’ (see also
Diller 2007a: 593). In the process of compiling the list of verbs for this study,
I have thus decided not to import subsections in other categories to ‘Emotion’
but have remained faithful to the existing classification.
Probably the most important fact to bear in mind in using the HTOED is
that it is based on the OED, with the exception of a great many Old English
words which were supplemented from some standard Old English dictionaries, as mentioned in the previous section. Therefore, for those who are interested in Middle English, the most serious deficiency of the HTOED is that the
MED was not selected as an additional reference. The inclusion of the data
from the MED would have vastly increased the work of the project and delayed its completion by decades (see Collier & Kay 1980–1: 83, Kay & Wotherspoon 1997: 49). It stands to reason that deriving Middle English lexis and its
definitions solely from the OED is appropriate for a diachronic classification
(Sylvester 2000: 560), and it may be relatively easy to extract the Middle
English data from the HTOED according to the interests of each scholar (Sylvester 2004: 190 n. 2).
54 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Nevertheless, the exclusion of the MED from the supplementary sources is
not negligible, in view of the decision by the editors of the ongoing third edition of the OED to revise the Middle English documentation in the light of the
evidence presented in the MED (Weiner 2000: 170).12 The (once) proposed
Thesaurus of Middle English (TME), which is the Middle English counterpart
of the TOE, was to check the materials abstracted from the HTOED against
the definitions in the MED (see Sylvester & Roberts 1996, 2002, Roberts &
Sylvester 1997, Roberts 2000, Sylvester 2000, Kay, Wotherspoon & Sylvester
2001), but to my knowledge no new publication on the TME has come out
since Sylvester & Roberts (2002). Unfortunately, the project on the TME ‘is
not now going ahead’ for a number of mainly practical reasons (Sylvester
2004: 190 n. 2).13 Edmund Weiner, co-editor of the second edition of the OED,
notes that the stock of antedatings of OED citations by the MED is ‘surprisingly small’ (1990: 15), suggesting that there is an ‘illusion of many ME antedatings’ due to the differences between the dating systems in the two dictionaries.14 However, comparing the semantic category ‘Courage’ in the OED and
MED with special reference to their methodological procedures in the classification of meanings, Sylvester (1996: 132) argues that there will be a larger
number of antedatings than might have been expected. In addition to the
disparity in the dating, the distinction and arrangement of senses is also very
different in the OED and MED (Sylvester 2010: 215). Users of the data relating
to Middle English in the HTOED must therefore check them carefully against
the words and senses in the MED. In her analysis of the concept ‘Peace’ in Old
and Middle English, Roberts (2002) demonstrated that the evidence for
Middle English in the OED-derived data of the HTOED can be enriched by
consulting the MED.
Another important but fully understandable point to remember regarding
the HTOED is that its grammatical information is considerably limited. According to Professor Christian Kay, director of the HTOED project, her team
has ‘generally only recorded impersonal verbs where the OED gives them a
separate entry’ (personal communication, April 2009). This decision has led
to the unexpected result that not a single verb in the category ‘Emotion’ is labelled as ‘impersonal verb’ (abbreviated as ‘v.impers.’ in the HTOED), despite
the generally acknowledged fact that verbs of emotion frequently appear in
impersonal constructions.15 Verbs labelled as ‘impersonal’ in other historical
dictionaries like the MED are thus often not labelled as such in the OED, or in
the HTOED. Needless to say, it is unfair to demand detailed syntactic information in a thesaurus, which places emphasis on the semantic information of
each entry (Kay & Chase 1990: 307), but those who will use the HTOED for a
study which bears on syntax must be well-prepared not to accept the labels
there, or the lack of any labels, without further investigation. Here we should
recall Fenton’s (1974: 257) caution that dictionaries must always be used critically (see also Carroll 1997: 37).
verbs of emotion and the htoed | 55
CHAPTER
4
Old and Middle English Impersonal
Verbs of Emotion
Analysis from Dictionary Meanings
this chapter makes full and careful use of the lexicographical evidence,
mainly definitions in dictionaries of Old and Middle English, in order to establish generalizations about the semantics of impersonal verbs of emotion. I will
first explain how I have narrowed down the extensive repository of Old to
Present-­day English verbs in the HTOED section ‘Emotion’ and eventually arrived at a more precise list of impersonal verbs to examine in this book (section
4.1). The subsequent seven sections will individually discuss each of the seven
HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories with members attested in impersonal constructions: ‘Pleasure/enjoyment’, ‘Mental pain/suffering’, ‘Anger’, ‘Hatred/enmity’,
‘Pity/compassion’, ‘Humility’, and ‘Fear’, arranged in the order of the numbering in the HTOED. I will examine how impersonal usage emerged and spread
and whether these verbs share any semantic characteristics. The last section
summarizes the findings obtained from individual categories and attempts to
see whether there are any common tendencies across the categories.
4.1 Initial Processes of List-Compiling
The aim of the present investigation requires compiling not only a list of emotion verbs used impersonally (‘impersonal verbs’) but also a list of verbs which
are near-synonymous with them but which apparently did not occur in impersonal constructions (‘non-impersonal verbs’). For this purpose, I first narrowed down the entries in the HTOED section ‘Emotion’ to verbs whose first
date of occurrence in the language is prior to 1500, which is the approximate
date for the loss of productive impersonal constructions (Allen 1995: 441). A
number of verbs continued to appear in impersonal constructions after 1500,
but they tend to be idiomatized (see section 1.2.3). In addition, Möhlig-Falke’s
(2012: 206–7, 209–11) lists of Middle English verbs capable of impersonal use
indicate that, as far as we can tell from the OED and MED, no verbs acquired
impersonal usage after the end of the fifteenth century. The syntax-semantics
boundary which divided impersonal and non-impersonal verbs thus virtually
vanished by 1500.
The pre-1500 verbs of emotion obtained by this method were then checked
against their entries in Bosworth & Toller’s An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (BT(S))
and the MED in order to examine whether they are known to have been employed in impersonal constructions in Old and Middle English with the particular sense assigned in the HTOED entry. The proviso ‘with the particular
sense assigned in the HTOED entry’ is important here, since, as we will see
below, impersonal verbs of emotion are often polysemous and tend to occur in
impersonal constructions only when used in a certain meaning. Also consulted for the purpose of checking the presence of impersonal use was the
extensive catalogue of verbs in Möhlig-Falke (2012), which was laboriously
compiled from the lists in van der Gaaf (1904), Wahlén (1925), Visser (1963),
Elmer (1981), Mitchell (1985), Ogura (1986a, 1990, 1991, 2003), Denison (1993),
Miura (2008), the DOE fascicles A to F, and the electronic searches of the OED
and MED, in addition to BT(S).
As a result of this initial process of list-compiling, only the seven categories
emphasized in bold below turned out to include verbs recorded with impersonal usage:1
02.02 Emotion
02.02.01 Seat of the emotions
02.02.02 Emotional perception
02.02.03 Quality of affecting emotions
02.02.04 Effect produced on emotions
02.02.05 Emotional attitude
02.02.06 State of feeling/mood
02.02.07 Manifestation of emotion
02.02.08 Capacity for emotion
02.02.09 Sentimentality
02.02.10 Absence of emotion
02.02.11 Types of emotion
02.02.12 Intense/deep emotion
02.02.13 Sincere/earnest emotion
02.02.14 Zeal/earnest enthusiasm
02.02.15 Strong feeling/passion
02.02.16 Violent emotion
02.02.17 Excitement
02.02.18 Composure/calmness
02.02.19 Pleasure/enjoyment
02.02.20 Mental pain/suffering
02.02.21 Anger
02.02.22 Love
02.02.23 Hatred/enmity
02.02.24 Indifference
02.02.25 Pity/compassion
02.02.26 Jealousy/envy
02.02.27 Gratitude
02.02.28 Pride
02.02.29 Humility
02.02.30 Fear
02.02.31 Courage
Some remarks are in order for three of the categories which are not in bold.
‘Love’ (02.02.22) subsumes belove (02.02.22 (vt.) ‘Love’), like, and recan
(be) (02.02.22.01 (vt.) ‘Have liking for’), which can be used impersonally but
in some senses different from the ones assigned in this category. Belove and
like are employed in impersonal constructions as verbs of ‘Pleasure/enjoyment’, as we will see in the next section, while the impersonal use of recan
‘to care, reck’ semantically belongs to the section ‘Will/faculty of will’ (02.05),
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 57
which is in sister relationship with ‘Emotion’. In short, the senses assigned
under ‘Love’ are not relevant for impersonal usage of these three verbs. Hence,
they cannot be called ‘impersonal verbs of Love’.
Section 3.1 quoted an exceptional instance of the impersonal use of love,
the most representative verb in the category ‘Love’, in Piers Plowman (example
(3-4)), but as discussed in note 3 of Chapter 3, the instance is probably influenced by the immediate coordination with list—one of the most commonly
found impersonal verbs in Old and Middle English—and it does not crucially
affect the fact that love was not systematically employed in impersonal constructions in the history of English. It therefore seems justified not to group
‘Love’ together with the seven categories in bold, which include one or more
verbs attested several times in impersonal constructions.
The category ‘Indifference’ (02.02.24) does not subsume any impersonal
verb but includes little is me of ‘I care little for’ (02.02.24 (vt.) ‘Be indifferent/
show indifference to’), which is an example of a phrasal impersonal (see note
8 for Chapter 1):
(4-1) Lutel is me
of ower lufe.
little is me-obj of your love
‘I care little for your love.’
[a1225 Juliana 26; OED s.v. little, adj., n., and adv. B. n. I. 3. a.]
Phrasal impersonals will not be discussed in this book, which focuses on lexical verbs, and the category ‘Indifference’ is thus not in bold above. Example
(4-1) is the only illustrative quotation for little is me of and its variants in the
OED entry for little. Judging from the fact that the same quotation is missing
from the MED, and that the MED entry for little does not refer to this particular phrasal impersonal, it must have been a nonce expression.
Finally, the category ‘Courage’ (02.02.31) contains dare, which is recorded
in impersonal constructions when used in the sense ‘to be under necessity or
obligation’ (MED s.v. durren 2. (b)). The instance below is the earliest such example in the MED entry:
(4-2) Nou is Edward . . . kyng of engelond al aplyht . . .
of gode knyhtes darh
now is Edward
king of England all pledge-bound of good knights must
him
nout fail.
him-obj not fail
‘Now is Edward . . . king of England completely bound by pledge . . . he must
not lack good knights.’
[c1325(c1307) Death Edw.I (Hrl 2253) 80]
The verb dare itself has been in use since Old English (durran), but the impersonal usage emerges only in late Middle English, with the last quotation
dated 1532(?a1400) in the MED (RRose (Thynne)).2 On the other hand, the
same verb with the meaning ‘to have the courage (to do sth.)’ (MED s.v. durren
1a.), which is more relevant to the category ‘Courage’, is not recognized as
58 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
capable of impersonal use in the MED entry or previous studies. ‘Courage’
therefore should not be treated on a par with the seven categories in bold,
which include impersonal verbs semantically related to them.
The meanings of the verbs in the non-bold categories are not suitable for
impersonal usage for some reason, even though they all denote some kinds of
emotion, at least in the framework of the HTOED. Some explanations can be
provided from a psychological point of view. ‘Emotion’ and the first sixteen
categories represent a ‘superordinate category’ (Diller 2007b: 16) and contain
only the general lexis for the concept, as opposed to specific emotions such as
love and anger (see also Diller 2005a: 110). It can therefore be assumed that
the verbs in these seventeen categories were semantically not specific enough
to appear in impersonal constructions as verbs of ‘emotion’. The same reasoning can be applied to ‘Excitement’ (02.02.17) and ‘Composure/calmness’ (02.02.18), which are also regarded as ‘generic emotion concepts’ by
some psychologists (Diller 2008: 126). ‘Gratitude’ (02.02.27) plays ‘no part in
the psychological literature on the emotions’ (Diller 2007a: 588), as pointed
out in section 3.3. We may also cast doubt on the relevance of ‘Indifference’
(02.02.24), which did not form an independent category either in the section
‘Emotion’ or indeed anywhere under the major division ‘The mental world’
until the very last stage of compiling the HTOED. It is missing both from the
eighteen ‘Emotion/Feeling’ files which were available in 2001 (Diller 2005a:
110 n. 1)3 and from the structure of ‘The Mind’ (= ‘The mental world’) reproduced in Diller (2007a: 577–8, 2007b: 15, 2008: 125), which was last updated
in 2005. 4 ‘Courage’ did not initially belong to ‘Emotion’ either. Diller (2008:
125) thinks that it must be added, but its original absence from the section
‘Emotion’ implies that courage cannot straightforwardly be regarded as an
emotion concept, at least as a core one. Diller (ibid.) further notes that ‘Envy’
(02.02.26) and ‘Pride’ (02.02.28) are rather specialized emotions psychologically, being treated as subtypes of other broader emotions, for instance, ‘Envy’
under ‘Anger’ (see section 3.3). It can thus be postulated that, with the exception of ‘Love’, these categories without any impersonal verbs are either semantically rather general or not nuclear members of concepts of emotion. I will
discuss three of these categories (‘Jealousy/envy’, ‘Pride’, ‘Courage’) in section
5.10 and the issues of definitions and classifications of emotion concepts in
Chapter 6.
In what follows, mainly on the basis of the information provided in BT(S),
DOE, and the MED, I will trace the history of emotion verbs which are known
in the literature to have appeared in impersonal constructions, for each of the
seven HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories which include these verbs, namely ‘Pleas­
ure/enjoyment’, ‘Mental pain/suffering’, ‘Anger’, ‘Hatred/enmity’, ‘Pity/compassion’, ‘Humility’, and ‘Fear’. Attention will be paid to (i) when the usage
first emerged; (ii) how it spread to other verbs in the same category; and (iii)
whether it is possible to detect any diachronic semantic generalizations within
the category, particularly whether any correlation can be found between causative meaning and impersonal usage, as discussed in section 2.4.1. An Old or
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 59
Middle English verb of emotion can be hypothesized, if not determined, to
have a causative meaning if its glosses in Present-day English correspond to
Experiencer-object verbs (e.g. ‘anger’, ‘frighten’, ‘please’), which are causative,
or if these glosses can be paraphrased as cause plus an intransitive verb (e.g.
‘cause to be angry’, ‘cause to be afraid’, ‘cause to be happy’; Atkins & Levin
1995: 87, 88).
It should be noted here that the same verb is sometimes used impersonally
in two ‘Emotion’ categories. For instance, the MED recognizes impersonal
usage with uggen as a verb of Hatred/enmity (‘to feel loathing or disgust’)
and as a verb of Fear (‘to be fearful, fear’), while reuen is acknowledged to
occur in impersonal constructions as a verb of Mental pain/suffering (‘to
grieve’) and as a verb of Pity/compassion (‘to feel pity, be compassionate’).
While admitting that distinctions between these different senses or bounda­
ries between different ‘Emotion’ categories are not always clear-cut, I will discuss these cross-category verbs in each category instead of reclassifying them
into just one of the two categories.
Unless otherwise stated, the definitions of Old English verbs are taken
from their entries in BT(S), with examples from the DOE Web Corpus, and
definitions and examples of Middle English verbs are adopted from their
MED entries. Modern English translations of Old and Middle English examples are all mine. The etymological information of the Middle English
verbs is based on the OED. Old and Middle English verbs are referred to by
their headword forms in BT(S), or the DOE for verbs in the available fascicles, and the MED, respectively.5 Although BT(S) and the MED will be used
as primary sources for semantic analysis, I have also consulted the DOE and
OED entries as supplementary sources of information and have occasionally
double-checked the Anglo-Norman Dictionary (AND) for verbs of Old French
origin. These historical dictionaries are indispensable tools for a lexical
study of early English verbs such as the present work. The dates and senses
assigned to illustrative quotations should be treated with caution, but the
information available from these dictionary entries provides an initial overview of the history of the verbs concerned and serves as a good background
for a more extensive corpus-based investigation, which will be conducted in
Chapter 5.
4.2 Pleasure/Enjoyment
A number of verbs in this category occurred in impersonal constructions in
Old and Middle English. There are five verbs from the Old English period as
follows. As far as we can judge from the definitions provided in BT(S), the first
three are near-synonymous with each other, all sharing the causative sense ‘to
please’, while the last two are not directly related to pleasure or enjoyment but
have more to do with satisfaction or contentment (02.02.19.04 (vt.) ‘Be content/satisfied with’):
60 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
• (ge)līcian
‘to please, delight’
(4-3) þis is min se leofa sunu in þam me
wel licade.
this is my the dear son in whom me-acc/dat well pleased
‘This is my dear son, with whom I was very pleased.’
[HomS 2 (ScraggVerc 16) [0045 (127)]]
• (ge)lustfullian
‘to be delighted, be pleased, rejoice’; ‘to delight, please’
(4-4) Us
gelustfullað gyt furþor to sprecenne be
þam halgan were
us-acc/dat pleases
yet further to speak
about the holy
man
iohanne him to wurðmynte & us to beterunge.
John
him to honour
and us to improvement
‘It pleases us to speak yet further about the holy man John in his honour and
to improve us.’
[ÆCHom I, 25 [0089 (385.185)]]
• (ge)lystan
‘to please, cause a desire for anything’
(4-5) & hine
ne lyst
his willan wyrcean þæt he on his naman dæle
and him-acc not pleases his will
work
that he in his name distribute
þæt he him ær
sealde.
that he him before gave
‘And it does not please him to do His will by distributing for His sake what He
has given him before.’
[HomS 14 (BlHom 4) [0079 (218)]]
• (ge)nihtsumian
‘to abound, suffice’
(4-6) Ac se ungesæliga gitsere wile mare habban þonne him
genihtsumaþ.
but the unhappy
miser wishes more have
than him-dat suffices
‘But the unhappy miser wishes to have more than suffices him.’
[ÆCHom I, 4 [0060 (210.113)]]
• onhagian
‘to be within a person’s power or means, to be in accordance with a person’s will or
convenience’
(4-7) Đa cwæð ic: me
ne onhagað
nu þa boc ealle to asmæaganne.
then said I me-acc/dat not is convenient now the book all to examine
‘Then I said: “It is not convenient for me to examine the entire book now.”’
[Solil 3 [0005 (65.26)]]
(Ge)lustfullian, (ge)nihtsumian, and onhagian became extinct by the
end of the Old English period. Onhagian regularly occurred in impersonal constructions,6 while the impersonal use of (ge)lustfullian
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 61
and (ge)nihtsumian was rather infrequent: Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 115)
survey shows that impersonal usage occupied less than 10 per cent of their
occurrences in Old English. (Ge)līcian and (ge)lystan continued to be
found in impersonal constructions in Middle English and beyond, quite
productively:
• līken [OE (ge)līcian]
‘to give pleasure to (sb.), make happy, please’
(4-8) Sche hadde leid hire loue þer hire
beter liked.
she had laid her love where her-obj better pleased
‘She had fixed her love where it pleased her better.’
[a1375 WPal.(KC 13) 2032]
• listen [OE (ge)lystan]
‘to desire or wish (to do sth.), choose (to do sth.); be pleased (to do sth.)’
(4-9) He . . . seȝȝde þatt himm lisste þa Wel etenn off an appell.
he
said
that him-obj pleased then well eat
off an apple
‘He . . . said that it pleased him well then to eat from an apple.’
[?c1200 Orm.(Jun 1) 8119]
Listen has a variant, lusten, which is also found in impersonal constructions throughout Middle English. The instance below is the earliest relevant
quotation in the MED entry, though the text is from Old English:
• lusten
‘to wish (to do sth.), desire; to take pleasure in (sth.), like (sth.); also, want (sb.)’; ‘to
please (sb., oneself), delight; to be pleasant’
(4-10) Swa he mare lufe hæfð to . . . Gode swa him
lust
swiðor þe lufe.
so he more love has to
God so him-obj pleases more the love
‘The more love he has towards . . . God, the more he desires the love.’
[c1175(?OE) Bod.Hom.(Bod 343) 118/8]
Van der Gaaf (1904: 74) notes that lusten is the ‘Southern form’ of listen.
Although they have a common etymology, I will treat listen and lusten as
two separate verbs, just as I do with other variants of the same kind, since they
are given independent entries in both the OED and MED (e.g. grāmen/
grēmen, wratthen/wrēthen; see section 4.4). In addition, the earliest instance of lusten in the OED is from the early thirteenth century, not from Old
English like listen. It is thus sensible not to merge lusten into listen.
Ten more verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment participated newly in impersonal
constructions in Middle English, although most of them did so only occasionally. The thirteenth century witnessed the following three verbs, all of native
origin:
62 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
• bilŏven [ME coinage; < lŏven]
‘me biloveth, etc., I am inclined, I like, etc.; yif (hit) eow biloveð, if you like, if you
please’
(4-11) He easkeð ham ȝef ham
biluueð to heren him ane hwile . . . wel us
he asks
them if them-obj pleases to hear him a while
well us
biluueð hit.
pleases it
‘He asks them if they like to listen to him for a while . . . it pleases us well.’
[c1225(?c1200) SWard (Bod 34) 24/231–2]
• gāmen [OE gamenian]
‘to rejoice, be merry; joke, jest, play; talk pleasantly’
(4-12) In þa teonfulle sæ torneden sæiles; Godlac hauede a god scip ne
in the raging
sea turned
sails
Godlac had
a good ship not
gomede him
no wiht.
rejoiced him-obj nothing
‘In the raging sea sails turned; Godlac had a good ship, he was not rejoiced at all.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 4587]
• glāden [OE (ge)gladian]
‘to become pleased or delighted; be gladdened, take pleasure; cheer up, be comforted; be glad, rejoice’; ‘to gladden (persons or creatures); make joyful, fill with joy
or bliss’
(4-13) Me
gomeneð & gleadeð al of gasteliche murhden.
me-obj rejoices
and pleases all of spiritual mirth
‘I am rejoiced and pleased entirely of spiritual joy.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Marg.(1) (Bod 34) 24/34]
The emergence of impersonal usage with these three verbs seems to have a
strong connection with the West Midland dialect: the thirteenth-century examples of their impersonal use in their MED entries all come from either
Laȝamon’s Brut or the works commonly known as the ‘Katherine Group’,
which are ascribed to this dialect (Burrow & Turville-Petre 2005: 7, 97, 107).
Impersonal constructions with bilŏven are restricted to the thirteenth century,7 and the MED entry cites only four instances, two of which are from St.
Juliana (c1225(?c1200)). Impersonal usage with gāmen and glāden appears to
be equally rare: the MED entry for the latter quotes only one more example
(a1500 Wars Alex.(Dub 213)), while that for gāmen has two more, one of which
is from Chaucer and the other is identical to (4-13). Generally speaking, the
number of quotations in a dictionary entry does not reflect the actual frequency of a certain usage, but MED entries give a rough indication of whether
the usage is relatively rare or frequent. Līken and listen, for example, are well
known in the literature to have been frequently attested in impersonal constructions, and they have a number of illustrative quotations of impersonal
constructions in their MED entries. One should also recall the MED’s editorial
policy that every sense is illustrated by at least one quotation, if available, for
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 63
every quarter of a century (Lewis & Williams 2007: 18). Relatively few illustrative quotations for the impersonal use of bilŏven, gāmen, and glāden can
therefore be understood to indicate that the usage was not very productive.
Semantically, bilŏven and glāden are fairly close to līken and listen in
possessing the causative sense ‘to please’, but gāmen is a little distinct from
the others in that it implies amusement. Gamenian in Old English similarly
meant ‘to joke, play’, according to BT and the DOE (six occurrences). The MED
dates the sense ‘to give pleasure to (sb.), amuse (sb., oneself)’, which is more
relevant to verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment, only from the early fourteenth century (similarly in the OED), long after gāmen is first attested in impersonal
constructions. The rise of impersonal usage with gāmen therefore demonstrates a slight extension of the semantic range which licensed impersonal
usage in verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment.
Three verbs join the group of impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment in
the fourteenth century, two of which are loanwords from Old French. All the
quotations below illustrate the earliest occurrence of these verbs in impersonal constructions in their MED entries:
• paien [AN/OF paier]
‘to please (sb.), satisfy, content; be to the liking of (sb.)’
(4-14) Þis ihorde þe kaiser, and him
paide swiþe wel.
this heard the emperor and him-obj pleased very well
‘The emperor heard this, and he was pleased very well.’
[c1300 Lay. Brut (Otho C.13) 5255]
• quēmen [OE (ge)cwēman]
‘to please (sb., one’s heart, a nation, etc.), gratify; serve (sb.) in a pleasing or an acceptable manner; act in a manner acceptable to (sb.)’
(4-15) Þorh
Waweyn was Mordread manne wel þe leauere; and Arthur þe
through Gawain was Mordred man
well the dearer and Arthur the
kene, fole wel him
cwemde.
keen very well him-obj pleased
‘Because of Gawain, Mordred was the more beloved man; and Arthur the
valiant, he was pleased very well.’
[c1300 Lay. Brut (Otho C.13) 12722]
• suffīsen [OF suffire]
‘to be adequate for a purpose; be adequate in size, quantity, number, etc. for a purpose; be enough or just enough’
(4-16) It semeth that yow
suffiseth to han ben conseilled by thise
it seems that you-obj suffices to have been counselled by these
conseilloursoonlyand with litel auys.
counsellors only and with littlereflection
‘It seems that you find it sufficient to have been advised by these counsellors
only and with little reflection.’
[(c1390) Chaucer CT. Mel.(Manly-Rickert) B.2442]
64 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
The first two citations are both from Laȝamon’s Brut again (though in a different manuscript from (4-12)), which thus creates a dialectal link with the
earliest use of the three new impersonal verbs in the thirteenth century.
Paien was borrowed in the early thirteenth century (OED s.v. pay, v.1), and it
is not known to have behaved impersonally in the source language (AND s.v.
paier). Its impersonal use can be ascribed to semantic analogy with existing
impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment, since it also means ‘to please’. Examples are rather scarce, however: the MED entry cites only two more instances of impersonal constructions, from Pearl (c1400(?c1380)) and the
York Plays (a1450). The spread of the usage to quēmen, which also has the
sense ‘to please’ and has been amply recorded since Old English, is indicative of the fact that licensing of impersonal usage with verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment became less rigid in the fourteenth century (see section 2.2.3).
Suffīsen is first attested in the early fourteenth century (OED s.v. suffice), and it expresses satisfaction or contentment rather than pleasure, just
like (ge)nihtsumian and onhagian. Since these two Old English verbs
disappeared, no other verb with a similar meaning appears to have been
found in impersonal constructions. The impersonal usage with suffīsen
is very likely to be a borrowing from the same usage in the source language
Old French, although co-occurrence with a formal subject seems to be the
norm there (AND s.v. suffire v.impers. ‘to suffice’). The semantic element of
satisfaction is also immanent, in addition to the sense of pleasure, in paien
(MED s.v. paien 1. (a)–(c); see also AND s.v. paier) and quēmen (MED s.v.
quēmen 1a. (a), 2. (c); see also BT, DOE s.v. cwēman, gecwēman), but it is
safer not to group suffīsen together with them for the purpose of the present study. Suffīsen is semantically closer to verbs of need, which similarly
occurred in impersonal constructions in Old and Middle English (Loureiro-­
Porto 2009; see section 2.2.2), or verbs meaning ‘to be appropriate, fitting’, among which sēmen was an impersonal verb (see note 5 for Chapter
2). Möhlig-Falke (2012) classifies (ge)nihtsumian, the semantic equivalent of suffīsen in Old English, among verbs of (non)availability, not emotion. Since suffīsen is shared by these multiple semantic fields which are
not directly relevant to emotion and is rather peripheral as a verb of Pleas­
ure/enjoyment, it will be omitted from the data analysis in Chapter 5.
Apart from the three verbs above, two causative verbs are found in impersonal constructions with formal it in the fourteenth century:
• plēsen [OF plaire]
‘to please or satisfy a deity, esp. the Christian God; propitiate, placate, appease’; ‘to
be satisfactory, acceptable, or agreeable’
(4-17) Plese it,
Lorde, to þe,
þat þou defende me.
please it-nom Lord to you-obj that you defend me
‘May it please you, Lord, that you will defend me.’
[c1350 MPPsalter (Add 17376) 39.18]
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 65
• tikelen [ME coinage]
‘to cause delight to (sb., someone’s heart)’
(4-18) Whan that it remembreth me Vpon my youthe and on my iolytee, It
when that it remembers me upon my youth and on my pleasure it-nom
tikeleth me
aboute myn herte roote.
tickles me-obj about my heart root
‘When it reminds me of my youth and my pleasure, it causes delight to me
about the root of my heart.’
[(c1395) Chaucer CT.WB.(Manly-Rickert) D.471]
Plēsen, which entered the English language around the middle of the fourteenth century (OED s.v. please), is an impersonal verb in the source language
(AND s.v. plaisir). Its MED entry shows that it usually occurs with a formal
subject, but examples of genuine impersonal constructions (i.e. without formal
it) are found in the fifteenth century (c1450(?a1400) Wars Alex., c1450 Alph.
Tales). The other verb, tikelen, is not recorded in Old English and is first attested in the early fourteenth century (OED s.v. tickle, v.1). Of all the impersonal
verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment, tikelen seems to be the only verb that involves ‘a
tingling sensation’ (MED s.v. tikelen 1. (a)). The above quotation is the only instance of an impersonal construction with formal it,8 and there are no examples
of genuine impersonal constructions in the MED entry. This apparent restriction of tikelen to use in impersonal constructions with formal it may have
something to do with its relatively late occurrence in English. The small number
of ‘impersonal’ attestations themselves may also be relevant, but this is not
likely to be very crucial, since there are a number of verbs in this and other
HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories which are not very productive in impersonal constructions but are not limited to use in impersonal constructions with formal it.
In the fifteenth century, impersonal usage with verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment spread to two more verbs of Old French origin, though one seems to be
restricted to impersonal constructions with formal it:
• rejoisen [OF rejoicer]
‘to be glad or happy (to do or have sth., that sth. is so)’; ‘to gladden (sb. or sth.), cheer
up, delight, please’
(4-19) Sporte, myrthe, and play Me
reioyceth for to see.
sport mirth and play me-obj rejoices for to see
‘I am glad to see sport, mirth, and play.’
[a1500 Lo here is (Tan 407) 10]
• joien [OF joir]
‘to fill (sb.) with joy; gladden (sb.), please, delight’
(4-20) But more it
Joyes me,
Jason, of þi just werkes, Þat so mighty
but more it-nom pleases me-obj Jason of your just works that so mighty
& meke & manly art holdyn.
and meek and manly are considered
‘But Jason, it pleases me more of your just works, who are considered so
mighty and meek and manly.’
[c1540(?a1400) Destr.Troy (Htrn 388) 214]
66 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Instances are rather meagre. Example (4-19) is the only quotation of an impersonal construction in the MED entry for rejoisen, with the exception of an
instance of an impersonal construction with formal it (c1450 Ponthus). The
MED entry for joien contains only one example of impersonal constructions
with formal it, namely (4-20), but no instances of genuine impersonal constructions (i.e. without it), although the verb has been in use since the middle
of the thirteenth century (OED s.v. joy, v.). The AND does not recognize the
impersonal use of rejoicer or joir in Old French. The impersonal usage in
Middle English is attributable to analogy with other impersonal verbs of Pleas­
ure/enjoyment, especially those which meant ‘to please’, which is shared with
both rejoisen and joien.
The analysis of dictionary senses has shown that Old and Middle English impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment are not semantically homogeneous but sometimes imply something other than pleasure, such as amusement (gāmen) and satisfaction (suffīsen). Nevertheless, from a diachronic
perspective, the causative sense ‘to please’ is shared with the majority of the
verbs from Old English to the end of Middle English ((ge)līcian/līken,
(ge)lystan/listen, (ge)lustfullian, lusten, bilŏven, glāden, paien,
quēmen, plēsen, tikelen, joien, rejoisen). This provides support to the
potentially crucial correlation between causative meaning and impersonal
usage discussed in section 2.4.1. This issue will be further examined in
section 5.8 with actual data analysis of impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment.
4.3 Mental Pain/Suffering
Just like verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment, verbs of Mental pain/suffering occurred in impersonal constructions both in Old and Middle English. The
number of verbs subsumed in this category is much larger than that of any
other HTOED ‘Emotion’ category, and they are inevitably semantically quite
heterogeneous.
In the Old English period the following nine verbs occurred in impersonal
constructions:
• āðrēotan
‘to weary, irk, displease, be loathsome, irksome to any one’; ‘to make weary’
(4-21) Đa cwæð ic: Ic þe andete þæt ic það wilnode oð me
nu
then said I I you confess that I that wished until me-acc/dat now
aðreað swiðe niwan.
wearies very newly
‘Then I said: “I confess to you that I wished that until it now wearies me very
newly.”’
[Solil 1 [0328 (36.14)]]
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 67
• (ge)eglian
‘to trouble, pain, grieve, ail’
(4-22) se anda wearð to sæde ðæs broðurslæges, forðæm him
eglde ðæt
the envy became to seed the fratricide
because him-dat troubled that
he wæs betra ðonne he,
he was better than he
‘the envy became the seed of the fratricide, because he was troubled that he
was better than himself,’
[CP [1120 (32.235.5)]]
• (ge)hrēowan
‘to rue, repent, grieve, pity’; ‘to affect with sorrow, to distress, grieve, vex’; ‘to affect
with regret, to make a person wish that he had not done something, or that something had not happened’
(4-23) Đa mec
ongon hreowan þæt min hondgeweorc on feonda
then me-acc/dat did
distress that my handiwork
into fiends’
geweald feran sceolde,
control go
should
‘it then distressed me that my handiwork should pass into the control of
fiends,’
[ChristA,B,C [0383 (1414)]]
• (ge)hrēowsian
‘to be sorry, grieve, repent, do penance’
(4-24) Swor drihtyn & ne hreowsode hine
swore Lord
and not repented
him-acc
‘the Lord swore, and he did not repent’
[PsGlC (Wildhagen) [1844 (109.4)]]
• mislīcian
‘to displease’
(4-25) þam ælmihtigan Gode
swiðe mislicode,
þæt heo sceolde
[the almighty
God]-dat greatly was displeased that she should
geunrotsian his þeowan mid hire scamleasre bælde.
offend
his servant with her shameless boldness
‘The almighty God was greatly displeased that she should offend his servant
with her shameless boldness.’
[GDPref and 3 (C) [0363(16.212.13)]]9
• ofhearmian
‘to cause grief’
(4-26) ĐA ofhearmode Gode
heora yrmða
sona,
then grieved
God-dat their miseries-acc soon
‘then God got soon grieved at their miseries,’
[Judg [0061 (11.1)]]
68 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
• ofhrēowan
‘to cause grief or pity’; ‘to feel pity’
(4-27) For ði him
ofhreow þæs mannes
therefore him-dat grieved [the man]-gen
‘therefore he was grieved for the man’
[ÆCHom I, 13 [0004 (281.12)]]
• oflīcian
‘to displease, be displeasing’
(4-28) ða oflicode me
ðearle þæt ic eft
to ðam lichaman sceolde
then displeased me-acc/dat strongly that I again to the body
should
fram ðære stowe wynsumnysse
from the place pleasure
‘then it displeased me strongly that I should go again to the body from the
place of pleasure’
[ÆCHom II, 23 [0042 (202.96)]]
• ofþyncan
‘to cause regret or sorrow’; ‘to cause displeasure or offence’
(4-29) me
ofðingð soðlice ðæt ic hi
worhte
me-acc/dat displeases truly that I them made
‘I am displeased indeed that I made them’
[Gen [0140 (6.7)]]
(Ge)hrēowsian and mislīcian are not recognized as impersonal verbs in
BT(S). The latter verb survived into Middle English, and its impersonal use is
acknowledged in the MED entry (s.v. mislīken), though not in the OED entry.
According to Möhlig-Falke (2012: 130, 152 n. 13), all the eight instances of impersonal constructions with (ge)hrēowsian are modelled closely on Latin impersonal constructions in the Psalter Glosses (Iurauit dominus et non penitebit
eum-acc ‘The Lord swore and he was not sorry’), so the usage cannot be regarded as native to Old English. The verb is recorded in Middle English, but
impersonal usage is not mentioned in the MED entry (s.v. reusen v.(1)). Another
verb which seems to have lost impersonal use in Middle English is (ge)eglian
(ME eilen). Neither the OED entry nor the MED entry contains any unambiguous instances of impersonal constructions. In Middle English the use of
eilen is restricted to variants of the formulaic expression What eileth the?
‘What troubles you?’, which is structurally ambiguous as to whether it is impersonal or not, namely whether what is nominative or not. Example (4-26) is
the only recorded instance of ofhearmian in the surviving corpus (MöhligFalke 2012: 305, Table B.18a).
There appears to be no meaning common to all of the above nine verbs, but
each of them shares at least one sense with at least one other verb, and all but
(ge)hrēowsian have some causative sense. (Ge)eglian, (ge)hrēowan, (ge)­
hrēowsian, ofhearmian, ofhrēowan, and ofþyncan possess the sense ‘to
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 69
grieve, cause grief/sorrow’. (Ge)hrēowan, (ge)hrēowsian, and ofþyncan
share ‘to (cause) regret/repent’, while āðrēotan, mislīcian, oflīcian, and
ofþyncan can mean ‘to displease’. Āðrēotan seems to involve not only
mental pain but also physical pain (‘weariness’).
Of the above nine verbs, (ge)hrēowan, mislīcian, ofhrēowan, and ofþyncan survived into Middle English along with their impersonal usage:
• reuen [OE (ge)hrēowan]
‘to regret (sth., how sth. happens)’; ‘to be grievous, unpleasant; grieve (sb.), vex,
displease’
(4-30) Himm reoweþþ þatt he dwelleþþ her Swa swiþe lange onn eorþe.
him-obj regrets that he dwells
here so very long on earth
‘He feels sorry that he dwells so very long here on earth.’
[?c1200 Orm.(Jun 1) 5576]
• mislīken [OE mislīcian]
‘to displease (sb.), offend; disturb (sb.) mentally, perturb’; ‘to be unhappy; be displeased or dissatisfied’
(4-31) Þe king was wod-wroth for þat word þat him
gan þo mislike.
the king was mad
for that word that him-obj did then displease
‘The king was mad for the word that he became displeased then.’
[c1300 SLeg.Becket (LdMisc 108) 539]
• areuen [OE ofhrēowan]
‘to feel regret or remorse; to regret or repent’
(4-32) Þah
he ȝeue hem cattesdryt to huere companage, ȝet hym
shulde
though he give them cat dung to their food
yet him-obj should
arewen
of þe arrerage.
feel remorse
of the shortfall
‘Even though he may give them cat dung as their company, he should feel
remorse for the shortfall.’
[c1325 Of Rybaud3 (Hrl 2253) 63]
• ofthinken [OE ofþyncan]
‘to be displeasing to (sb.); anger (sb.), give offence to; grieve (sb.)’
(4-33) Þo warð god toðan swiðe ȝegremed þurh
manna mandede þat he
then was God so
greatly angered
through men’s crimes
that he
cweð þat him
of-þuhte þat he efre mancinn ȝesceop.
said that him-obj grieved that he ever mankind created
‘Then God was greatly angered by men’s crimes to such an extent that he said
that it grieved him that he ever created mankind.’
[a1225(OE) Vsp.A.Hom.Init.Creat.(Vsp A.22) 225]
Reuen continues to be found in impersonal constructions until the end of the
fifteenth century, and mislīken until the middle of the same century. The
impersonal use of areuen is much less productive and is limited to the early
70 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
fourteenth century, although impersonal constructions with formal it are occasionally found in the fifteenth century (MED s.v. areuen 2. (a)). Ofthinken
is last attested in impersonal constructions in the early fifteenth century.
Except that areuen now does not appear to have the causative sense that is
present in its Old English equivalent ofhrēowan, the senses of these four
impersonal verbs seem to remain largely unchanged from Old to Middle
English.
In the thirteenth century, three verbs of native origin acquired impersonal
usage:
• grāmen [OE gramian]
‘to make (sb.) grieve, trouble (sb.), vex; be sorry, grieved, or troubled’
(4-34) For him
ne scameþ ne ne gromeð þe sculen bon ibor ȝen.
for him-obj not shames nor not grieves who shall be redeemed
‘For he who shall be redeemed is neither ashamed nor grieved.’
[a1225(?c1175) PMor.(Lamb 487) 165]
• smerten [OE smeortan]
‘to cause (sb.) to suffer grief, remorse, emotional distress; distress (sb.), disturb’
(4-35) Sone, þu best bus þe sot of
bismare-word & bet hin siþen
son you best turn the fool from insult
and beat him then
þer-mide þad him
ginne to smerten.
thereby that him-obj begin to distress
‘Son, you best turn the fool away from insult and beat him then thereby so
that he may be distressed.’
[a1275(?c1150) Prov.Alf.(Trin-C B.14.39) 131/588]
• sŏuen [OE sugian]
‘to cause someone to feel sorrow; cause (sb.) to suffer physical or emotional pain,
hardship, or sorrow; distress (sb.), afflict’
(4-36) Skile . . . hat
þet sorhe þersche inwið þe heorte wið sar
reason commands that sorrow thrash within the heart with sore
bireowsunge, swa þet hire
suhie.
contrition
so that her-obj distress
‘Reason . . . commands that sorrow thrash within the heart with painful
contrition, so that she might be distressed.’
[c1230(?a1200) Ancr.(Corp-C 402) 158/22]
There does not seem to be any dialectal connection in the rises of impersonal
use with these three verbs, but some causative sense is present in all of them.
Just like āðrēotan, sŏuen appears to denote physical as well as emotional
pain (see also MED s.v. smerten 1. (a)). Grāmen and smerten existed in Old
English, with scanty evidence however. The three verbs lasted differently in
impersonal constructions: the last example of impersonal usage in the MED
entry is dated in the late fifteenth century for smerten and the late fourteenth
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 71
century for grāmen and sŏuen, though these two verbs occasionally occur in
impersonal constructions with formal it in the fifteenth century. Grāmen behaves impersonally as a verb of Anger, but this usage is restricted to the thirteenth century (see section 4.4).
The thirteenth century sees another verb with a causative sense being attested in impersonal constructions with formal it:
• overthinken [ME coinage; < thinken]
‘to grieve, have regrets, be sorry’; ‘to grieve (sb.), make (sb.) sorry; displease (sb.)’
(4-37) Ta Þeȝȝ misstenn Þeȝȝre child, & itt
hemm offerrþuhhte.
then they missed
their
child and it-nom them-obj grieved
‘Then they failed to find their child, and it grieved them.’
[?c1200 Orm.(Jun 1) 8920]
Overthinken is also attested in genuine impersonal constructions (i.e. without it), examples dating from a1400 (Cursor (Göt Theol 107)) to a1450(a1338)
(Mannyng Chron.Pt.1 (Lamb 131)).
During the fourteenth century, five verbs are newly found in impersonal
constructions. Two of them are of native origin, and those of foreign origin are
apparently not attested in impersonal constructions in the source language
Old French, with the exception of grēven (AND s.v. grever v. impers. ‘to be
burdensome (to); to hurt’):
• anoien [OF anoier]
‘to disturb, annoy, offend; displease, irritate, provoke’
(4-38) Moch me
anueþ Þat mi dribil druiþ And mi wrot wet.
much me-obj annoys that my saliva dries and my nose wet
‘I am much annoyed that my saliva dries up and my nose becomes wet.’
[?a1325 Elde makiþ me (Hrl 913) p.170]
• forthinken [OE forþencan]10
‘to regret (having done something), to repent (a sin), to be repentant’; ‘to grieve or
displease (someone), anger, vex, make sorry’
(4-39) Petir stod an dred
ful sor, Him
forþotht þat he com þare.
Peter stood and dreaded very sorely him-obj grieved that he came there
‘Peter stood and feared very sorely, it grieved him that he came there.’
[a1325(?c1300) NPass.(Cmb Gg.1.1) 654]
• grēven [OF grever]
‘to make (sb.) sorrowful, cause grief to, disappoint; be a cause of sorrow’; ‘to grieve,
lament’
(4-40) For i so wrongely haue wrouȝt to wite him, me
greues.
for I so wrongly have done
to blame him me-obj grieves
‘For I have done so wrong to blame him, it grieves me.’
[a1375 WPal.(KC 13) 530]
72 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
• mēnen [OE (ge)mǢnan]
‘to complain about (sth.)’
(4-41) Sore me
meneþ for me smert.
sorely me-obj grieves for me distresses
‘It grieves me sorely because it distresses me.’
[c1330(?c1300) Guy(1) (Auch) 433]
• noien [AN nuier]
‘to trouble (sb.), distress; upset (sb. or sth.); bother or irritate (sb.)’; ‘to be troubled or
disturbed’
(4-42) On herte him
gan to nuye.
in heart him-obj began to distress
‘He got disturbed at heart.’
[c1380 Firumb.(1) (Ashm 33) 49]
With the exception of mēnen, all of these verbs have some causative sense,
and some share the senses of the existing impersonal verbs of Mental
pain/suffering. Anoien, for instance, means ‘to displease’ just like ofthinken, while forthinken has the senses ‘to repent’, 11 ‘to grieve’ (see
also grēven), and ‘to displease’. The development of the impersonal use of
forthinken, which has been recorded since Old English (DOE: ten occurrences), may have been affected by the syncretism of the Old English impersonal verb þyncan ‘to seem’ and the non-impersonal verb þencan ‘to
think’ (the stem of forthinken) in Middle English (van der Gaaf 1904:
77–96).12 The MED entry for forthinken includes a number of illustrative quotations of impersonal constructions, but the impersonal use of the
other four verbs appears to be rather rare. For anoien and mēnen, the
quotations above are the only instances of impersonal constructions cited
in the MED entries and are therefore likely to be nonce expressions.
The MED entry for grēven does not clearly indicate that the verb was ever
used in impersonal constructions, even though it quotes several such instances, thus implying that the usage may be at least less productive than
the impersonal use of other verbs whose MED entries bear the label
‘impersonal’.
Mēnen is semantically quite distinct from the rest. In both the OED and
MED entries example (4-41) is glossed ‘it grieves me’ but is classified under
the sense ‘to complain’, which has been the primary sense of the verb since
Old English. Considering that no other verb of complaint or lamentation is
known to have occurred in impersonal constructions in the history of English,
and that the quotation occurs in the middle of the long passage which is filled
with repetitions or parallel structures, this instance is very likely to have been
created by the poet only for this occasion, namely a structure parallel with me
smert on the same line. The passage below is adopted from Wiggins (2007:
479–80):
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 73
(4-43) ‘Loue,’ he seyd, ‘slake now mi sore
Þat is dedeliche, as y seyd ore.
Loue of þis ȝongling
Makeþ me iuel fonding.
Loue, bring me of þis wodenisse,
& bring me in to sum lisse,
For to reste me aþrowe,
Þat y miȝt meseluen knowe.
Sore me-obj meneþ, for me-obj
smert,
Miche care is in mine hert,
Michel ich am y-cast of miȝt
Al to fer wiþ vnriȝt.
Loue me doþ to grounde falle,
Þat y ne may stond stef wiþ alle.
Loue doþ min cloþes done,
& after me clepeþ ‘wreche’ sone.
Hou schal y liue? hou schal y fare?
Hou long schal y liuen in care?
Leuest þing me were to dye,
& ich wist bi wiche weye.
‘Love,’ he said, ‘ease now my pain
that is deadly, as I said before.
Love for this young woman
causes me evil temptation.
Love, bring me out of this madness,
and bring me into some relief,
so that I can rest for a while,
that I might know myself.
It grieves me sore, as it distresses me,
much trouble is in my heart,
I am much deprived of power
all too far unjustly.
Love makes me fall to the ground,
that I cannot stand straight nevertheless.
Love makes my clothes done,
and soon afterwards calls me ‘wretch’.
How shall I live? How shall I behave?
How long shall I live in trouble?
I would most like to die,
if I knew by which method.
Other than the above five verbs, another native verb makes its first
appearance in impersonal constructions with formal it in the fourteenth
century:
• wērīen [OE werigian]
‘to bore (sb.); refl. tire one’s patience (for doing sth.)’
(4-44) It
werieth me
to telle of his falsnesse.
it-nom wearies me-obj to tell of his falseness
‘I find it tiresome to talk about his deceitfulness.’
[(c1395) Chaucer CT.CY.(Manly-Rickert) G.1304]
Wērīen is apparently restricted to impersonal constructions with formal it,
although it has been recorded since Old English. The MED entry cites only
sporadic instances from the late fourteenth century. Among impersonal
verbs of Mental pain/suffering, wērīen is semantically closest to āðrēotan,
which did not survive into Middle English. There being no other impersonal verb with a very similar meaning may have prevented its genuine
impersonal use and limited its occurrence to impersonal constructions with
formal it.
The number of impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering continues to
increase until the middle of the fifteenth century, with two more verbs joining
the group:
74 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
• irken [ME coinage; uncertain origin]13
‘to be weary, be bored’
(4-45) Irkede me
with this, and ese was me leuere.
wearied me-obj with this and ease was me dear
‘I grew weary of this, and I preferred comfort.’
[c1450(?a1400) Parl.3 Ages (Add 31042) 277]
• tēnen [OE tēonian]
‘to cause sorrow to (sb., the heart), grieve; distress (sb.), trouble; cause (sb.) misery’
(4-46) Me
tened
for . . . That thirty pens . . . I schulde tyne.
me-obj distressed for
that thirty pence
I should lose
‘It distressed me . . . that I should lose . . . thirty pence.’
[a1450 Yk.Pl.(Add 35290) 225/145]
The impersonal usage with these two verbs was apparently not frequent, considering that there is only one other quotation illustrating this usage in each
of their MED entries, both from the mid-fifteenth century. The impersonal
use of tēnen is ascribable to semantic analogy, in that the sense quoted above
is quite similar to the senses of sŏuen and other then-existing impersonal
verbs of Mental pain/suffering meaning ‘to grieve’. Irken, on the other hand,
is less straightforward to explain, since its semantics are not very close to any
of the impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering current at the time. In addition, the Old Norse verb yrkja ‘to work’ (OE wyrcean), whose identity with
irken has been suggested, is not an impersonal verb (OED s.v. irk, etymology). Translation effects may be responsible at least for the other of the two
citations of its impersonal use in the MED entry: it is found in Alphabet of Tales
(c1450), which was translated from the Latin original by a non-native speaker
of English (Loureiro-Porto 2009: 137–8). Irken and tēnen are both used impersonally in other HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories too, namely tēnen as a verb
of Anger and irken as a verb of Hatred/enmity (see sections 4.4 and 4.5 respectively), so this may have had some indirect effect on their impersonal use
as verbs of Mental pain/suffering. This may be especially true for tēnen,
which as a verb of Anger is attested in impersonal constructions from the
early thirteenth century to the end of the fifteenth century.
Twenty-one verbs of Mental pain/suffering are attested in impersonal constructions (with formal it) throughout or at some point in Old and Middle
English. There is a wide range of senses involved, but several shared meanings exist. Most importantly, the majority of these verbs involve causative
senses such as ‘to grieve’ ((ge)eglian, (ge)hrēowan/reuen, ofhearmian,
ofhrēowan; grāmen, overthinken, forthinken, grēven), ‘to displease’
(āðrēotan, mislīcian/mislīken, oflīcian, ofþyncan/ofthinken; anoien),
and ‘to distress’ (smerten, sŏuen, noien, tēnen), just as most of the impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment do. Impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering thus generally reinforce the hypothesized correlation between causative
meaning and impersonal use.
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 75
4.4 Anger
Verbs of Anger have received hardly any attention in previous studies of Old
and Middle English impersonal constructions, with the exception of a very
brief description in Krzyszpień (1990: 93–4). This may be partly because,
unlike verbs of the previous two categories, impersonal usage with verbs of
Anger emerged in the early Middle English period, not in Old English. The
earliest impersonal verbs of Anger are all of native origin, and all of them have
some causative sense:
• grāmen [OE gramian]
‘to make (sb.) angry, infuriate; be angry, be enraged’
(4-47) Þe reue . . . bigon to cwakien, se grundliche him
gromede.
the reeve
began to quake
so vehemently him-obj angered
‘The reeve . . . began to quake, so vehemently was he angry.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 61/669]
• grēmen [OE (ge)gremian]
‘to make (sb.) angry; provoke, offend’; ‘to become angry, rage’
(4-48) Him
bigon to gremien, & o grome gredde: ‘Strupeð hire . . . &
him-obj began to be angry and in anger cried
strip
her
and
heoueð hire on heh up.’
heave her on high up
‘He began to be angry and cried out in anger: “Strip her . . . and heave her up
on high.”’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Marg.(1) (Bod 34) 42.10]
• tēnen [OE tēonian]
‘to anger (sb.), enrage; vex (sb.), irritate’; ‘to become angry’
(4-49) Me
teoneð mare þet ha tukeð ure godes to bale.
me-obj angers more that they treat our gods to ruin
‘I am angry all the more because they subject our gods to ridicule.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Kath.(1) (Roy 17.A.27) 31/252]
The thirteenth-century examples of the impersonal use of these three verbs in
their MED entries are all found either in Laȝamon’s Brut or in the texts of the
‘Katherine Group’, just like the three verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment which
became impersonal in the thirteenth century (bilŏven, gāmen, glāden; see
section 4.2). The impersonal use of these six verbs may thus more accurately
be attributed to the idiosyncratic usage of the authors of these particular works
rather than the West Midland dialect used there.
In Old English (ge)gremian, the equivalent of grēmen, has about 200 occurrences (DOE s.v. gremman, gremian; gegremman, gegremian), but impersonal usage is not attested (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 90), while gramian, from
which grāmen is derived, has merely two examples (DOE s.v. gramian).
76 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Impersonal usage lasted until the end of the fourteenth century for grēmen,
end of the thirteenth century for grāmen, and end of the fifteenth century for
tēnen.
In the fourteenth century another native verb, wratthen, acquired impersonal use, though the MED entry gives only two illustrative quotations of this
usage, both from the end of the century and both again from the texts of the
West Midland dialect broadly (Burrow & Turville-Petre 2005: 7, 142, 162):
• wratthen [OE (ge)wrǢþan]
‘to be or become angry, rage’
(4-50) Ȝif him
wrattheth, be ywar and his weye shonye.
if him-obj is angry
be careful and his way shun
‘If he is angry, be careful and shun his way.’
[c1400(c1378) PPl.B (LdMisc 581) prol.174]
The other example is from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The instance here
is glossed intransitively in the MED, but the verb itself also has a causative
sense (‘to provoke (sb., God, etc.) to wrath; incur the wrath of (sb., God, etc.),
anger’), which is recorded throughout Middle English.
In the fifteenth century impersonal usage spreads to three more verbs of
different origin, although wrēthen is effectively a variant of wratthen. The
MED entries for all these verbs cite only a single instance of impersonal use as
reproduced below, which suggests that these examples are virtually nonce
expressions:
• angren [ON angra]
‘to feel irritation or resentment, bear a grudge; be angry’; ‘to irritate, annoy, provoke, or offend (sb.)’
(4-51) Me
angers at Arthure and att his hathell bierns.
me-obj angers at Arthur and at his noble soldiers
‘I am angry with Arthur and his noble soldiers.’
[c1440(?a1400) Morte Arth.(1) (Thrn) 1662]
• disdeinen [OF desdeignier]
‘to be offended or angered at (sth.)’; ‘to feel or show indignation, wax indignant,
take offense’
(4-52) We were faire and bright, Þerfore me thoght þat he The kynde of vs
we were fair and bright therefore me seemed that he the kind of us
tane myght, And þer-at dedeyned me.
take might and thereat offended me-obj
‘We were fair and bright, therefore it seemed to me that he might take our
nature, and I was offended at that.’
[a1450 Yk.Pl.(Add 35290) 22/11]
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 77
• wrēthen [OE (ge)wrǢ þan]
‘to be or become angry, rage; be angry (with sb.)’; ‘to provoke (sb., God, etc.) to
anger; also, displease (sb. or God)’
(4-53) If ȝe refreyne ȝow þar-fra, it falis bot of pride Or ellis ȝow
if you refrain you from there it falls but of pride or else you-obj
writhis with ȝour [?read: our] wele, for ȝe na welth have.
angers with your
wealth for you no wealth have
‘If you keep yourself from it, it happens but of pride. Or else you are angry
with (y)our wealth, for you have no wealth.’
[c1450(?a1400) Wars Alex.(Ashm 44) 4639]
Angren entered the English language at the beginning of the thirteenth century, and disdeinen at the end of the fourteenth century. The AND does not
acknowledge impersonal use of the Old French verb desdegner. Semantic
analogy with existent impersonal verbs of Anger and other negative feelings
such as Hatred/enmity (e.g. lōthen ‘to be hateful’, wlāten ‘to feel physical
disgust’) might have played important roles in licensing impersonal usage
with disdeinen.14 It should also be noted that, in contrast to angren and
wrēthen as well as pre-fifteenth-century impersonal verbs of Anger, disdeinen does not have any causative sense at this stage: the OED dates such a
sense only from the early sixteenth century (s.v. disdain †4. a.). A causative
sense was therefore presumably not always closely linked with the emergence
of impersonal use, at least in late Middle English.
A key to further understanding the chronological spread of impersonal
usage with verbs of Anger may lie in the subtle semantic differences between
grāmen, grēmen, and tēnen, on the one hand, and wratthen and wrēthen,
on the other. The definitions in BT(S) and the DOE indicate that the Old English verbs (ge)gremian and tēonian have certain specific senses of anger:
•gremian
BT: ‘to provoke, irritate, exasperate, vex, revile’
BTS: ‘I. to irritate, provoke. (1) the object a person, (2) the object an animal; II. to
provoke to action. (1) with prep, (a) of a muscular movement, (b) of a course of action;
III. to vex, behave ill to, be hostile to’
DOE: ‘1. to anger, enrage, infuriate; 2. to rouse, incite, provoke; 3. to revile, insult’
•gegremian
BT: ‘to irritate, provoke, excite, incense, inflame’
BTS: ‘I. of a physical effect; II. of a mental effect. (1) to irritate a person, (2) to irritate
an animal’
DOE: ‘1. to anger, enrage, infuriate; vex, irritate, annoy, offend (someone / God acc.,
with words, evil deeds, sins, etc., mid and dat. / þurh and acc. / dat.); 2. to rouse,
incite, provoke’
•tēonian
BT: ‘I. to vex, irritate; II. to reproach, revile, abuse, calumniate’
78 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
All the senses involve irritation, as indicated by my underlining, as well as
provocation or incitement, and imply that these verbs are used to express
rather intense anger. The strong degree of anger is also seen in one of the only
two surviving examples of gramian, which glosses the Latin verb inaestuāre
‘to burn with anger’ (Lewis 1966 s.v. inaestuō; DOE s.v. gramian). In the Thesaurus of Old English tēonian (and gramian, but not gremian) appears in the
subsection ‘Exasperation, irritation’ (08.01.03.05.03), and (ge)gremian is subsumed under ‘Incitement’ (06.02.06.03.03). Irritation is also manifest in the
MED definition of tēnen quoted above. By contrast, such a semantic component does not seem to be inherent in wratthen and wrēthen: both BT and
the MED assign senses of more general anger such as ‘to anger, be angry’ (BT
s.v. wræðan, gewræðan; MED wratthen, iwrātthen, wrēthen, iwrēthen). Both the
OED and MED date the sense of irritation in angren before its impersonal
use (OED s.v. anger 2, 1377–1882; MED s.v. angren 3. (a), ?c1200–a1500(a1460)).
Disdeinen expresses indignation in general and does not seem to involve irritation in particular, as far as we can judge from its MED definition.
We can now make some generalizations regarding the history of Middle
English impersonal verbs of Anger. Until the fourteenth century the impersonal usage was available only for verbs of native origin which had the semantic component of irritation or which expressed some fierce anger. The proviso
‘native origin’ is important to allow for angren as an exception, which, to
follow the sense division in the MED, implied irritation before the fourteenth
century but was not yet impersonal then. From the fourteenth century onwards the usage spreads, though very sporadically, to verbs of both native and
foreign origin which express more general anger, not necessarily with any
explicit connotation of irritation or fierce anger. This development is concomitant with the geographical spread of the usage, which was initially apparently
restricted to works of the West Midland dialect.
4.5 Hatred/Enmity
Unlike verbs of Anger but just like verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment and Mental
pain/suffering, verbs of Hatred/enmity were already used in impersonal constructions in Old English. Three verbs are available from this period:
• āðrēotan
‘to weary, irk, displease, be loathsome, irksome to any one’; ‘to make weary’
(4-54) Eac me
sceal aðreotan ymbe Philopes, & ymbe Tardanus, &
also me-acc/dat shall displease about Pelops
and about Dardanus and
ymb ealra þara Troiana gewin to asecgenne,
about all the Trojans’ victory to tell
‘I shall also be displeased to talk about Pelops, Dardanus, and all the Trojans’
victory,’
[Or 1 [0281 (8.27.32)]]
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 79
• lāðian
‘to be hateful or loathed’
(4-55) heom
laðode eallum þæt hi swa oft arisan, hwilon
þrywa on
them-dat loathed all-dat that they so often arise sometimes three at
niht, hwilon
feower syðum, to singenne þone lofsang þonne hi
night sometimes four
times
to sing
the hymn when they
slapan sceoldon,
sleep should
‘all of them loathed to arise so often, sometimes three, sometimes four times
at night, to sing the hymn when they should sleep,’
[ÆLS (Swithun) [0061 (230)]]
• wlātian
‘to cause a person (acc.) loathing’
(4-56) We nabbað þone hlaf þe us lyste etan, and us
nu wlatað
we not have the bread that us pleases eat and us-acc/dat now nauseates
wið þysne leohtan mete.
with this light
food
‘We do not have the bread that we want to eat, and we are now disgusted with
this light food.’
[ÆHom 21 [0056 (312)]]
These verbs are not very synonymous with each other, except that they all
denote some kind of loathing. A causative sense is found with āðrēotan
and wlātian, but not with lāðian. None of the three verbs was frequent in
Old English: the DOE records only eighteen instances of āðrēotan (‘to be
wearisome, tedious, distasteful’), and Möhlig-Falke (2012: 115) has found
that lāðian and wlātian appear only nine and eight times, respectively, in
the surviving corpus. Despite its low attestations, wlātian behaves impersonally in all of its eight occurrences. Āðrēotan is also generally favoured
in impersonal constructions, while lāðian has just three relevant instances
(Möhlig-Falke 2012: 115). Āðrēotan did not survive into Middle English, but
the other two verbs and their impersonal usage did. In the MED entries
lōthen (OE lāðian) is attested in impersonal constructions until the end
of the fifteenth century,15 and wlāten (OE wlātian) until the middle of the
same century. The latter verb died out in the early sixteenth century (OED
s.v. †wlate).
• lōthen [OE lāðian]
‘to be hateful or distasteful; be hateful to (sb.)’
(4-57) Me
lothith of my lif.
me-obj loathes of my life
‘I hate my life.’
[a1500 Leg.Cross BC (Wor F.172) 213]
80 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
• wlāten [OE wlātian]
‘to feel physical disgust for (sb. or sth.)’; ‘it causes (sb.) to become nauseated or feel
physical disgust, it makes (sb.) sick, etc.’
(4-58) Þei þerof to hem speke, þat for bodily hele for to wynne many
they thereof to them spoke that for bodily health for to win
many
hardschipis wolden þole . . . forbere al þat þe fleische desyreþ, ete
hardships would endure forbear all that the flesh desires eat
& drynk, bittir & wyk,
þouȝ hym
wlatide.
and drink bitter and unpleasant though him-obj disgusted
‘They spoke to them about it, who would endure many hardships in order to
win the health of the body . . . forbear all that the flesh desires, eat and drink,
bitter and unpleasant things, though it disgusted him.’
[a1450 PNoster R.Hermit. (Westm-S 3) 14/31]
No other verb of Hatred/enmity gained impersonal usage until the middle
of the fifteenth century, when two verbs joined the group, but most probably
as nonce expressions. Only one relevant example is quoted in each of their
MED entries, and it is from the same translation work, Alphabet of Tales. The
syntax of the Latin original may thus have realized the exceptional impersonal
use of these two verbs (see section 4.3):
• irken [ME coinage]
‘to be displeased or discontented; loathe (sth.), dislike, be disgusted (with sth.)’
(4-59) Hur
irkid
so with hur syn at sho hangid hur selfe.
her-obj disgusted so with her sin that she hanged her self
‘She was so disgusted with her sin that she hanged herself.’
[c1450 Alph.Tales (Add 25719) 178/27]
• uggen [ON ugga]
‘to feel loathing or disgust’; ‘to cause (sb.) to feel loathing or disgust’
(4-60) He spewid oute a grete froske . . . And when Nero lukid þervppon,
he spewed out a great frog
and when Nero looked thereupon
hym
vggid
þerwith.
him-obj disgusted therewith
‘He spewed out a great frog . . . and when Nero looked upon it, he felt disgust
with it.’
[c1450 Alph.Tales (Add 25719) 157/27]
Apart from potential translation effects, the general sense of loathing and impersonal use in other ‘Emotion’ categories (irken as a verb of Mental pain/
suffering, uggen as a verb of Fear) may have contributed to the assignment of
impersonal use of these two verbs. As for uggen, the impersonal use of the
Old Norse verb may also have had some effect (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 212). The
OED records ‘impersonal’ constructions of the type it irks (me), but none of the
type without the formal subject, until the middle of the nineteenth century.
The OED entry for ug subsumes all the examples of impersonal constructions
under the transitive use, with no label ‘impersonal’.
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 81
To summarize, among the five impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity, only
lāðian/lōthen and wlātian/wlāten had any long life in impersonal constructions. The definitions in BT and the MED suggest that the five verbs
are not quite synonymous with each other, except that they denote some
kind of loathing. There is some common element, however. Āðrēotan involves weariness, and wlāten implies physical disgust. The definition in BT
does not indicate any physical sense, but the illustrative quotations provided
in the entry suggest that the physical disgust is the primary meaning of the
verb. This is made most explicit from its use as the gloss for the Latin verb
nauseāre ‘to nauseate’ (e.g. Me wlataþ: nauseo ‘I feel nauseous’). The sense
of disgust, if not explicitly physical, is also present in the MED definitions
of irken and uggen. These two verbs have physical senses in other ‘Emotion’ categories, namely irken ‘to be weary, bored, tired’ as a verb of Mental
pain/suffering (see section 4.3) and uggen ‘to shudder with fear’ as a verb
of Fear (see section 4.8). With the exception of lāðian/lōthen, therefore,
impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity all inherently involve some physical
effect. This point is particularly interesting when we consider that the verb
hate, which is not known to have occurred in impersonal constructions,
does not seem to possess any physical sense (BT s.v. hatian; MED s.v. hāten;
OED s.v. hate).
Another generalization to be made especially in contrast to impersonal
verbs in other ‘Emotion’ categories is that correlation between causative meaning and impersonal use is not necessarily very high among verbs of Hatred/
enmity. Three of the five impersonal verbs have causative senses (āðrēotan,
wlātian/wlāten, uggen), but loathe, which was impersonal in Old and
Middle English, apparently lacks such a sense.
4.6 Pity/Compassion
Verbs in this category also occurred in impersonal constructions in Old
English:
• earmian16
‘to cause pity in a person (dat.)’
(4-61) Hwam
ne mæg earmian swylcere tide?
whom-dat not may pity
[such
time]-gen
‘To whom will there not be pity for such a time?’
[ChronE (Irvine) [1318 (1086.13)]]
• (ge)hrēowan
‘to rue, repent, grieve, pity’; ‘to affect with pity or compassion’
(4-62) Demð folc his & on þeowum his him
hrywð
judges folk his and in servants his him-dat pities
‘(he) judges his folk and he feels pity for his servants’
[PsCal (Lindelöf) [0100 (7(6).36)]]
82 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
• ofhrēowan
‘to cause grief or pity’; ‘to feel pity’
(4-63) & me
ofhreow þæt hi ne cuðon ne næfdon ða godspellican
and me-acc/dat pitied
that they not knew not not had the divine
lare
on heora gewritum.
teaching in their writings
‘And I felt pity that they neither knew nor had the divine teaching in their
writings.’
[ÆCHom I (Pref) [0002 (174.48)]]
All the three verbs have a causative sense. Earmian is attested merely twice in
the surviving texts (DOE s.v. earmian), and it died out by the end of the Old
English period. In Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 115) survey, (ge/of)hrēowan appeared in impersonal constructions forty-one times out of their eighty total
occurrences in Old English. Both (ge)hrēowan and ofhrēowan survived into
Middle English, respectively as reuen and areuen, along with their impersonal usage. Areuen died out by the end of the fifteenth century, and its impersonal usage lasted only until the early thirteenth century (OED s.v. †arue;
MED s.v. areuen), whereas reuen continued to be employed in impersonal
constructions until the end of the fifteenth century (MED s.v. reuen v.(1)):
• reuen [OE (ge)hrēowan]
‘to feel pity, be compassionate; have pity for (sb., his distress), weep over; have pity
on (souls, someone’s life)’
(4-64) Me
rewes, modur, of þi smarte.
me-obj feels pity mother of your pain
‘Mother, I feel pity for your pain.’
[a1500 Trental St.Greg.(2) (Adv 19.3.1) 96]
• areuen [OE ofhrēowan]
‘to feel pity or compassion; to pity (sb.), feel sorry about (sth.)’
(4-65) I schrift schawið him . . . ower laðlukeste sunnen forþi þet him
in shrift show
him
your most loathly sins
so
that him-obj
areowe ow, & þurh
þe areownesse inwardluker crie crist
mearci
feel pity you and through the compassion fervently
cry Christ’s mercy
for ow.
for you
‘In shrift show him . . . your most hateful sins so that he may feel pity for
you, and via the compassion fervently call for Christ’s mercy for you.’
[c1230(?a1200) *Ancr.(Corp-C 402) 16b]
No remarkable change is discernible in the semantic history of these impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion. Furthermore, impersonal usage did not spread to
other Middle English verbs in the same category, and (ge)hrēowan/reuen was
practically the sole representative of impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion in Old
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 83
and Middle English. From the middle of the thirteenth century, when areuen
ceased to be impersonal, reuen was the only impersonal verb available in this
semantic category. The boundary between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs
of Pity/compassion was therefore diachronically quite stable semantically and
lexically, with only one verb actively participating in impersonal constructions.
4.7 Humility
Like verbs of Pity/compassion, impersonal usage with verbs of Humility is
lexically considerably restricted. In the Old English period only two verbs participated in impersonal constructions, and one is the derivative of the other:
• (ge)sceamian
‘to blush, be ashamed, be confounded’; ‘to shame, cause or bring shame to, confound’
(4-66) swa þæt hy
ne sceamað na, þeh
hy syngian swiðe,
so that they-acc not feels shame not though they sin
greatly
‘so that they are not ashamed, although they have sinned greatly,’
[WHom 20.1 [0032 (108)]]
• forsceamian
‘to be or to make greatly ashamed’
(4-67) & hie
forscamige
ðæt hie eft
sua don
and them-acc greatly ashame that they again so do
‘and let them be greatly ashamed that they do so again’
[CP [0706 (21.151.12)]]
Apart from the difference in the degree of shame and the physical manifestation of the feeling of shame (‘to blush’), the senses of the two verbs are essentially identical. Most importantly, they both have a causative sense ‘to make
ashamed’. They were not very productively used in impersonal constructions:
in Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 115) survey, the percentage of impersonal uses of
(ā/ge/for)sceamian is 35.7. Forsceamian has thirty attestations in the surviving corpora, ‘mainly in glosses’ (DOE s.v. forsceamian), and (4-67) seems to
be the only example of impersonal use (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 316, Table B.20d).
In the DOE entry (4-67) is cited without the label ‘impersonal’, and all the
other illustrative quotations are unquestionably personal constructions.
A few words must be said about āsceamian ‘to be ashamed, feel shame’,
which is not acknowledged as impersonal in BT(S), DOE, or OED entries but
is regarded as such in Möhlig-Falke (2012: 313, Table B.20b) on the strength of
the following instance:
(4-68) Þær hi
ascamode, scondum gedreahte,
swiciað on swiman;
there them/they ashamed ignominy tormented-ppl wander-pl in dizziness
‘There, ashamed and tormented by ignominy, they wander in dizziness;’
[ChristA,B,C [0357 (1298)]]
84 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Morphologically, the pronoun hi can be accusative plural and ascamode can
be the third person singular preterite form, but it seems more natural to
interpret hi as the nominative plural subject of swiciað, which is also in the
plural form, and ascamode as the past participle just like gedreahte. Gollancz
(1958: 81) in his translation of the poem adopts such an interpretation. 17
Since (4-68) cannot be considered as an unambiguous example of an impersonal construction, I have opted not to count āsceamian as one of the
Old English impersonal verbs of Humility. Instead, it will be discussed in
Chapter 5 as one of the non-impersonal verbs. Relevant examples may have
failed to survive accidentally, since the prefix a- does not necessarily
prevent impersonal usage (e.g. āðrēotan, areuen; see also agrīsen in
section 4.8).
(Ge)sceamian continues to be found in impersonal constructions in
Middle English until the end of the period. Forsceamian also survived into
Middle English, but impersonal usage is not mentioned in the MED or OED.
Impersonal use in the Old English period may therefore be regarded as a
nonce expression. The verb itself died out by the end of the fifteenth century
(MED s.v. forshāmen). Instead, ofshāmen, which existed in Old English (ofsceamian ‘to put to shame’), appears in impersonal constructions in the early
fourteenth century.
• shāmen [OE (ge)sceamian]
‘to feel shame, be ashamed; blush, show physical signs of shame’; ‘to put (sb., oneself) to shame, disgrace’
(4-69) Me
shamed at that tyme to have more ado with you.
me-obj shamed at that time to have more ado with you
‘I was ashamed at that time to have more to do with you.’
[(a1470) Malory Wks.(Win-C) 443/25]
• ofshāmen [OE ofsceamian]
‘to put (sb.) to shame’
(4-70) Wymmen þat þere stode about & yseie hure defouled more And euere
women
that there stood about and saw her defiled more and ever
naked so uilliche hom
ofssamede sore.
naked so wickedly them-obj ashamed sorely
‘Women who stood around there and saw her afflicted more and ever naked
so wickedly they were ashamed greatly.’
[a1325 SLeg. (Corp-C 145) 323/242]
Example (4-70) is the only instance of impersonal use quoted in the MED
entry and is thus likely to be a nonce expression. The MED indicates this rare
usage only by the gloss ‘hem ofshamed, they were ashamed’, instead of a more
explicit label (see section 3.1). The frequencies of shāmen and ofshāmen
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 85
are widely different. Ofshāmen has only eleven illustrative quotations in
its MED entry, whereas the MED entry for shāmen has more than 140
quotations.
Thus, impersonal usage with verbs of Humility is virtually restricted to
(ge)sceamian/shāmen alone both in Old and Middle English. The boundary
between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs remained practically unchanged: only one verb dominated, and certain factors prevented the others
from joining in. The semantic component which enabled a verb of Humility
to be used in impersonal constructions apparently went through no clearly
discernible change from Old to Middle English. The three impersonal verbs of
Humility shared the causative sense ‘to make ashamed’. They therefore
strengthen the potential link between causative meaning and impersonal use
of verbs of emotion.
4.8 Fear
Just like verbs of Anger, verbs of Fear have been neglected in previous studies
of impersonal constructions with the exception of a very sketchy description
in Krzyszpień (1990: 100–2). A close collation of the verbs in this category
against BT(S) and the MED as well as the catalogues in Möhlig-Falke (2012)
revealed that none of them was used in impersonal constructions in Old
English and that even in Middle English the usage was apparently rather
rare. This must be the main reason for the lack of attention in the literature
so far.
According to the MED, impersonal usage with verbs of Fear first emerged
in the thirteenth century:
• agrīsen [OE āgrīsan]
‘to shudder with fear, awe, or dread; be frightened, terrified; feel awe or dread’; ‘to
terrify or frighten (sb.)’
(4-71) Ȝif þe
herof noht nagrist,
nart þu naht liues.
if you-obj hereof not not shudder are not you not lives
‘If you do not shudder for this, you are not alive.’
[a1225(c1200) Vices & V.(1) (Stw 34) 139/10]
• agrūwie [ME coinage; < grue]
‘feel horror (of sth.)’
(4-72) Ȝe schulen biholden sumetime touward te pine of helle, þet ou
you shall
behold sometimes towards the pain of hell that you-obj
agruwie [vrr. grise, uggi] aȝean ham & fleo . . . urommard ham.
feel horror
against them and flee
from
them
‘You must look sometimes towards the torments of hell, so that you feel
horror against them and flee . . . from them.’
[a1250 Ancr.(Nero A.14) 40/22]
86 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
• grīsen [OE grīsan]
‘to shudder, quake; feel horror, be frightened’; ‘to frighten (sb.), terrify’
(4-73) Þeo men beoþ þe bliþre . . . Þet þin muþ is betuned, [þe
þu] þeo
those men are the happier that your mouth is closed
which you the
teone ut lettest, Þe
heom sore grulde, þet ham
gros
reproach out let
which them sorely provoked that them-obj shuddered
þe aȝan.
you against
‘Those men are the happier . . . that your mouth is closed, with which you
uttered reproach, which sorely provoked them, that they shuddered against
you.’
[c1225 Body & S.(2) (Wor F.174) 4/18]
• uggen [ON ugga]
‘to be fearful, fear; also, tremble, shudder, quake’
(4-74) Ȝe schulen bihalde sum cheare toward te pine of helle, þet ow
you shall
behold some times towards the pain of hell that you-obj
uggi
wið ham & fleo þe swiðere
ham from mard.
shudder with them and flee the more quickly them from ward
‘You must look sometimes towards the torments of hell, so that you shudder
at them and may flee the more quickly from them.’
[c1230(?a1200) Ancr.(Corp-C 402) 50/21]
The examples quoted here are the earliest instances of impersonal use provided in the MED entries for the four verbs. Interestingly, what was observed
with the new impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment and Anger in the thirteenth century can also be confirmed here: most of the thirteenth-century citations of the impersonal use of the above four verbs are from works of the
West Midland dialect, such as Laȝamon’s Brut, Ancrene Riwle, and the ‘Katherine Group’ texts (Burrow & Turville-Petre 2005: 7, 97, 107; see sections 4.2
and 4.4). The authors of these works were thus quite instrumental in establishing impersonal usage with a number of verbs of emotion.
Agrīsen existed in the Old English period, but the DOE records only five
instances (‘mainly in Wulfstan’). Impersonal usage lasted until the end of the
fifteenth century. Agrūwie is apparently a hapax legomenon: the above instance is the sole illustrative quotation provided in the OED and MED entries
of the verb. The DOE entry for grīsan cites (4-73) as its only attested instance
in Old English.18 It is last found in impersonal constructions around the end
of the fourteenth century. The example of uggen under (4-74) is the earliest
citation in the OED and MED entries, and its impersonal usage may be at least
partly attributable to that of the Old Norse verb (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 212; see
section 4.5). The MED entry quotes only one more impersonal instance from
the middle of the fifteenth century, which implies that the impersonal use of
uggen was not frequently found in Middle English. Only (a)grīsen seems to
have any causative sense. As far as thirteenth-century verbs of Fear are
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 87
concerned, therefore, correlation between causative meaning and impersonal
use may not be very close, but agrūwie and uggen, which do not appear to be
causative, are far less productively employed in impersonal constructions than
(a)grīsen. Correlation between (regular) impersonal use and causative meaning is thus not too weak.
These pioneer impersonal verbs of Fear are joined by four more verbs in
the fourteenth century:
• auen [ON agi]
‘to terrify (sb.), overawe’; ‘him aueth, he is in awe, he fears’
(4-75) Lytyl of Goddes veniaunce hym
aweþ.
little of God’s vengeance him-obj awes
‘He has little fear of God’s vengeance.’
[a1400(c1303) Mannyng HS (Hrl 1701) 10282]
• drēden [OE drǢ dan]19
‘to be afraid, become frightened’; ‘to frighten (sb.), terrify’
(4-76) And seyde, ‘Ywis, me
dredeth evere mo
and said
indeed me-obj dreads ever more
The sonnes sone, Pheton, be
on
lyve,
the sun’s son
Phaeton be
on
life
And that
his
fader
carte
amys he dryve.’
and that
his
father’s cart
amiss he drive
‘And said, “Indeed, I fear constantly the sun’s son, Phaeton, may be alive, and
that he may drive his father’s chariot awry.”’
[Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde 5.663–5]
• maien [ME coinage]
‘to be upset or frightened; ppl. maied, dismayed, fearful’; ‘impers. (?or refl.): him gan
to ~, he was dismayed’
(4-77) Ac wan Charlis hit wiste & seȝ, for hymen hym
gan to maye.
but when Charles it knew and saw for them him-obj began to dismay
‘But when Charles knew and saw it, he was dismayed because of them.’
[c1380 Firumb.(1) (Ashm 33) 978]
• ofdrēden [OE ofdrǢ d]
‘to fear (sth.), be afraid of’
(4-78) Wel sore hyre of dradde Þat horn child ded were.
well sore her-obj afraid
that Horn child dead were
‘She was very sore afraid that Horn Child would die.’
[c1300 Horn (LdMisc 108) 1205]
Examples here all come from texts of dialects outside West Midland: the dialect of MS Harley 1701 of Robert Mannyng’s Handlyng Synne is ‘South East
Midland with occasional reflections of an older North East Midland manuscript source’ (Sullens 1983: xx), and Chaucer’s works belong to the London
88 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
dialect (Burrow & Turville-Petre 2005: 7), while Sir Firumbras is written in ‘a
Southern (probably Devonshire) dialect’ (Herrtage 1966: xviii; though with
‘an unusually large admixture of Midland and Northern forms’), and the dialect of King Horn is generally South Eastern (McKnight 1962: xxiv–xxviii). Impersonal usage with verbs of Fear has therefore now spread not just lexically
but also geographically. By contrast, correlation with causative sense remains
not very strong, with only two verbs having such senses (auen, drēden).
Of the above four verbs, only drēden is not explicitly recognized as an impersonal verb in the MED, and (4-76) is supplied from my own reading (Miura
2008; see section 3.1). The same instance, however, is in fact cited in the MED
entry for drēden, among examples of Experiencer-subject transitive constructions (s.v. 2. (b) ‘with obj. clause: to fear (that sth. is true or will happen, lest
sth. happen)’). This shows that the MED, especially in its early volumes, was
not always careful in grammatical classifications of quotations. On closer inspection of each entry, we may find more cases of ‘hidden’ impersonal usage
like this.
Example (4-75) is the only instance of the impersonal use of auen and is the
earliest quotation in the OED entry, though the MED cites an instance of causative use from the early thirteenth century. Example (4-77) is the earliest citation of maien in both the MED and OED entries (s.v. †may, v. 2) and is the only
illustrative quotation for impersonal use in the MED entry. The OED does not
acknowledge impersonal usage, and the MED suspects that (4-77) might actually be an instance of the reflexive use. However, similar ­impersonal patterns
are found with other verbs (see e.g. (4-35) and (4-42) in ­section 4.3, (4-48) in
section 4.4), so we cannot entirely deny the possibility that maien is used impersonally in this example. The MED entry for ofdrēden provides only two
instances of impersonal constructions (including the citation above), both
from the early fourteenth century. None of the above four verbs can thus be
considered to have been very productive in impersonal use.
In the fifteenth century another verb of Old English origin is added to the
group, though only two relevant instances are cited in its MED entry:
• arghen [OE eargian]
‘to grow faint or disheartened; be fearful, timid, or reticent’
(4-79) Quod þe qwene, ‘me
arȝes of my-selfe; I am all in aunter, sa akis
said the queen me-obj fears of myself
I am all in danger so aches
me þe wame.’
me the stomach
‘Said the queen, “I am fearful for myself; I am completely in danger, so aches
my stomach.”’
[c1450(?a1400) Wars Alex. (Ashm 44) 537]
The Old English verb eargian is attested only nine times in the surviving
corpora (DOE s.v. eargian). The senses given in the DOE are essentially the
same as the ones in the MED, and none of the examples illustrates the
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 89
impersonal use. The impersonal usage, which was initially restricted to only
four verbs, gradually extended its scope, even till the end of the Middle English period.
On the basis of the information from the MED entries, it is possible to
make two generalizations about the history of Middle English impersonal
verbs of Fear. First, before the fourteenth century all the recognized impersonal verbs of Fear share the sense ‘to shudder’ as well as ‘to fear’. 20 These
verbs thus involve both a change of state and a state (Atkins & Levin 1995:
96). The MED definitions for agrīsen, grīsen, and uggen all have these
semantic components. The definition given for agrūwie does not contain
any sense of shuddering, but the only attested instance indicates variant
readings of grīsen and uggen, which include the sense of shuddering.
Hence, agrūwie after all may have possessed the sense ‘to shudder’ too.
The definition of the verb in the OED (s.v. †agrue ‘to cause to shudder, to
horrify’) provides supporting evidence. From the fourteenth century onwards, the general sense of fear alone can enable a verb of Fear to be used
in impersonal constructions, if only very rarely. The fourteenth- and
fifteenth-­century impersonal verbs of Fear are semantically less similar to
each other than the thirteenth-century impersonal verbs of Fear, but they
all share the sense ‘to fear’ or ‘to be fearful’. As impersonal usage expanded
to more verbs and to areas beyond West Midland, having a causative meaning seems to have become less relevant: the last addition to the group of
impersonal verbs, arghen, does not appear to be causative. However, consideration should be given to the fact that the two verbs which can be said
to have had any long life in being impersonal, agrīsen and grīsen, have
causative senses.
4.9 Summary: Regularities across Semantic Categories?
Table 4.1 summarizes the numbers of Old and Middle English impersonal
verbs found in each of the seven HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories discussed in
this chapter. ‘OE only’ refers to the verbs which were impersonal in Old English but which either died out by the end of the period (e.g. āðrēotan,
(ge)lustfullian; ‘died in OE’) or which survived into Middle English without
impersonal usage (e.g. forsceamian/forshāmen, (ge)hrēowsian/reusen;
‘pers. in ME’). ‘OE to ME’ refers to the verbs which behaved impersonally
from Old to Middle English (e.g. lāðian/lōthen, (ge)līcian/līken), while
‘ME only’ denotes the verbs which became impersonal in Middle English,
whether they existed in Old English (e.g. quēmen, tēnen; ‘in OE’) or not (e.g.
angren, irken; ‘not in OE’). The figures in parenthesis refer to the verbs
which are apparently restricted to impersonal constructions with formal it, as
far as we can judge from their MED entries. The categories are listed in descending order of the total number of impersonal verbs indicated at the rightmost column.
90 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
table 4.1 Distribution of impersonal verbs in the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories
HTOED ‘Emotion’
category
Mental pain/suffering
Pleasure/enjoyment
Fear
Anger
Hatred/enmity
Humility
Pity/compassion
OE only
OE to
died in OE pers. in ME
3
3
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
ME only
ME in OE not in OE
4
2
0
0
2
1
2
7 (1)
3
4
5
0
1
0
5
8 (2)
5
2
2
0
0
total
21
16
9
7
5
3
3
The analysis of the evidence from historical dictionaries in this chapter has
revealed that whether or not a verb of emotion can occur in impersonal constructions in Old and Middle English was determined not only at the macrolevel (i.e. semantic categories such as Pleasure/enjoyment, Anger, and Humility) but also at the micro-level (i.e. particular kinds of Pleasure/enjoyment,
Anger, and Humility). The number of impersonal verbs and the frequency of
the usage are quite different from one category to another, but there are several tendencies that span different categories.
Verbs of Fear and Anger have parallel histories. Both groups first developed impersonal usage in the early thirteenth century, though it did not
end up being very productive. Some sense of stimulus, specifically shuddering for verbs of Fear and irritation for verbs of Anger, respectively, was
crucial at this initial stage, and only the verbs which involved such a sense
were employed in impersonal constructions. By the end of the thirteenth
century this particular sense ceased to be a critical parameter for licensing
the impersonal use, and from the fourteenth century a general sense of
Fear/Anger alone was sufficient to develop impersonal usage, if only as a
nonce expression. It is worth noting how none of the above-mentioned impersonal verbs of Fear and Anger is a core member of its semantic class (see
Ogura 2006, Gevaert 2007): except for angren, all are rather peripheral
verbs of Fear and Anger. Another important parallelism is that almost all of
the thirteenth-century examples of impersonal use of verbs of Fear and
Anger in their MED entries are found in non-translational texts of the West
Midland dialect, from whence the usage gradually spread to other dialectal
areas in the fourteenth century and afterwards. This suggests that the
emergence of impersonal usage in these two ‘Emotion’ categories was a
native development, independent from influence of Old Norse or Old
French. The same West Midland texts are also involved in the rise of new
impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment in the thirteenth century. However, convergence of examples in these texts may be due to the fact that
Laȝamon’s Brut, ‘Katherine Group’ texts, and Ancrene Riwle, all of which
generally belong to the West Midland dialect, constitute a large part of the
surviving thirteenth-century texts and that the MED cites frequently from
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 91
these works. The picture may be slightly altered when other contemporary
texts are examined more carefully and extensively.
Questions arise as to why verbs of Fear and Anger began to be used in impersonal constructions only from Middle English and why the usage was initially limited to peripheral verbs. The first puzzle will not be fully elucidated
until we study the behaviour of verbs of Fear and Anger in the Old English
period, which I must leave for future research. As for the second one, we may
at least hypothesize along the lines proposed by Fay (1917), who did a brief
study of impersonal verbs of emotion in Latin and Sanskrit. Noting that an
emotion ‘is the response to an irritant stimulus’ (1917: 88), he concludes that:
the impersonals of emotion—including thirst, hunger, and thought—chiefly express the action of an objective stimulus (usually pointed or edged) on a person
[sic] feeling (dative of contact, or accusative); while the exciting cause, usually the
person from whom the stimulus (after it is generalized to ‘pain,’ ‘sorrow,’ or the
like) seems to proceed is expressed by the genitive. (1917: 93; my underlining)
Sabatini (1979: 151) similarly argues that the nature of Old and early Middle
English impersonal verbs, ‘a sort of “immanent domain” wherein the subject
suffers or undergoes some physiological or psychological change’, reflects the
same nuances effected by the Greek middle and Latin deponent systems. The
rise and spread of impersonal usage with verbs of Fear and Anger may be
considered to follow the intrinsic nature of impersonal verbs in Latin and Sanskrit: the incipient impersonal verbs in early Middle English ‘express the
action of an objective stimulus’, while subsequent verbs in late Middle English
illustrate the stage where the stimulus is generalized to an emotion. Some
changes might thus have taken place in the lexical-semantic system of impersonal constructions around the fourteenth century.
This hypothesis is both supported and apparently contradicted by findings
from the previous sections of this chapter. Most importantly, no comparable
systematic change can be detected in categories whose members appeared in
impersonal constructions in Old English, namely Pleasure/enjoyment, Mental
pain/suffering, Hatred/enmity, Pity/compassion, and Humility. However,
some of these categories experienced minor development during the fourteenth century: a number of verbs of Old French origin were first attested in
impersonal constructions, and not many of them had the same usage in the
source language (e.g. (a)noien, paien); some verbs which have existed since
the Old English period acquire impersonal usage in the fourteenth century
(e.g. forthinken, ofshāmen, quēmen); the three verbs which are apparently
limited to impersonal constructions with formal it (joien, tikelen, wērīen)
occur in this usage in or after the fourteenth century. These phenomena could
be taken as evidence that the fourteenth century marks a turning point for
impersonal verbs of emotion.
The question naturally emerges regarding why changes are observed
around the fourteenth century. One could argue that it could be partly attributable to richer textual evidence from the fourteenth century onwards (Stern
92 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
1931: 187). The fourteenth century has often been recognized as one of the key
periods in the development of impersonal constructions in the history of
English (e.g. van der Gaaf 1904, Allen 1995, Malak 2008), but this issue
needs to be re-examined within the whole context of the linguistic system of
fourteenth-century English, which is beyond the scope of this book.
Potentially important roles played by some ‘stimulus’ in some impersonal
verbs of Fear and Anger may imply aspectual differences between these verbs
and impersonal verbs in the other ‘Emotion’ categories. Impersonal verbs of
Fear and Anger may not be entirely stative (i.e. lacking change of state), especially pre-fourteenth-century impersonal verbs of Fear, which apparently involved a change of state (‘to shudder’) and a state (‘to fear’). By contrast, as far
as we can judge from dictionary definitions, impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment, Mental pain/suffering, Hatred/enmity, Pity/compassion, and Humility do not seem to have any clear aspectual differences diachronically. Previous studies are divided on the aspect of impersonal verbs and constructions
(see section 2.4.2), but the possible variation between individual ‘Emotion’
categories and the diachronic transition (‘to shudder’ + ‘to fear’ > ‘to fear’)
have not been noticed. This may point to new generalizations regarding the
rise and spread of impersonal usage during Middle English. There is, however, certainly a risk in deciding the aspect of early English verbs purely on the
strength of the modern translation equivalent (see Marín & McNally 2005:
212), so judgement on (non-)stativity should be made with appropriate diagnostics. This will be attempted in the next chapter. Some of the impersonal
verbs of Mental pain/suffering, Hatred/enmity, and Humility appear to imply
physical actions (e.g. shāmen, sŏuen, wlāten), but this is probably ascribable
to their status as verbs of emotion rather than their aspectual nature: Diller
(2008: 126) defines emotion as ‘an involuntary, evaluative reaction which is
experienced simultaneously at the physical and the affective level and which is
typically communicated by physical symptoms’ (see also Diller 2005a: 111,
2007b: 17). Diller (2008: 127) notes that the choice of a deliberately modern
definition is due to his wish to determine the distance between medieval and
modern concepts. Definitions and classifications of ‘emotion’ in psychology
will be reviewed in Chapter 6.
Pity/compassion and Humility are the only categories whose impersonal
verbs are all of Old English origin. The number of impersonal verbs is fairly
small, and only one of them in each category, namely rue and shame, is regularly used in impersonal constructions from Old to Middle English. Verbs of
Pity/compassion and Humility are thus distinct from verbs of Fear and Anger,
in that impersonal use was allowed almost exclusively for the most representative verb in the group rather than peripheral members.
Although they should be treated with due caution, dictionary definitions
have suggested that there is often a close correlation between a causative
meaning and impersonal use, as hypothesized in section 2.4.1. All of the
impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion and Humility and most of the impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment and Mental pain/suffering have causative
old and middle english impersonal verbs | 93
senses such as ‘to cause pity’, ‘to make ashamed’, ‘to please’, and ‘to displease’.
Several apparently non-causative verbs (e.g. disdeinen, lōthen, ofdrēden)
may mean that possessing a causative sense was not always sufficient for
Middle English verbs of emotion to be employed in impersonal constructions, but it may still be remarkable that none of the seven HTOED ‘Emotion’
categories investigated in this chapter consists exclusively of non-causative
impersonal verbs. Causation may therefore have had some indirect effect
even in cases where it does not immediately seem to be significant. Whether
this generalization can be supported by the actual data, i.e. whether these
impersonal verbs had syntactically causative uses, will be investigated in the
next chapter.
94 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
CHAPTER
5
Semantic Distinctions between
Impersonal and Non-impersonal
Verbs of Emotion
Evidence from Entries in the Middle English
Dictionary
this chapter focuses on data analyses and tests individual semantic generalizations made in the previous chapter. The generalizations were formed entirely on the basis of lexicographical data, mainly definitions, about verbs of
emotion which can be used in impersonal constructions (‘impersonal verbs’),
as provided in BT(S), DOE, and MED. In this chapter I will not only look at
these verbs more closely but also at verbs which seem to have the semantic
potential to appear in impersonal constructions but which are not known to
have done so, namely non-impersonal verbs. It is necessary to examine both
groups of verbs—‘the outer perimeter’ in Denison’s (1990: 122) words—in
order to understand how and why impersonal usage might have been licensed.
This chapter is exclusively concerned with the Middle English period (see
section 1.3.2), and the primary database consists of the illustrative quotations
in MED entries of the verbs concerned. The justification for this choice of the
database is provided in the first section. After revisiting factors to examine for
data analysis in the second section, sections 5.3 to 5.9 will discuss the same
groups as in the previous chapter. In each section I will first deal with characteristics that pertain to impersonal constructions and then compare impersonal verbs with non-impersonal verbs. These seven sections will be followed
by a section which discusses verbs of Jealousy/envy, Pride, and Courage, none
of which is known to have been impersonal, as a comparative study. The last
section will sum up the findings of the whole chapter with particular reference to how the five criteria which were predetermined in Chapter 2 and
which will be revisited in section 5.2 contribute to drawing borderlines between Middle English impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of emotion.
5.1 Choice of Corpora: Using the MED Entries as a Database
It is indisputable that any large-scale investigation of historical English benefits greatly from the use of electronic corpora. To borrow Fischer’s (1989: 83)
words, these large corpora are ‘not only desirable, but imperative for any type
of lexical research’. In the absence of native speaker intuitions, Carroll (1997:
62) also argues for ‘as large a corpus as possible’ in order to obtain ‘as complete a picture as possible of the constructions available for use with certain
verbs’.1 As far as studies of impersonal constructions are concerned, electronic
corpora have not been fully utilized yet, with the exception of Palander-Collin
(1999), who used the Helsinki Corpus and the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, and Möhlig-Falke (2012), whose data come from the DOE Web
Corpus.2 This must be because most of the corpora became available only relatively recently and because there is already a rich accumulation of relevant
data in previous studies, such as van der Gaaf (1904), Wahlén (1925), Visser
(1963), Elmer (1981), and Ogura (1986a). Research tendencies have therefore
been to reuse those data, with some recourse to illustrative quotations in the
OED or MED, and/or to create one’s own databases from modern editions of
major texts and concordances.
Selecting the corpus for the Middle English data is not straightforward,
since, unlike Old English, there is as yet no exhaustive corpus of Middle English, and each of the available corpora has drawbacks in size or number of text
types. For example, the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English
Texts, with about 60,000 words of verse and prose texts in the Middle English
section, is well-known to be ‘comparatively small for lexical purposes’, particularly for studies of content words (Fischer 1997a: 469; see also Gevaert 2007:
33 and Loureiro-Porto 2009: 11), although several corpus linguists maintain
that it can be useful in obtaining ‘diagnostic’ results prior to more detailed
period-focused research with a separate and more specialized corpus (Rissanen 1992: 265, 2008: 59, Kohnen 2006: 78, Curzan 2008a: 598, 2008b:
1095; see also Rissanen 2000). The second edition of the Penn-Helsinki
Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2) and the prose corpus of the Innsbruck Computer Archive of Machine-Readable English Texts (ICAMET) are
much larger than the Middle English section of the Helsinki Corpus, but both
corpora consist entirely of prose works, with the exception of Ormulum in the
PPCME2.3 Excluding poetry in a study of impersonal constructions is not advisable since it can have negative effects on the results: Băncilă (1991), who
analysed impersonal constructions in both prose and poetry, believes that her
decision is justifiable because the language of poetry not only ‘does not obscure the major stages in the process of change and loss of the impersonal
construction’ but also ‘sometimes provides ideal illustrations of cases of syntactic ambiguity, which may account for the reanalysis of the old impersonal
pattern’ (1991: 107). Nakao (1972: 207) notes that impersonal constructions in
Middle English are frequently found in verse texts, though infrequent in alliterative poetry. 4 It is also worth pointing out that all the lesser-known examples
96 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
of Middle English impersonal constructions quoted in section 3.1 come from
poetry. This suggests that poetry can provide interesting data regarding semantic distinctions between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs. Choosing or constructing a database both from prose texts and from poetry is thus
of vital importance for the purpose of this book. Some other available large
corpora—the letter corpus of ICAMET, the Middle English Medical Texts
(MEMT), and the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) and its
variants—are restricted to a particular text type and do not cover the early
Middle English period.5 The Middle English Grammar Corpus (MEG-C), still
under compilation, similarly covers only the period 1350–1500 in its currently
available version.6 The Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse, with 146
texts (February 2006), is the largest single collection of complete Middle English texts available online (McSparran 2002: 138),7 but it is criticized as ‘biased
towards late Middle English’ (Rissanen 2000: 10; see also Kohnen 2006: 82)
and ‘not very well structured and organized’ (Rissanen 2004: 1096). On the
other hand, Diller (2008: 131) notes that this corpus is ‘fairly well balanced between prose and verse, though comparatively weak on religious prose’.
For lack of a suitable choice among the standard corpora and for the reasons to follow, illustrative quotations under MED entries of the verbs concerned will be used as a primary database in the present investigation. Thus,
unless otherwise stated, all the Middle English instances in this chapter are
adopted from the MED, and modern English translations of these instances
are all mine. In contrast to the OED, whose usability as a corpus for linguistic analyses has increasingly been acknowledged (see Fischer 1997b, Hoffmann 2004, Iyeiri 2010: 19–23, 197–8, Coleman 2012: 103–4),8 the MED is
not very commonly selected as a primary dataset in corpus-based investigations. Apart from the fact that, just like the OED, it is not designed for systematic linguistic study (Curzan & Palmer 2006: 18–19, Kohnen 2006: 81–2,
Curzan 2008a: 599, 2008b: 1096), it does not allow any accurate statistical
analysis,9 which is possible with the OED (on CD-ROM). In addition, the
context for judging the precise meaning of a word is often limited. Kossmann (2007) explicitly argues against drawing evidence exclusively from
dictionary quotations and definitions in a study of historical semantics, since
‘the actual use of words in specific contexts differs from the rather static
entries in the dictionaries’, which ‘illustrate the senses only selectively’
(2007: 41, 47; see also Sylvester 2010). Lewis (2002b: 79) reports, however,
that the editorial team of the MED increased the average length of the illustrative quotations over the years ‘as we have felt the need to make cuttings
that could stand on their own syntactically and would give the reader enough
context to actually show how they illustrated the definitions’. The criticism
on the lack of context may thus not necessarily apply, especially for words in
later volumes.
The MED has several practical advantages for the purposes of the present
study. First, the size of its entries, if not the whole quotations database, is
manageable, especially for qualitative analyses. The data in the MED entries
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 97
generally sufficiently serve the objective of examining syntactic and collocational patterns of the words, which I will use as evidence for subtle semantic
distinctions (see Carroll 1997: 30–1). Just as in Carroll’s work, for the purpose
of this book, grammaticality or acceptability of constructions is more important than their frequency (1997: 131). Rigid statistical analysis is certainly not
feasible, but we can obtain a rough idea about whether the word is relatively
rare or frequent from the number of illustrative quotations offered in its entry,
since the MED illustrates every sense with at least one quotation, if available,
for every quarter of a century (Lewis & Williams 2007: 18). Secondly, these
entries save the trouble of removing irrelevant examples such as homonyms
(e.g. listen ‘to please’ vs listen ‘to listen to’) and words of a different part of
speech (e.g. the noun hate vs the verb hate), which is an unavoidable procedure with any unlemmatized corpus, including the OED and MED quotations
databases. All the citations in the MED entries are correct instances of that
particular word, unless the editors have made mistakes. Furthermore, even
when the word in question is scarcely or never attested in some standard corpora, the MED, with its extensive textual coverage, always provides data (see
Lewis 2002b: 78–9, McSparran 2002: 126–7, 130, Simpson 2002: 5–6, Stanley 2002: 24, 27). This is very helpful for a study which has to deal with a large
number of words of widely varying frequency, just like this book. In short, the
MED entries allow an impartial approach to both common and rare words
(see Carroll 1997: 37). I consulted the Corpus of Middle English Prose and
Verse or print editions when more context was strongly required for a proper
interpretation of the example,10 but I have remained faithful to the MED entries as the primary database. This chapter is thus an attempt to test their
usability as a historical corpus for a comprehensive study of Middle English
lexical semantics.
A few words should finally be said about the dating system in the MED.
The MED normally supplies two dates, i.e. the date of the manuscript and in
parentheses the conjectural date of composition of the text.11 Only the composition date is provided when it is well attested and within twenty-five years of
the date of the manuscript (Lewis & Williams 2007: 44). Kohnen (2006: 78)
notes that the date of composition is preferable for syntactic and pragmatic
studies, whereas the date of the manuscript is useful for investigations of phonology, morphology, and lexis. Both dates are equally important for this work,
which is concerned with ‘the crossroads of syntax, semantics and lexicography’ (Schendl 1992b: 418). I will thus adopt Allen’s (1995: 8) policy and cite
both the date of the manuscript and the presumed date of composition, whenever they are available.
5.2 Factors to Examine Revisited
After a careful examination of previous studies on pairs or groups of nearsynonymous verbs in early English and on psych-verbs in modern languages,
98 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Chapter 2 concluded that the following factors are worth considering for investigating semantic distinctions between impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs of emotion:
1. Constructional patterns (thematic structure or syntactic patterning)
Are there any noticeable differences between impersonal and near-­
synonymous non-impersonal verbs in (i) the formation and semantics of
Experiencer-subject intransitive and transitive constructions (i.e. personal constructions), which have been claimed in the literature to be
semantically distinct from impersonal constructions, especially regarding control and duration of the feeling, and in (ii) the availability of passive and middle-reflexive constructions, which are said to share similar
functions with impersonal constructions?
2. Animacy of the non-Experiencer argument (Target of Emotion; ToE)
Does animacy play any role in distinguishing impersonal verbs from
near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs? Are inanimate ToEs preferred
with impersonal verbs just as they are with līcian/līken and Old English impersonal verbs in general?
3. Argument alternations
Are there any alternations available only with impersonal verbs or nonimpersonal verbs? Do they provide support or counter-evidence to
Levin’s (1993) hypothesis about the semantic determination of syntax?
4.Causation
Do these verbs have any causative meaning, or syntactically causative
use, namely occurrence in transitive constructions where the Target of
Emotion is the subject (ToE-subject transitive constructions; e.g. Classical music pleases me)?
5.Aspect
Are there any aspectual differences between impersonal and near-­
synonymous non-impersonal verbs? Do they show different results with
aspectual diagnostics (a (non-)habitual interpretation in the simple present, co-occurrence with eventive adverbials)?
The lexicographic semantic analysis in Chapter 4 yielded interesting implications regarding causation and aspect. Most of the Old and Middle English
impersonal verbs in the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories are found to have causative senses in their dictionary definitions (e.g. grēmen ‘to make angry’,
(ge)līcian/līken ‘to please’, (ge)sceamian/shāmen ‘to make ashamed’),
and none of the categories is made up exclusively of verbs with only noncausative senses. This strengthens the hypothesis that, as far as verbs of
emotion are concerned, causation and impersonal usage are quite closely
related. This hypothesis can be maintained even more strongly if impersonal
verbs of emotion have attested examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions such as the following and if non-impersonal verbs are absent from
these constructions:
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 99
(5-1) Þis gude lif
schamis vs,
And confundis.
[this good life]-nom|ToE shames us-obj|Exp and confounds
‘This good life shames and confounds us.’
[a1425 Ben.Rule(1) (Lnsd 378) 47/22]
Potentially strong ties between causation and impersonal use make it very
relevant to follow up Pylkkänen’s (2000: 429) view that love and hate, which
are non-impersonal verbs, cannot causativize in Present-day English because
their mental states cannot be considered episodic (see section 2.4.1). If textual
evidence can be found that impersonal verbs of emotion are causative and express episodic feeling, this will create an interesting link with Pishwa’s (1999:
133) hypothesis that the impersonal (and causative) verb līcian involves an
immediate and uncontrollable feeling whereas the non-impersonal (and noncausative) verb lufian denotes long-term and controllable feeling, as well as
with Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 160–2) hypothesis that, in Old English, impersonal
constructions may be employed to express uncontrollable feeling which arises
spontaneously or inadvertently while personal constructions may be used to
describe more controllable feeling which is based on contemplation of the situation (see section 1.3.1).
Dictionary meanings of Old and Middle English impersonal verbs of
emotion have suggested that their aspect is more complicated than has
been assumed in the literature. There seems to be variation even within
the same ‘Emotion’ category, with some verbs involving a non-stative sense
and a stative sense (e.g. ‘to shudder’ and ‘to fear’ among verbs of Fear). A
systematic investigation using relevant diagnostics is required to re-­
examine the aspect of impersonal verbs and how it differed from near-­
synonymous non-impersonal verbs. This is especially important for verbs
of Fear and Anger, which were found to undergo a transition around the
fourteenth century in the link between impersonal usage and verbal
semantics.
In addition to the above five factors, whether impersonal and non-­
impersonal verbs occur in word pairs or as manuscript variants is also worth
examining, especially because the MED citations, the primary source of data
for this study, occasionally offer relevant examples. Koskenniemi (1967)
argues that a slight semantic or stylistic difference almost always exists in
word pairs such as safe and sound or toil and moil, where two apparent synonyms are coordinated with each other and refer to the same idea as that
expressed by one of them alone. To follow Koskenniemi’s argument, a similar pairing of an impersonal verb with a near-synonymous non-impersonal
verb can serve as evidence that they are semantically or stylistically different,
even though the kind of difference may not be identifiable from the instance
itself. The example below thus implies that there are subtle semantic distinctions between the impersonal verb lōthen and the non-impersonal verb
hāten:
100 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-2) Thei turneden the peple . . . forto lothee and hate the Apostilis.
they turned
the people
to
loathe and hate the Apostles
‘They turned the people . . . in order to loathe and hate the Apostles.’
[(c1449) Pecock Repr.(Cmb Kk.4.26) 342]
It is not clear from this instance how specifically lōthen is different from
hāten, but at least we can assume that subtle semantic differences exist between them, which make one impersonal and the other non-impersonal.
Dekeyser (1990: 41) claims that manuscript variants provide ‘unassailable
evidence’ that the two words were semantic equivalents, at least as far as his
study of three Middle English prepositions (with, mid, again(st)) is concerned. One may thus be tempted to argue that the impersonal verb shāmen
and the non-impersonal verb shēnden in the instance below are semantic
equivalents:
(5-3) I . . . gert men tak yow be þe neckes, And
I
made men take you by the necks and
scent [Frf: shent; Trin-C: shamed] yow alle in mans sight.
shamed
you all in man’s sight
‘I . . . made men take you by the necks, and shamed all of you in public.’
[a1400(a1325) Cursor (Vsp A.3) 5083]
However, these examples can at best suggest a close semantic relationship
between the two verbs. Note especially that shāmen and shēnden are sometimes paired with each other, implying that they are not entirely synonymous
(see MED s.v. shēnden 3. (a) ‘to put (sb.) to shame, disgrace; violate (sb.); embarrass (sb.); shamen and ~’):
(5-4) Ȝour mysdedis loke ȝe amend Be-tyme lest ȝe be chamyd
and
your misdeeds look you amend promptly lest you be dishonoured and
schend.
disgraced
‘Make sure that you amend your misdeeds promptly lest you should be dishonoured and disgraced.’
[(c1426) Audelay Poems (Dc 302) 123/363]
I will therefore treat manuscript variants not as evidence for semantic equivalents but only as indication of the close semantic relations between the two
verbs involved.
Finally, I will also investigate whether impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs collocate with different kinds of adverbial—other than eventive adverbs
(e.g. rate adverbs such as quickly and slowly), which will be used as diagnostic
for aspect—in a way which suggests subtle semantic differences. For instance,
Burnley (1992) distinguishes between the apparently synonymous adjectives
cruel and wood in Middle English according to their co-occurrence with the
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 101
qualifier muchel ageyn reson ‘much against reason’. The lack of this qualification with wood is ‘perhaps because irrationality is felt to be an important criterion in the meaning of the lexeme’ (1992: 474; my emphasis and
translations):
(5-5) ‘Certes’, quod dame Prudence, ‘this were a cruel sentence and muchel
certainly said dame Prudence this were a cruel sentence and much
ageyn reson.
against reason
‘“Certainly,” said dame Prudence, “this would be a cruel sentence and much
against reason.”’
[Canterbury Tales 10: 1836 [VII.1836]]
(5-6) ‘Youre prynces erren as youre nobleye dooth,’
your princes err
as your highness does
Quod tho Cecile, ‘and with a wood
sentence
said then Cecile and with an unreasonable sentence
Ye make vs gilty, and it is nat sooth.
you make us guilty and it is not true
‘“Your princes err as your highness does,” then said Cecile, “and with an unreasonable sentence you make us guilty, and it is not true.”’
[Canterbury Tales 7: 449–51 [VIII.449–51]]
In a similar vein, Diller (2007b: 28, 2008: 133) points to ‘a clear difference in
intensional meaning’ between the apparent synonyms affection and passion in
Middle English, which was revealed by their collocational differences. Discussions by Burnley and Diller tell us that it is important to pay attention to the
‘co-text’ of the emotion word in question (Diller 1994: 222).
In subsequent sections, I will first look at verbs of Fear and Anger, which
demonstrated similar tendencies regarding the emergence and spread of impersonal usage (sections 5.3 and 5.4). I will then discuss verbs of Pity/­
compassion and Humility, where only one verb actively participated in impersonal constructions in Old and Middle English, i.e. rue and shame
respectively (sections 5.5 and 5.6). I will examine what might have prevented
other near-synonymous verbs from participating in impersonal constructions. The other three categories, namely Hatred/enmity, Pleasure/enjoyment, and Mental pain/suffering, whose history of impersonal verbs has different characteristics, will then be analysed in sequence (sections 5.7 to 5.9).
For all these seven HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories, I will first discuss characteristics of impersonal constructions which involve the impersonal verbs in
question. Special attention will be paid to their complementation patterns,
aspectual type, and control and duration of the emotion involved. This will be
followed by a detailed comparison of impersonal verbs and near-synonymous
non-impersonal verbs according to the above five predetermined criteria.
These near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs were identified first from the
102 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
relevant HTOED ‘Emotion’ category and then shortlisted in light of the definitions provided in the MED, so that the final list of verbs would be semantically as close as possible to the impersonal verbs in the same category. In addition to the seven HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories which include impersonal
verbs, I will look at verbs of Jealousy/envy, Pride, and Courage in an attempt
to identify the causes for their systematic lack of impersonal usage, despite
their apparent status as ‘verbs of emotion’ (section 5.10).
5.3 Verbs of Fear
5.3.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions
Table 5.1 summarizes the complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with Middle English impersonal verbs of Fear as illustrated in their
MED entries. The nine verbs in question are arranged according to their date
of the first occurrence in impersonal constructions, as indicated in the second
column. Examples are classified with regard to the syntactic realization of the
Target of Emotion (ToE). The cell is left empty when the particular pattern is
not recorded in the MED entry of the verb, though this does not imply that the
pattern was ungrammatical in Middle English—just that it is not mentioned
in the MED entry. It should also be noted that only the unambiguous instances
of impersonal constructions are counted here. The following quotation from
the fifteenth century, for example, is excluded from the counting since the
impersonal usage with uggen arose in the thirteenth century, last attested in
the middle of the fifteenth century, and the quotation can thus be interpreted
table 5.1 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with impersonal
verbs of Fear
verbs
agrīsen
grīsen
uggen
agrūwie
ofdrēden
maien
auen
drēden
arghen
earliest impers. use
no. of exx.
a1225(c1200)
c1225
c1230(?a1200)
a1250
c1300
c1380
a1400(c1303)
a1425(c1385)
c1450(?a1400)
18
7
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
ToE
Ø
PP
INF
14
3
*
3
4
1
1
1
CL
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Ø = unexpressed [= pattern illustrated by example (1-5) in Chapter 1]
PP = prepositional phrase [= pattern illustrated by example (1-7) in Chapter 1]
INF = infinitive [= pattern illustrated by example (1-8) in Chapter 1]
CL = finite clause [= pattern illustrated by example (1-9) in Chapter 1]
* ambiguous examples are attested
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 103
either as an impersonal construction (with ilk man in the objective) or as a
personal construction (with ilk man in the nominative):
(5-7) For þa paynes er swa fel and hard . . . Þatilk
man
may
for those pains are so cruel and hard that [each man]-nom/obj may
ugge, bathe yhunge and alde, Þat heres þam be reherced and talde.
fear both young and old that hears them be rehearsed and told
‘For those pains are so cruel and hard . . . that each man may fear, both young
and old, that hears them be rehearsed and told.’
[a1425(a1400) PConsc.(Glb E.9 & Hrl 4196) 6419]
The Target of Emotion is not overtly expressed as a verbal argument in this
example. The MED entry for uggen does not include any unambiguous instances of impersonal constructions with unexpressed ToE, except for this
potential instance. In Table 5.1, ambiguous patterns like (5-7) are indicated
by an asterisk only when there are no unquestionable examples of the pattern in the MED entry, in order to show that there are nevertheless potential
instances.
In contrast to uggen, the verbs whose impersonal use is virtually a nonce
expression, such as auen and drēden, are very unlikely to cause ambiguity in
interpretation when used with a nominal Experiencer, especially outside the
text where the exceptional impersonal use is recorded. It is thus safe to treat
the instance below as an unquestionable Experiencer-subject intransitive construction with the ToE unexpressed. The cells for drēden in Table 5.1 do not
include any asterisks accordingly.
(5-8) As a tyrand
wold drede, and he herd þe trompes of . . . his enmy.
as [a tyrant]-nom would dread and he heard the trumpets of
his enemy
‘As a tyrant would dread, and he heard the trumpets of . . . his enemy.’
[a1500(a1415) Mirk Fest.(GoughETop 4) 151/1]
All but (of)drēden are attested with a prepositional ToE, while, except for
(of)drēden, none is found with a finite clause. No verbs are exemplified with
a formal subject, in contrast to impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment and
Mental pain/suffering, some of which are apparently restricted to impersonal constructions with formal it (see sections 4.2 and 4.3, or Table 4.1 in
section 4.9).
Apart from the single instance indicated in the table, the MED entry for
drēden includes four examples of impersonal constructions where the verb is
governed by an impersonal verb thurven ‘to need’, one from the thirteenth
century as quoted below and the others from the fourteenth century:
(5-9) Ne þerf us
nowðer for deað ne for deouel dreden.
not need us-obj neither for death nor for devil dread
‘We do not need to be afraid either of death or of devil.’
[c1225(?c1200) SWard (Bod 34) 20/186]
104 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Loureiro-Porto (2009: 99) cites an instance of this type as evidence that thurven, which in Old English never occurred with a non-nominative Experiencer
unless it governed an impersonal verb, developed impersonal usage in Middle
English, since drēden is ‘a non-impersonal verb’ (similarly in Loureiro-Porto
2005: 265). Her explanation may be weakened by the rare impersonal use of
drēden in Chaucer (reproduced as (5-16) below), but considering that its date
(a1425(c1385)) is later than her example (dated d1333) as well as the above example from Sawles Warde and that impersonal use of drēden is very exceptional
after all, it is probably safer to ascribe the objective pronoun us in (5-9) to
thurven, which behaved impersonally more regularly in Middle English (see
section 2.2.2).
Section 4.8 observed that, as far as we can tell from dictionary definitions,
eventive and stative senses, ‘to shudder’ and ‘to fear’ respectively, coexist in verbs
which became impersonal before the fourteenth century (agrūwie, (a)grīsen,
uggen), whereas new impersonal verbs from the fourteenth century onwards
are purely stative (arghen, auen, (of)drēden, maien). Textual evidence that
seems to support this assumption, especially with regard to (a)grīsen, can be
adduced from examples of impersonal constructions alone. The following instances suggest that agrīsen indeed has an eventive reading:
(5-10) Vðen . . . vnimete grete, fleoð ut a þat lond, þat leoden
agriseð
waves
extremely great rush out on that land that people-obj shudders
an hond.
in hand
‘Waves . . . of extremely large size, rush out on that land, so that people shudder quickly.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 22034]
(5-11) Þe se gan fighte, þe wawes ros, Þe streme woxe, & þem
agros.
the sea did fight the waves rose the stream grew and them-obj shuddered
‘The sea clashed, the waves rose, the stream grew tempestuous, and they
shuddered.’
[a1450(a1338) Mannyng Chron.Pt.1 (Lamb 131) 2974]
Madden (1847: vol. 3, 474) notes that an/on hond as in (5-10) is frequently used
to mean ‘speedily’, ‘soon’, or ‘now’ (see also MED s.v. hōnd(e 1d. (b)). This particular phrase thus functions like rate adverbs such as slowly and quickly in
Present-day English, and its compatibility with agriseð indicates that the verb
is eventive. In (5-11) the coordination with three verbs which clearly denote
action makes it contextually more likely for agros to imply some physical action
(change of state) rather than the state of fear alone. Furthermore, in the instance below, although the middle clause min herte griset is not unambiguously impersonal, the adjacent parallel clauses use verbs which unquestionably denote some movement (riset, biuien). It would be contextually incongruous
if griset here were purely stative and simply meant ‘fears’.
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 105
(5-12) And min her riset, and min herte griset, and mine honden biuien.
and my hair rises and my heart shudders and my hands tremble
‘And my hair rises, and my heart shudders, and my hands tremble.’
[a1300 Wanne mine eyhnen (Trin-C B.1.45) 10]
The next instance also implies that the simplex grīsen expresses something more than the feeling of fear:
(5-13) Heo was a-nuyd and of-drad, þat hire
bi-gan to grise.
she was annoyed and afraid that her-obj began to shudder
‘She was annoyed and afraid, so that she began to shudder.’
[c1300 SLeg.Magd.(2) (LdMisc 108) 201]
This example shows that ofdrēden and grīsen are not absolutely synonymous, since the sentence would not be felicitous if they meant the same kind
of fear. Contextually, grise here should involve stronger fear than that expressed by of-drad and is possibly accompanied by physical movement like
shuddering.
By contrast, arghen, auen, and (of)drēden, which became impersonal in
late Middle English, have a non-habitual interpretation in the simple present
and thus may not be considered to have an eventive reading. In the examples
below, the described event holds at the time of utterance and the interpretation is non-habitual accordingly. The Experiencer is in the mental state of
fear, and the sense of shuddering, or the physical manifestation of fear, is not
overt:
(5-14) Quod þe qwene, ‘me
arȝes of my-selfe; I am all in aunter, sa akis
said the queen me-obj fears of myself
I am all in danger so aches
me þe wame.’
me the stomach
‘Said the queen, “I am fearful for myself; I am completely in danger, so aches
my stomach.”’
[c1450(?a1400) Wars Alex. (Ashm 44) 537]
(5-15) Lytyl of Goddes veniaunce hym
aweþ.
little of God’s vengeance him-obj fears
‘He has little fear of God’s vengeance.’
[a1400(c1303) Mannyng HS (Hrl 1701) 10282]
(5-16) Me
dredeth evere mo . . . that his fader carte amys he dryve.
me-obj fears
ever more that his father’s cart amiss he drive
‘I fear constantly . . . that he may drive his father’s chariot awry.’
[a1425(c1385) Chaucer TC (Benson-Robinson) 5.663]
(5-17) Me
of-dredeþ sore Þe kniȝt him haue take.
me-obj fears
sorely the knight him have taken
‘I am sorely afraid that the knight has taken him.’
[c1330(?c1300) Reinbrun (Auch) p.656]
106 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
The MED entry for maien, another late Middle English impersonal verb, does
not contain any examples suitable for judging stativity, but there are no instances
of a clearly eventive reading either. Examples (5-14) to (5-17) imply that eventive
reading was indeed not required for a verb of Fear to occur in impersonal constructions in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The generalization presented in Chapter 4, that the presence or absence of the sense of shuddering
distinguishes early Middle English impersonal verbs of Fear from late Middle
English ones, therefore seems generally valid: licensing of impersonal usage in
verbs of Fear underwent a subtle change around the fourteenth century.
Examples of impersonal constructions in the MED entries do not necessarily
support the hypothesis in the previous literature that impersonal constructions
are used to express immediate and uncontrollable feeling. On the one hand,
impersonal constructions with (a)grīsen tend to describe such feeling: the
whole context in (5-10), (5-11), and (5-13) is quite episodic, and the feeling of fear,
accompanied by shuddering, appears to arise rather immediately. Even when
there does not seem to be any physical manifestation of fear, impersonal constructions with (a)grīsen can express similarly uncontrollable feeling which is
caused immediately or spontaneously from perception of the situation:
(5-18) Haȝel
& ræin þer aræs; þe hit i-seh, him
agras.
hailstorm and rain there arose who it saw him-obj feared
‘Hail and rain arose there; one who saw it was frightened.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 11976]
(5-19) Þe gode kniȝt vp arose; Of þe wordes him
gros.
the good knight up arose of the words him-obj feared
‘The good knight rose up; he was frightened of the words.’
[c1300(?c1225) Horn (Cmb Gg.4.27) 1314]
On the other hand, verbs which became impersonal in and after the fourteenth century usually express less immediate feeling of fear. Unlike (5-18)
and (5-19), the feeling is not always episodic or caused immediately by the described event. This is made clearer with wider context, to take (5-15) and (5-16)
as examples:12
(5-20) Also he ys wurþy to be shent,
also he is worthy to be punished
Þat, sone aftyr þe sacrament,
that soon after the sacrament
To foly and to synne hym draweþ:
to folly and to sin
him draws
lytyl of Goddes veniaunce hym aweþ.
little of God’s vengeance him-obj fears
‘He is also worth being punished that, soon after the sacrament, seeks folly
and sin: he has little fear of God’s vengeance.’
[Handlyng Synne 10279–82]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 107
(5-21) The dayes moore and lenger every nyght
the days greater and longer every night
Than they ben wont
to be, hym thought tho,
than they are accustomed to be him seemed then
And that the sonne went his cours unright
and that the sun went its course wrongly
By lenger weye than it was wont
to do;
by longer way than it was accustomed to do
And seyde, ‘Ywis, me
dredeth evere mo
and said indeed me-obj dreads ever more
The sonnes sone, Pheton, be on lyve,
the sun’s son Phaeton be on life
And that his fader carte amys he dryve.’
and that his father’s cart amiss he drive
‘The days were longer every night than they used to be, it seemed to him
then, and that the sun went its course wrongly by a longer way than it used to
do; and [he] said, “Indeed, I fear constantly the sun’s son, Phaeton, may be
alive, and that he may drive his father’s chariot awry.”’
[Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde 5.659–65]
In (5-20), the fearful feeling rather describes the enduring state of the Experiencer which is not conditioned by any specific situation. In (5-21), the feeling
of fear arises from contemplation of the situation and thus cannot be judged
very immediate or uncontrollable; the Experiencer has felt fear for a long time
(evere mo ‘evermore’). These instances suggest that, especially in late Middle
English, lack of control or immediateness as hypothesized in the literature
became less relevant for realization of impersonal constructions. Presumably,
semantic or pragmatic distinctions between impersonal and personal constructions gradually got blurred during Middle English. This will be examined in the next section, where examples other than impersonal constructions
will be analysed.
5.3.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs Compared
The nine verbs in Table 5.1 are not the only verbs which meant ‘to shudder
(with fear)’ or ‘to fear, be afraid’ during Middle English. Other verbs meaning
‘to shudder (with fear)’ never systematically behaved impersonally in the history of English (e.g. quāken ‘to quake’, shōderen ‘to shudder’), and there are
a large number verbs of Fear without an explicit sense of shuddering which
were apparently not attested in impersonal constructions even from the fourteenth century (e.g. dŏuten, fēren ‘to fear, dread’). These verbs appear to be
exceptions to the generalization that before the fourteenth century impersonal
usage was assigned to verbs which involved shuddering and that the usage
spread, though with limited attestations, to verbs meaning ‘to fear, be afraid’
in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In this section I will first discuss
108 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
pre-fourteenth-century impersonal verbs of Fear and contemporary non-­
impersonal verbs which denoted ‘to shudder’ and/or ‘to fear’ in an attempt to
examine whether they can be distinguished in their occurrence properties
and whether these latter verbs indeed constitute exceptions to the generalization (section 5.3.2.1). I will then examine the (post-)fourteenth-century impersonal verbs of Fear and their non-impersonal near-synonyms in the same way
(section 5.3.2.2).
5.3.2.1 Before the Fourteenth Century
The three verbs below were all first found in English before the fourteenth
century, according to the OED. The MED acknowledges the sense ‘to shudder’
(highlighted by underlining), but none of them is known to have occurred in
impersonal constructions in the history of English. All of them are subsumed
in the HTOED category ‘Fear’, and the association with the feeling of fear is
clearly indicated in each definition (highlighted by italics). The etymological
information is based on the OED:
• chiveren [ME coinage]: ‘to shiver (with cold, chills, horror); to tremble,
shake (as in pain, fear, anger); to quiver, tremble’
• quāken [OE cwacian]: ‘to tremble or shudder because of strong emotion,
esp. fear, apprehension, or anger’
• quāven [OE *cwafian]: ‘to tremble, shake, palpitate; also, be afraid’
Another set of verbs to be taken up here are the following, which, under the
definitions of the MED, possess the sense ‘to fear’ but which are not recognized as impersonal verbs in previous studies. These verbs are also entries
under the HTOED category ‘Fear’.
• adrēden [OE ondr Ǣdan]: ‘to have fear, be or become afraid; to fear or
dread (sth.)’; ‘to frighten (sb.), make (sb.) fear (for his own life)’
• agasten [ME coinage; < OE gæstan]: ‘to frighten or terrify (sb.); deter
(from doing sth.)’; ‘to become frightened, be fearful or afraid, to fear’
• dŏuten [OF douter]: ‘to be anxious, fearful, frightened’; ‘to be afraid (to
do sth.), hesitate; also, be confused’; ‘to fear (sb. or sth.); also fig.’
• fēren [OE fǢ r an]: ‘to frighten (someone), terrify’; ‘to fear (something), to
be afraid’
• fordrēden [ME coinage; < drēden]: ‘to be badly frightened, to fear
greatly’
• offrighten [OE offirht]: ‘to be afraid, become frightened’
In this section arghen and (of)drēden will also be treated as members of this
group, since they existed in early Middle English but were not used in impersonal constructions until the fourteenth century or beyond.
Table 5.2 summarizes examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions with impersonal verbs of Fear and
their non-impersonal near-synonyms, as recorded in their MED entries. The
results are based on the illustrative quotations which are dated before the
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 109
Table 5.2 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear before
the fourteenth century: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive,
transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions
Impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
agrīsen
grīsen
agrūwie
uggen
OED earliest date
OE
c1200
a1250 (?a1200)
a1250 (?a1200)
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
1
*
1
*
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
1
1
NP-OBJ = object noun phrase (e.g. I fear God.)
* ambiguous examples are attested
Non-impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest date
ToE
Ø
adrēden
quāken
ofdrēden
offrighten
fēren
arghen
drēden
chiveren
fordrēden
agasten
quāven
dŏuten
eOE
eOE
OE
lOE
c1000
c1175
c1175
c1200
?c1200
c1225 (?c1200)
c1225 (?c1200)
?c1225 (?a1200)
transitive
PP
1
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
4
5
9
6
15
8
3
2
4
12
1
1
2
2
2
10
1
1
2
4
2
1
1
4
2
1
1
eOE = early Old English; lOE = late Old English
fourteenth century. Those dated a1300 or c1300 alone, either as the manuscript date (e.g. c1300 SLeg.(LdMisc 108)) or the composition date (e.g. (c1300)
Havelok (LdMisc 108)), are also included. The quotations whose manuscript
date belongs to the fourteenth century onwards while the composition date
belongs to the thirteenth century (e.g. a1325(c1280) SLeg.Pass.(Pep 2344)) are
excluded and classified with the late Middle English data, to be discussed in
the next section on the situation in and after the fourteenth century. The impersonal and non-impersonal verbs in the first column are ordered according
to their earliest date of occurrence as given in the OED, which is indicated in
110 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
the second column. As was the case with Table 5.1, only unambiguous examples are counted, and ambiguous instances are indicated by an asterisk only if
there are no unquestionable examples for that particular pattern in the MED
entry. Empty cells therefore mean that there are neither ambiguous nor unambiguous examples for the pattern in question, at least in the MED entry for
the verb concerned. Some of the verbs not just express fear but also belong to
other semantic fields, in which case only the quotations which are relevant to
fear, as far as we can tell from the MED definitions, are counted and analysed.
Uggen, for example, is a verb of not only Fear but also Hatred/enmity (see
section 4.5), so citations for the sense ‘to feel loathing or disgust’ are not
treated here but will be examined in the section on verbs of Hatred/enmity
(section 5.7). When a single illustrative quotation happens to contain two
tokens of the verb, as in the following instance, it is counted as two examples
(here two occurrences of reflexive constructions).
(5-22) Þer we
muȝen . . . herde us
adreden . . . Þer ne þerf he
there we-nom may
hard us-refl fear
there not need he-nom
him
adreden.
him-refl fear
‘Where we may . . . be sorely afraid . . . where he does not need to fear.’
[a1225(?c1175) PMor.(Lamb 487) 157,163]
The examples are generally sparse, both for impersonal verbs and for nonimpersonal verbs. Complementation patterns for intransitive constructions
with (a)grīsen are also attested for impersonal constructions (compare Table
5.1). There does not seem to be clear semantic differences between the two
constructions, which offers further counter-evidence to the common assumption in the literature that impersonal constructions correlate with lack of control over the immediately arising feeling while personal constructions express
more controlled feeling. Compare the two examples below; (5-23) is impersonal while (5-24) is personal, with the auxiliary verb schullen showing a plural
ending in agreement with the plural noun Experiencer:
(5-23) Þou schalt . . . come with me to an herre
Iustice . . . of ȝwam þe
you shall
come with me to a sovereign Justice
of whom you-obj
schal a-grise.
shall fear
‘You shall . . . come with me to a sovereign Justice . . . of whom you shall be
afraid.’
[c1300 SLeg.Jas.(LdMisc 108) 361]
(5-24) Ichulle þe tormenti so þat men
schullen of þe agrise.
I will you torment so that men-nom.pl shall-pl of you fear
‘I will torment you so much that people shall be afraid of you.’
[c1300 SLeg.(LdMisc 108) 69/44]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 111
The constructional patterns observed for impersonal verbs are all found
with non-impersonal verbs too. Non-impersonal verbs can also be used to express either an episodic fear that arises immediately, as in (5-25), or a fear that
is less immediate, as in (5-26):
(5-25) Tho hurden hi . . . gret beting and noyse y-nouȝ. . . So that Brendan
then heard they great beating and noise enough
so that Brendan-nom
agaste sore, and him blescede faste.
feared sorely and him blessed
fast
‘Then they heard . . . great beating and enough noise . . . so that Brendan
became sorely frightened and quickly blessed himself.’
[c1300 SLeg.Brendan (Hrl 2277:Wright) p.22]
(5-26) Ne þurue ȝe
nauere adrede wha eou scullen feden.
not need you-nom never dread who you shall
feed
‘You never need to fear who shall feed you.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 18108]
There is no noticeable difference between impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs in the formation of passives and reflexives either. All the examples of
reflexive constructions correspond to middle-reflexive uses, where the reflexive pronoun in the simple form is semantically redundant:
(5-27) Grisen him
mahte þet
sehe hu hit gront in to hwet se hit
fear
him-refl might that-nom saw how it bit
in to what so it
of rahte.
reached
‘One who saw how it bit into whatsoever it reached might be afraid.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 51/551]
(5-28) Ful sare ich
me
adrede.
very sorely I-nom me-refl fear
‘I am afraid very sorely.’
[a1225(?c1175) PMor.(Lamb 487) 6]
It is thus difficult to propose correlation between impersonal and passive/
middle-reflexive uses; assumed common functions between them, namely a
shift of perspective for impersonal and passive constructions and middle
events for impersonal and middle-reflexive constructions, respectively (see
section 2.2.2), may also be served by non-impersonal verbs.
Within the limited data, what crucially differentiates impersonal verbs
from (relatively frequent) non-impersonal verbs of Fear is the availability of
Experiencer-subject transitive constructions. Impersonal verbs are completely absent from any type of these constructions, whether the Target of
Emotion is a noun phrase, infinitive, or finite clause, whereas three of the nonimpersonal verbs (adrēden, dŏuten, drēden) can take these constructions.
112 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
As a result, a noteworthy contrast is made when the ToE is a noun phrase. An
NP ToE can only be governed by a preposition with (a)grīsen, as in (5-24)
above, while (a)drēden has another option, that of directly governing it as the
verbal object:
(5-29) (a) Ne þearf þu
noht dreden þe attri
neddre
of helle.
not need you-nom not dread [the venomous snake]-obj of hell
‘You do not need to fear the venomous snake of hell.’
[c1230(?a1200) *Ancr.(Corp-C 402) 37a]
(b) Swiðe heo
gunnen dreden of Cadwalanes deden.
greatly they-nom did
dread [of Cadwallon’s deeds]-pp
‘They were greatly afraid of Cadwallon’s heroic deeds.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 31164]
(A)drēden therefore participates in what looks like conative alternation,
where the object of the verb in the transitive variant turns up as the object of
the preposition in the intransitive variant, as in Present-day English He hit the
fence vs He hit at the fence (Levin 1993: 41–2). Conative alternation is one of the
diathesis alternations which Levin identifies as correlating with semantic
components: the verbs which participate in this alternation are semantically
similar. The examples here, however, are only apparent examples of conative
alternation, since, according to Levin (1993: 42), in Present-day English the
alternation is attested with ‘verbs whose meaning includes notions of both
contact and motion’, and the intransitive variant with a prepositional phrase
(usually headed by at) ‘describes an “attempted” action without specifying
whether the action was actually carried out’.13 Verbs of emotion or psych-verbs
clearly do not fulfil these conditions, and it seems difficult to claim rigid semantic differences between (5-29a) and (5-29b). Nevertheless, the fact that
(a)drēden allows for this alternation while (a)grīsen does not might suggest
that there are subtle differences between them in terms of transitivity. Hopper
& Thompson (1980: 262–3) discuss conative alternation as the distinction between an accusative and a partitive case; the former is ‘the case of the totally
affected O [= Object]’ and thus ‘gives the clause a perfective or telic value’,
whereas the latter gives an imperfective or atelic value, as illustrated by the
modern Finnish sentences below:
(5-30) (a) Liikemies
kirjoitti kirjeen valiokunnalle.
businessman wrote letter-acc committee-to
‘The businessman wrote a letter to the committee.’
(b) Liikemies
kirjoitti kirjettä
valiokunnalle.
businessman wrote letter-part committee-to
‘The businessman was writing a letter to the committee.’
Partitive O’s are then concluded to be ‘universally associated with intransitive
verbs, or at least with some signal of reduced Transitivity’. Following this
argument, we may say that while (a)drēden and (a)grīsen can both express
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 113
reduced transitivity, the latter do not express a situation where the transitivity
is not reduced, since they lack the transitive use as illustrated in (5-29a). The
availability of only the intransitive variant with (a)grīsen may indicate that
their transitivity is slightly lower than that of (a)drēden, which allows not
only the intransitive variant but also the transitive variant. Möhlig-Falke’s
(2012: 86, 195) argument that the transitivity of Old English impersonal verbs
is characteristically low (see section 2.4.2) could then be extended to the
Middle English period. It seems promising to investigate the availability of
the ‘conative alternation’ with other impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of
emotion.14
Chapter 4 saw that a number of impersonal verbs of emotion have causative
meanings in dictionary definitions, but such senses are not observed in the
MED definitions of impersonal verbs of Fear, with the exception of auen (‘to
terrify (sb.)’; see section 4.8). Ties between causation and impersonal use may
therefore be weak with verbs of Fear. However, Table 5.3 shows that this is not
necessarily true.15 Agrīsen is attested in ToE-subject transitive constructions,
i.e. it has syntactically causative use:
(5-31) Þet milde meiden Margarte grap
þet grisliche þing þet
hire
that mild maiden Margaret grasped that horrible thing that-nom her-obj
ne agras
nawiht.
not frightened not
‘That lovely maiden Margaret grasped that horrible demon which did not
frighten her.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Marg.(1) (Bod 34) 28/10]
One thus cannot always expect a precise match between a wording in dictionary definitions and the grammatical use of the verb in illustrative quotations.
Agrīsen is also recorded in the passive variant of the causative use, Experiencer-subject passive constructions (see Table 5.2):
(5-32) Ȝef ha
agrisen
wes of þet grisliche gra, nes na muche
if she-nom frightened-ppl was of that horrible devil is not no much
wunder.
wonder
‘If she was frightened of that horrible devil, there is no great wonder.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Marg.(1) (Bod 34) 22/3]
table 5.3 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear before
the fourteenth century: Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions
impers. verbs
agrīsen (1), agrūwie (0), grīsen (0), uggen (0)
non-impers. verbs
adrēden (0), agasten (0), arghen (0), chiveren (0),
dŏuten (0), drēden (1), fēren (1), fordrēden (0),
ofdrēden (0), offrighten (0), quāken (0), quāven (0)
114 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Nevertheless, causative use does not distinguish (a)grīsen from non-­
impersonal verbs of Fear. Fēren is also exemplified in ToE-subject transitive
constructions, although it is not known to have been employed in impersonal
constructions:
(5-33) He
wile himm færenn ȝiff he maȝȝ.
he-nom will him-obj terrify if he can
‘He will terrify him if he can.’
[?c1200 Orm.(Jun 1) 675]
Fēren could only be used causatively in Old and early Middle English (Kitis
2009a, 2009b). Table 5.2 also shows that a number of non-impersonal verbs
of Fear, especially prefixed verbs, are attested in Experiencer-subject passive
constructions (i.e. the passive variant of the causative use), if not always in
ToE-subject transitive constructions (agasten, dŏuten, (a/for/of)drēden,
offrighten). Consequently, as far as verbs of Fear are concerned, causation
cannot be regarded as a sole prerequisite for impersonal usage.
In terms of aspect, quāken, the most amply recorded non-impersonal verb
meaning ‘to shudder’, is eventive and involves an action, being used as the
gloss for the Latin verb contremīscere ‘to tremble, shake, shudder’ (Lewis
1966 s.v. contremīscō; (a1382) WBible(1) (Bod 959) Job 26.11). In the following
instance, cwakieð has a habitual interpretation in the simple present tense
since the described event is not occurring at the time of utterance:16
(5-34) Godd . . . hwas wreadðe is se gromful þet helle ware
& heouenes
God
whose wrath
is so terrifying that hell’s dwellers and heaven’s
& alle cwike þinges cwakieð þer-aȝeines . . . help me.
and all alive things quake against it
help me
‘God . . . whose wrath is so terrifying that the people in hell and heaven and
all alive things quake against it . . . help me.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Marg.(1) (Bod 34) 22/13]
Non-impersonal verbs meaning ‘to fear’, on the other hand, generally have
a non-habitual interpretation in the same environment, as in (5-35). Here the
described situation holds at the time of utterance:
(5-35) Ac ich douti [Ld: drede], for mi wrecche gult, that wors schal beo the ende.
but I dread
for my wretched guilt that worse shall be the end
‘Yet I fear, due to my wretched guilt, that the end shall be worse.’
[c1300 SLeg.Becket (Hrl 2277) p.73]
The previous section showed that pre-fourteenth-century impersonal verbs
of Fear are eventive, encompassing the sense of shuddering, just like quāken.
That they were not entirely eventive may be indicated by the following example, which originally comes from the MED entry for agrīsen but is vastly
supplemented by the Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse. The passage
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 115
appears within a speech by Vortigern, and me a-griseð at the end could be interpreted as ‘I fear’, i.e. the Experiencer feels fear at the time of utterance, and
the interpretation is non-habitual:
(5-36) Her beoð chæpmen icumen. of oðere londen al-se hit is iwune;
here are merchants come
of other lands as
it is wont
heo habbeoð ibroht to me tol for heore æhte.
they have
brought to me tax for their property
and heo habbeoð me i-tald. & treowðen i-plihte;
and they have
me told and promise pledged
þat þe king of Norewæiȝe. neowenliche wule hider uaren;
that the king of Norway
shortly
will hither come
& þere Densemonne king. þas Denen wulle at-sechen;
and their Danish
king those Danes will recruit
& þe king of Rusie ræhȝest alre cnihten.
and the king of Russia bravest of all knights
& þe king of Gutlonde; mid ferde swiðe stronge.
and the king of Scotland with army very strong
& þe king of Frise; þer-uore me
a-griseð.
and the king of Frisia therefore me-obj fears
‘Here come merchants from other lands as is wont. They have brought to me
a tax for their property. And they have told me and promised that the king of
Norway will come here shortly. And their Danish king wants to recruit those
Danes, and the king of Russia, bravest of all the knights, and the king of
Scotland, with a very strong army, and the king of Frisia. Therefore I fear.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 6642–9]
The feeling of fear does not appear to involve any shuddering in particular in
this example. We may thus hypothesize that possessing not only the eventive
sense (‘to shudder’) but also the stative sense (‘to fear’) was essential for a verb
of Fear to appear in impersonal constructions in early Middle English. Such a
restriction is most likely to have prevented purely eventive verbs meaning ‘to
shudder’ (e.g. quāken) and purely stative verbs meaning ‘to fear’ (e.g. drēden)
table 5.4 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear
before the fourteenth century: Examples of (in)animate Targets of
Emotion
Impersonal verbs
verbs
agrīsen
agrūwie
grīsen
uggen
animate
inanimate
4 [1]
1 [1]
2 [2]
1 [1]
3 [2]
0
3 [2]
0
* [ ] examples in impersonal constructions
116 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(continued)
table 5.4 (continued)
Non-impersonal verbs
verbs
adrēden
agasten
arghen
chiveren
dŏuten
drēden
fēren
fordrēden
ofdrēden
offrighten
quāken
quāven
animate
inanimate
2
0
0
0
2
10
1
1
2
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
2
10
0
0
8
5
0
0
from participating in the same constructions, although causative use and the
availability of ‘conative alternation’ may not be completely irrelevant.
Finally, a brief account should be made on animacy of the Target of Emotion selected by impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Fear. Table 5.4 summarizes their examples, and the figures in brackets refer to the number of
examples in impersonal constructions.
(A)grīsen chooses both animate and inanimate ToEs (see e.g. (5-31) and
(5-19) above, respectively), just as a number of the non-impersonal verbs do.
However, the MED data do not point to any clear tendencies in these verbs, nor
do they show clear tendencies when compared to non-impersonal verbs, except
that some of the non-impersonal verbs (e.g. a/ofdrēden, offrighten) co-­
occur more frequently with inanimate ToEs:
(5-37) Nu þu scalt adreden for þine ær dæden.
now you shall dread
for your past deeds
‘Now you shall be afraid of your past deeds.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 8744]
We thus cannot propose that animacy of the ToE crucially distinguishes impersonal verbs of Fear from near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs, or that
impersonal verbs particularly prefer inanimate ToEs, as has been observed in
some previous studies, yet this is mostly due to the rather small number of
examples available. Animacy of the ToE will be re-examined in the next section, which provides more data.
5.3.2.2 From the Fourteenth Century
From the fourteenth century, a number of verbs are first found as near-­
synonyms of the verbs meaning ‘to shudder’ which were discussed in the
previous section. Some of them are explicitly related to fear in the MED
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 117
definitions; the sense of shuddering is highlighted by underlining, and the
sense of fear by italics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
aquāken [ME coinage; < quāken]: ‘to shudder’; ‘be shaken, tremble’
fremishen [OF fremir]: ‘to shudder; to tremble’
grillen [OE gryllan]: ‘to shudder, quake, be afraid’
grūen [ME coinage]: ‘to be terrified, shudder, tremble’17
oglen [ME coinage; < ug]: ‘to shudder or quiver for fear’
shōderen [ME coinage]: ‘to tremble, quake, twitch convulsively’
shruggen [obscure origin]: ‘to shiver, shudder’
tremblen [OF trembler]: ‘to shudder or tremble in response to a strong
emotion, esp. fear’
There were also new additions to verbs of general fear without an explicit
sense of shuddering:
• adŏuten [ME coinage; < dŏuten]: ‘to be afraid; to fear (sb.)’
• affraien [AN afraier]: ‘to frighten (sb.), disturb (sb.) deeply, to alarm’;
‘to be afraid’
• bedŏut [ME coinage; < dŏuten]: ‘feared’
• frighten [OE fyrhtan]: ‘to make afraid, scare’; ‘?become frightened’;
‘?ppl. apprehensive, fearful’
• hidŏusen [OF hisder]: ‘to feel horror or revulsion for (sth.); feel horror,
be afraid’
• redŏuten [AN reduter]: ‘to fear (sb. or sth.); honor (sb. or sth.)’
table 5.5 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of word pairs and MS
variants
Word pairs
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
agrīsen
drēden
frighten (1)
agasten (1)
dŏuten (3)
fēren (1)
grūen (1)
quāken (8)
tremblen (1)
grūen (2)
quāken (1)
grīsen
MS variants
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
drēden
adŏuten (1)
dŏuten (2)
quāven (1)
118 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
All of these fourteen apparent non-impersonal verbs are subsumed under
the HTOED category ‘Fear’. Their close semantic relationships with impersonal verbs of Fear are demonstrated by instances of word pairs and manuscript variants. The pre-fourteenth-century data in the previous section did
not contain any relevant examples, but the late Middle English data do, as
shown in Table 5.5.
(5-38) Allas! allas! now may I quake and drede And of my lyf fallen in dispeire.
alas alas now may I quake and dread and of my life fall
in despair
‘Alas, alas! Now I may quake and dread and fall into despair of my life.’
[c1425(a1420) Lydg. TB (Aug A.4) 4.702]
(5-39) That is soþ . . . bote ich me sore doute [B: drede].
that is true
but I me sorely fear
‘That is true . . . but I am sorely afraid.’
[c1400(?a1387) PPl.C (Hnt HM 137) 21.314]
These instances, especially word pairs as in (5-38), imply that there are
subtle semantic differences between impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs of Fear, although they do not lead to the actual identification of such
differences.
In the same manner as Table 5.2, Table 5.6 summarizes the late Middle
English data in the MED entries for impersonal and non-impersonal verbs
of Fear, with special reference to their occurrences in Experiencer-subject
intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions.18 Most of the
verbs discussed in the previous section survived into the fourteenth
table 5.6 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions
Impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
agrīsen
ofdrēden
arghen
drēden
grīsen
agrūwie
uggen
auen
maien
OED earliest date
OE
OE
c1175
c1175
c1200
a1250 (?a1200)
a1250 (?a1200)
1303
c1380
* ambiguous examples are attested
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
9
2
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
*
1
10
1
2
14
5
4
12
2
36
1
15
*
2
1
1
2
7
5
1
10
1
30
3
1
1
1
(continued)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 119
table 5.6 (continued)
Non-impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
adrēden
quāken
grillen
frighten
offrighten
fēren
chiveren
fordrēden
agasten
quāven
(i)dŏuten
adŏuten
aquāken
tremblen
shōderen
grūen
affraien
hidŏusen
redŏuten
fremishen
shruggen
bedŏut
oglen
OED earliest date
eOE
eOE
c897
c900
lOE
c1000
c1200
?c1200
c1225 (?c1200)
c1225 (?c1200)
?c1225 (?a1200)
c1300
1303
1303
c1325
c1330
c1330 (?c1300)
c1380
?c1400 (c1380)
c1425
c1440
1470
?a1475
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
1
46
1
1
2
43
1
0
4
0
1
3
6
4
5
2
1
9
6
2
2
1
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
2
2
39
2
2
1
2
2
5
3
1
2
7
28
26
1
11
1
1
1
1
4
3
4
1
6
2
1
1
9
2
1
1
3
1
century, so the table includes their data too. An asterisk again indicates that
only ambiguous cases of the patterns are found. The example for agrīsen
is cited below (the example for uggen is quoted as (5-7) above). The construction is ambiguous between impersonal and personal, since impersonal use of agrīsen continued to be recorded till the end of the fifteenth
century and ech man ‘each man’ can thus be morphologically either
­nominative or objective:
(5-40) To gon þerinne [the forest] ech man
agros.
to go therein
[each man]-nom/obj feared
‘Each man was terrified to go therein [the forest].’
[c1330 7 Sages(1) (Auch) 33/872]
The table shows that the impersonal verbs from before the fourteenth century now exhibit a much wider range of complementation patterns and are
virtually indistinguishable from non-impersonal verbs of Fear. Although each
120 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
verb has a different selection of patterns, there are no patterns which are peculiar to impersonal verbs or to non-impersonal verbs alone. The ‘conative alternation’ is now attested with impersonal verbs from before the fourteenth
century; differences in transitivity between impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs are thus lessened:
(5-41) (a) He this felid of the swetnes of heuen and vggid
the perils
of
he thus felt of the sweetness of heaven and dreaded [the perils]-obj of
the warld.
the world
‘He thus experienced the sweetness of heaven and feared the perils of
the world.’
[a1500(c1340) Rolle Psalter (UC 64) 41.13]
(b) Wha is that vggis not with a way
that is bath myrke and sklither?
who is that dreads not [with a way]-pp that is both murk and slippery
‘Who is not afraid of a way that is both dark and slippery?’
[a1500(c1340) Rolle Psalter (UC 64) 34.7]
Most of the complementation patterns of intransitive and transitive constructions overlap with those of impersonal constructions (compare Table
5.1), and they are not always semantically distinguishable from each other.
Both (in)transitive and impersonal constructions can express an episodic
and uncontrollable feeling of fear that arises immediately, as in (5-42) and
(5-43), and a less immediate and more controllable fear, as in (5-44) and
(5-45):
(5-42) Þo þe sarazins wisten alle Þat karnifees was ifalle . . . Þo bigan
when the Saracens knew all that Karnifees was fallen
then began
ham
alle to agrise.
them-obj all to fear
‘When all the Saracens knew that Karnifees had fallen . . . then all of them
began to be afraid.’
[c1330 Otuel (Auch) 1604]
(5-43) Þe graue quakede and þei
a-grisen alle.
the grave quaked and they-nom.pl fear-pl all
‘The grave quaked and all of them were frightened.’
[c1390(?c1350) Jos.Arim.(Vrn) 236]
(5-44) Me
dredeth evere mo . . . that his fader carte amys he dryve.
me-obj dreads ever more that his father’s cart amiss he drive
‘I fear constantly . . . that he may drive his father’s chariot awry.’
[a1425(c1385) Chaucer TC (Benson-Robinson) 5.663]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 121
(5-45) He . . . dradde ay
that his lady was untrewe.
he-nom dreaded always that his lady was unfaithful
‘He . . . always feared that his lady was unfaithful.’
[a1425(c1385) Chaucer TC (Benson-Robinson) 5.1570]
A change of state (‘to shudder’, ‘to become frightened’) may be implied in
(5-42) and (5-43), but the following offers a better example. A purely stative
interpretation ‘to fear, be afraid’ is excluded by the adverb sodeynly ‘suddenly’,
a ‘punctual’ adverb (Croft 2012: 85, 86) that implies change of state:
(5-46) He sey the steppes brode of a lyoun, And in his herte he
sodeynly
he saw the steps
broad of a lion and in his heart he-nom suddenly
agros.
shuddered
‘He saw the steps of the size of those of a lion, and in his heart he suddenly
shuddered with fear.’
[c1430(c1386) Chaucer LGW (Benson-Robinson) 830]
There are thus no clear aspectual differences in agrīsen, whether it is used in
impersonal constructions or personal constructions: it is at least partly eventive. See also the instance below, where the simplex grīsen is used to translate
the Latin verb horrēre, which involves trembling or shuddering (Lewis 1966
s.v. horreō):
(5-47) The Persis grisiden [L Horruerunt] hir stedefastnesse.
the Persians trembled trembled
her steadfastness
‘The Persians trembled at her steadfastness.’
[(a1382) WBible(1) (Dc 369(1)) Judith 16.12]
Non-impersonal verbs can also be used to express two different kinds of
fear; in (5-48) below the Experiencer’s fear is contextually rather episodic,
being caused spontaneously upon perception of the situation, while in (5-49)
the fear belongs to the inherent or invariable disposition of the Experiencer
and is non-immediate:
(5-48) Of this thefte douted gretly Ioseph, whan that his lordes wyf preyed
of this theft feared greatly Joseph when that his lord’s wife asked
hym of vileynye.
him of villainy
‘Joseph was greatly frightened of this theft, when his lord’s wife asked him
to do a vile deed.’
[(c1390) Chaucer CT.Pars.(Manly-Rickert) I.880]
(5-49) The Slowthe, of which I doute Mor than of al the remenant.
the sloth
of which I fear more than of all the remnant
‘The Sloth, of which I am afraid more than all the rest.’
[(a1393) Gower CA (Frf 3) 4.62]
122 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
There is no noticeable difference between impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs in the formation of passives and reflexives either. All the examples of
reflexive constructions represent middle-reflexive uses, where the reflexive
pronoun in the simple form is semantically redundant (see section 2.2.2):
(5-50) This riche Cresus . . . Of which Cresus Cirus
soore hym
dradde.
this rich Cresus
of which Cresus Cirus-nom sorely him-refl dreaded
‘This rich Cresus . . . of this Cresus Cirus was sorely afraid.’
[(c1375) Chaucer CT.Mk.(Manly-Rickert) B.3918]
(5-51) The rynges . . . And eek the dores clatereden ful faste, Of which
the rings
and also the doors clattered very fast of which
Arcita
somwhat hym
agaste.
Arcite-nom somewhat him-refl feared
‘The rings . . . and also the doors clattered very fast, of which Arcite was
somewhat frightened.’
[(c1385) Chaucer CT.Kn.(Manly-Rickert) A.2424]
Correlation between impersonal usage and causation is not necessarily
strong. Table 5.7 summarizes the examples of transitive constructions
where the Target of Emotion (ToE) is the subject, namely syntactically causative use. Agrūwie, a hapax legomenon, uggen, which became impersonal in
early Middle English, and ofdrēden, which did so in late Middle English, do
not have any relevant examples. There are no instances in the pre-fourteenth-­
century data either (compare Table 5.3 above). Having the causative use is
therefore not indispensable for verbs of Fear to be used in impersonal constructions in late Middle English. It was at least not the sole prerequisite for
impersonal use, considering that several non-impersonal verbs are employed
in ToE-subject transitive constructions.
The results so far suggest that the boundaries between impersonal and
non-impersonal verbs of Fear are practically non-existent in late Middle English. Further independent evidence for this is provided in the MED entries.
After a close examination of the data, some verbs which had been assumed to
be non-impersonal on the basis of previous studies turned out to be found in
an impersonal construction:
table 5.7 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of ToE-subject transitive
constructions
impers. verbs
agrīsen (2), agrūwie (0), arghen (3), auen (3), drēden (3),
grīsen (1), maien (2), ofdrēden (0), uggen (0)
non-impers. verbs
adŏuten (0), adrēden (1), affraien (6), agasten (0), aquāken (0),
bedŏut (0), chiveren (0), (i)dŏuten (1), fēren (11), fordrēden (0),
fremishen (0), frighten (1), grillen (0), grūen (0), hidŏusen (0),
offrighten (0), oglen (0), quāken (0), quāven (0), redŏuten (0),
shōderen (0), shruggen (0), tremblen (0)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 123
(5-52) Sore me
adrede þat hue wole horn mys rede.
sorely me-obj fear
that she will Horn mislead
‘I am sorely afraid that she will badly advise Horn.’
[c1325 Horn (Hrl 2253) 297]
(5-53) Thei ther-of were so abaisshed that hem
dought longe er
thei
they thereof were so abashed that them-obj feared long before they
myght gete out . . . fro the fyre.
might get out
from the fire
‘They were so abashed of it that they feared long before they could get out . . .
from the fire.’
[a1500(?c1450) Merlin (Cmb Ff.3.11) 116]19
(5-54) I beseche ȝow þat ȝe wille þenke on my lord of Caunterbery, for
I beseech you that you will think on my lord of Canterbury for
me
feryþ sore of hym.
me-obj fears sorely of him
‘I entreat you that you will think about my lord of Canterbury, for I am sorely
afraid of him.’
[(c1425) Stonor 1.42]
There is another example dating from the borderline around the beginning
of the fourteenth century:
(5-55) Þo gan him
sore a-doute.
then began him-obj sorely fear
‘Then he began to be sorely afraid.’
[c1300 SLeg.(LdMisc 108) 190/16]
Examples (5-52) to (5-55) are the only instances of the impersonal use of
adrēden, (a)dŏuten, and fēren cited in their MED entries, while the OED
entry for doubt cites a much earlier example (s.v. II. †9. ‘impers. To make (a
person) afraid’):
(5-56) Hym
ne douteth of no breche Of Godes hestes
healde.
him-obj not fears
of no breaching of God’s commands observed
‘It does not make him afraid of breaching God’s observed commands.’
[c1315 Shoreham 93]
In the MED entries for adrēden, (a)dŏuten, and fēren, examples (5-52) to
(5-55) are silently included among quotations which illustrate other types of
syntactic constructions, making it unlikely for users to notice them unless
they read each quotation carefully. The ‘discovery’ of these previously unknown examples nevertheless supports the generalization that the sense of
general fear alone can license impersonal usage from the fourteenth century
onwards, if only as a nonce expression. Adrēden, (a)dŏuten, and fēren are
124 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
quite different from each other in their etymology, relative frequency, and occurrence patterns, but they all share the sense of general fear and are all generally stative (in terms of aspectual diagnostics), and all of the above five instances are from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
The absence of impersonal usage with other relatively frequent verbs meaning ‘to fear’, such as affraien and agasten, could be accidental. It should be
emphasized that impersonal usage spread to verbs meaning ‘to fear’, but never
to verbs meaning ‘to shudder (for fear)’. Semantic differences between the
latter verbs and impersonal verbs of Fear, especially those from before the
fourteenth century, which also involve shuddering, are revealed in their collocability with certain modifiers. Among the non-impersonal verbs of shuddering, chiveren, oglen, (a)quāken, and tremblen are found with a prepositional phrase of fear or other emotion, which makes explicit that shuddering
is due to that particular emotion:
(5-57) The Contesse . . . sy the bloody knyf in hire hond nakid, And for the
the countess
saw the bloody knife in her hand naked and for the
fere shee tremblid and qwook.
fear she trembled and quaked
‘The Countess . . . saw the bloody knife in her naked hand, and for the fear
she trembled and quaked.’
[(c1422) Hoccl. JWife (Dur-U Cosin V.3.9) 354]
(5-58) Achilles at tho choise men cheuert for anger.
Achilles at the noble men shivered for anger
‘Achilles, at the noble men, shivered for anger.’
[c1540(?a1400) Destr.Troy (Htrn 388) 9370]
By contrast, such a collocation is not exemplified in the MED entries for
(a)grīsen and uggen (and hence agrūwie, whose only recorded instance is a
variant of one of the examples of grīsen and uggen),20 nor for arghen, auen,
(of)drēden, and maien, which became impersonal in late Middle English.
This collocational difference suggests that the sense of fear was indeed immanent with the impersonal verbs of Fear from before the fourteenth century,
as indicated in their MED definitions. Hence, the collocation with prepositional phrases of fear such as agrisen for drede ‘shudder with fear for dread’
would be pleonastic; compare Burnley’s (1992: 474) similar discussion on
cruel and wood cited in section 5.2. On the other hand, the sense of fear was
not necessarily inherent in the non-impersonal verbs of shuddering such as
quāken, even though they can be associated with fear. The sense of shuddering was crucial but not sufficient for a verb of Fear to be employed in impersonal constructions before the fourteenth century. The sense of fear has to be
salient in the first place.
There is additional evidence that the sense of shuddering fear was critical
in the licensing of impersonal usage:
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 125
(5-59) Sare . . . me
grulleð
aȝein mi muchele pine . . . ȝef hit mei
sorely me-obj distresses/fears against my much
pain
if it may
beon, speare me ed tis time.
be
spare me at this time
‘I am sorely . . . distressed/afraid against my great pain . . . if it is possible,
spare me at this time.’
[c1230(?a1200) *Ancr.(Corp-C 402) 99a]
(5-60) For þat torn . . . ful sore him
schal a-grille.
for that turn
full sorely him-obj shall shudder with fear
‘For that turn . . . he shall shudder with fear very sorely.’
[c1380 Firumb.(1) (Ashm 33) 2195]
The OED and the MED do not necessarily treat these two instances in the
same ways. In the MED entry for grillen, (5-59) is related to the sense of
sorrow or grief (s.v. 1. (b) ‘to be sorrowful, grieve, suffer’) and was thus not incorporated into my database as an example illustrating a verb of Fear, but the
OED glosses this quotation as ‘I am afraid, I shudder’ (s.v. grill, v.1 3), hence the
verb grillen itself was included as a non-impersonal verb of Fear in this section. The quotation (5-60) is assigned to similar senses in the OED (‘to cause
(someone) to tremble with fear’) and MED (‘shudder with fear or come to
grief’), but agrillen is not subsumed in the HTOED category ‘Fear’ (and not
selected as a non-impersonal verb of Fear in this section) since the HTOED
recognizes only the other sense in the OED entry (‘to provoke (someone);
offend, annoy’). Neither the OED nor the MED records any other instance of
impersonal use of (a)grillen. However, should we recognize these verbs in
(5-59) and (5-60) as verbs of Fear, (5-59) from the early thirteenth century provides supporting evidence for the hypothesis that, before the fourteenth century, the semantic components ‘to shudder’ and ‘to fear’ enabled verbs of Fear
to appear in impersonal constructions.
Other than the sense ‘to fear’, there seems to be no critical factor for licensing impersonal usage in verbs of Fear from the fourteenth century onwards.
Impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Fear take both animate and inanimate Targets of Emotion, as demonstrated in Table 5.8.
Among impersonal verbs with more than a few examples, agrīsen and
drēden are found with inanimate ToEs more often than with animate ToEs,
which coincides with the finding in previous studies that Old English impersonal verbs typically take inanimate ToEs (see section 2.2.3). However, the
other impersonal verbs do not show clear tendencies, and examples of impersonal constructions are too scarce to claim anything definite. Most of the nonimpersonal verbs do not exhibit clear tendencies either, except that fēren is
attested more frequently with animate ToEs while chiveren, quāken, and
tremblen, which all denote shuddering, prefer inanimate ToEs. It seems generally difficult to draw a line between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of
Fear in terms of the animacy of the Target of Emotion.
126 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
table 5.8 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Fear in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of (in)animate Targets of
Emotion
Impersonal verbs
verbs
agrīsen
agrūwie
arghen
auen
drēden
grīsen
maien
ofdrēden
uggen
animate
inanimate
3
0
4 [1]
3
40
5
1 [1]
2
1
9
0
5
3 [1]
54
4
0
1
3
* [ ] examples in impersonal constructions
Non-impersonal verbs
verbs
adŏuten
adrēden
affraien
agasten
aquāken
bedŏut
chiveren
(i)dŏuten
fēren
fordrēden
fremishen
frighten
grillen
grūen
hidŏusen
offrighten
oglen
quāken
quāven
redŏuten
shōderen
shruggen
tremblen
animate
inanimate
3
10
10
9
0
1
0
25
18 [1]
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
12
0
4
0
0
0
1
12
7
11
1
0
6
23
9
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
46
0
4
1
0
15
* [ ] examples in impersonal constructions
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 127
What is nevertheless of interest for the present investigation is that dŏuten
and drēden are commonly used to express fear of God (see Ogura 2006):
(5-61) Þai him [Christ] luued and doted ai.
they him
loved and feared always
‘They always loved and feared him [Christ].’
[a1400(a1325) Cursor (Vsp A.3) 12571]
(5-62) She neuere cessed . . . god to loue and drede.
she never ceased
God to love and dread
‘She never ceased . . . to love and dread God.’
[(c1380) Chaucer CT.SN.(Manly-Rickert) G.125]
The frequent use of this collocation is indicated explicitly in the MED entries
for the two verbs (s.v. sense 3 for both). By contrast, no such instance is recorded in the MED entries for the four verbs which became impersonal in
early Middle English, i.e. agrīsen, agrūwie, grīsen, and uggen. Considering
the critical role played by religion in medieval English literature, the difference could be systematic. God or someone of high rank can be the Target of
Emotion with auen and ofdrēden, which, like dŏuten and drēden, are first
attested in impersonal constructions in late Middle English:
(5-63) Þou shalt haue noo god but oon, Hym oonly to worshyp, love, and
you shall have no God but one Him only to worship love and
awe With herte and thought.
awe with heart and thought
‘You shall have no God but one, to worship, love, and awe only Him with
heart and thought.’
[c1475(c1450) Idley Instr. 2.A.43]
(5-64) Ȝif þou ert ofdrad Of þe emperor . . . iwis
þou ert amad.
if you are afraid of the emperor
certainly you are mad
‘If you are afraid of the emperor . . . certainly you are beside yourself.’
[a1325 SLeg.Juliana (Corp-C 145) 27]
The apparent non-occurrence of agrūwie, (a)grīsen, and uggen with words
for God may have relevance to the kinds of emotion typically expressed by
impersonal verbs of emotion. Emotions targeted at God, perpetual being, are
more likely to be permanent dispositions rather than immediate feelings.
Indeed, in (5-61) and (5-62), the fear does not arise spontaneously from the
described situation but is rather context-independent, unchanging feeling of
the Experiencer: the Experiencer has always feared or stood in awe of God.
Attention should also be paid to the co-occurrence of dŏuten and drēden
with lŏven. Pishwa (1999: 133) observed that love expresses a long-term feeling (see section 1.3.1). Close ties between lŏven and drēden are recognized in
each of their MED entries (senses 2. (a) and 3. (a) respectively), while no
128 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
reference is made regarding the co-occurrence of lŏven and (a)grīsen or
uggen. One could hypothesize from this that verbs which tend to denote longterm feeling are by nature not compatible with impersonal use, but that such
a restriction was slightly eased in late Middle English, when auen, dŏuten,
and drēden are found in impersonal constructions, if only as nonce expressions. The instance below provides further supporting evidence that the fear
denoted by drēden can last for a long time, even throughout one’s lifetime
(Siþ his chilhod). Similar examples are not found with (a)grīsen or uggen.
(5-65) Siþ his chilhod he euer more drad his god and euer kept his
since his childhood he ever more feared his God and ever kept his
hestys.
commands
‘Since his childhood he has always feared his God and kept his commands.’
[c1450 Wimbledon Serm.(Hat 57) 21/25]
The findings of this section can confirm the importance of aspect for realization of impersonal usage: all the impersonal verbs of Fear, both those
known from the literature and those newly identified by careful analysis of the
MED entries, allow for a non-habitual interpretation in the simple present, i.e.
a stative reading, and the verbs which became impersonal before the fourteenth century have an eventive reading. The common assumption in previous studies that impersonal constructions tend to express uncontrolled and
immediate feeling was found to be not always tenable, but the MED data point
to some incompatibility between long-lasting feeling and impersonal usage.
In the next section I will examine whether impersonal verbs of Anger, whose
histories were observed to parallel those of impersonal verbs of Fear (see section 4.9), can be distinguished from near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs
in similar ways.
5.4 Verbs of Anger
5.4.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions
Table 5.9 summarizes the complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with Middle English impersonal verbs of Anger as found in their MED
entries. The very small number of examples for all the seven verbs means that
the impersonal use of verbs of Anger, which emerged in Middle English, was
considerably restricted. All the verbs are attested with either or both of the pattern with unexpressed Target of Emotion (ToE) and the pattern with a prepositional ToE, while none takes an infinitival ToE. There are no unambiguous
examples of impersonal constructions with formal it.
Section 4.4 presented the generalization that, until the fourteenth century,
impersonal usage was available only for verbs which had the semantic
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 129
table 5.9 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with impersonal
verbs of Anger
verbs
grāmen
grēmen
tēnen
wratthen
angren
disdeinen
wrēthen
earliest impers. use
no. of exx.
c1225(?c1200)
c1225(?c1200)
c1225(?c1200)
c1400(c1378)
c1440(?a1400)
a1450
c1450(?a1400)
2
4
5
2
1
1
1
ToE
Ø
PP
1
3
1
2
1
2
INF
CL
1
2
1
1
1
component of irritation or which expressed some fierce anger, as far as one
can determine from the dictionary definitions and thesaurus categorizations,
whereas verbs which became impersonal from the fourteenth century onwards denote more general anger. Textual evidence for the sense of irritation
with verbs of Anger is more difficult to obtain than the sense of shuddering
with verbs of Fear, since anger and irritation are not necessarily separable
from each other. Nevertheless, even the limited impersonal instances of
grāmen and grēmen, both of which obtained impersonal use in the thirteenth century, show that the degree of anger which they express is indeed
quite strong, to the extent that it involves some physical effect:
(5-66) Þe reue . . . bigon to cwakien, se grundliche him
gromede.
the reeve
began to quake
so strongly
him-obj angered
‘The reeve . . . began to quake, so strongly was he infuriated.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 61/669]
(5-67) Him
bigon to gremien, & o grome gredde: ‘Strupeð hire . . . &
him-obj began to anger
and in anger cried
strip
her
and
heoueð hire on heh up.’
heave her on high up
‘He began to get angry and cried out in anger: “Strip her . . . and heave her
up on high.”’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Marg.(1) (Bod 34) 42.10]
Effect on the Experiencer’s body is manifest in (5-66) with cwakien ‘quake’,
while in (5-67) intensity of anger is implied in the resulting command for violent actions. These examples describing fierce anger may be regarded as preserving the sense of irritation which presumably existed in the Old English
period, though this issue should be further examined against the relevant Old
English data.
One of the instances of the impersonal use of tēnen, another verb which
turned impersonal before the fourteenth century, similarly expresses strong
anger:
130 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-68) Me
teoneð mare þet ha tukeð ure godes to bale.
me-obj angers more that they treat our gods to ruin
‘I am angry all the more because they subject our gods to ridicule.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Kath.(1) (Roy 17.A.27) 31/252]
Here the anger is caused by the fact that the pagan gods the Experiencer believes in are treated with contempt. Especially in the medieval society, disrespect to one’s religious belief is more likely to lead to intense anger than some
other non-religious factors. The hypothesis that the semantic component of
irritation or some fierce anger played a crucial role in the rise of impersonal
usage with verbs of Anger thus appears to be tenable.
On the other hand, semantic distinctions between early and late Middle
English impersonal verbs of Anger are not always clear-cut, at least as far as
examples of impersonal constructions are concerned:
(5-69) [And ane erle þane in angere answeres hym son:]
and an earl then in anger answers him soon
‘Me angers at Arthure and att his hathell bierns,
me-obj angers at Arthur and at his noble soldiers
[That thus in his errour ocupyes theis rewmes,
that thus in his error occupies these rooms
And owtrayes þe Emperour, his erthely lorde.]
and oppresses the emperor
his earthly lord
‘[And then in anger an earl answers him soon:] “I am angry with Arthur as
well as his noble soldiers [that thus occupies these rooms in his error and
oppresses the emperor, his earthly lord.]’
[c1440(?a1400) Morte Arth.(1) (Thrn) 1661–4]21
(5-70) If ȝe refreyne ȝow þar-fra, it falis bot of pride Or ellis ȝow
writhis
if you refrain you from there it falls but of pride or else you-obj angers
with ȝour [?read: our] wele, for ȝe na welth have.
with your
wealth for you no wealth have
‘If you keep yourself from it, it happens but of pride. Or else you are angry
with (y)our wealth, for you have no wealth.’
[c1450(?a1400) Wars Alex.(Ashm 44) 4639]
In the expanded context of (5-69), the Experiencer is quite likely to be rather
furious towards Arthur’s irreverent actions, while the degree of anger in (5-70)
is contextually not likely to be particularly excessive. However, the number of
examples available is limited after all, and the two verbs may have been chosen
in these specific instances simply for the sake of alliteration. Further discussion of this issue will be provided in the next section, with more data.
Aspectual differences between early and late Middle English impersonal
verbs of Anger are not necessarily clear. Examples (5-68) to (5-70) and a few
other instances of impersonal constructions in the simple present tense have
a non-habitual interpretation—the Experiencer is in the state of anger at the
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 131
time of utterance, whether the degree of anger is rather strong or not—and
the verbs involved receive a stative reading. On the other hand, a change of
state may be implied in (5-66) and (5-67): the Experiencer becomes angry
upon perception of the situation. There may not be strict aspectual restrictions for verbs of Anger to be used in impersonal constructions in Middle
English.
At least some of the examples of impersonal constructions with verbs of
Anger appear to describe uncontrollable feeling which arises immediately or
spontaneously; see for example (5-66) and (5-67), where the context is very
episodic. By contrast, other examples seem to express more controllable and
less immediate anger; see for instance (5-69) and (5-70). The general tendency
appears to parallel that of impersonal verbs of Fear: those which became impersonal in late Middle English tend to express anger which is more controlled
and does not arise so immediately. See also the following only instance of the
impersonal use of disdeinen in the middle of the fifteenth century, where the
Experiencer’s anger involves contemplation of the preceding context and is
likely to be more controlled:
(5-71) We were faire and bright, Þerfore me thoght þat he The kynde of vs
we were fair and bright therefore me seemed that he the kind of us
tane myght, And þer-at dedeyned me.
take might and thereat offended me-obj
‘We were fair and bright, therefore it seemed to me that he might take our
nature, and I was offended at that.’
[a1450 Yk.Pl.(Add 35290) 22/11]
We may thus hypothesize that, as Middle English wore on, correlation assumed in the literature between impersonal constructions and lack of control
or immediate feeling gradually weakened. Whether this has any effect on semantic-pragmatic distinctions with personal constructions will be examined
in the next section.
5.4.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs Compared
If the hypothesis that irritation was a key semantic factor for pre-fourteenthcentury impersonal verbs of Anger is reasonable at least to some extent, one
should question why other verbs of Anger which imply irritation never behaved
impersonally in the history of English (e.g. tarīen, terren). It is also to be noted
that verbs of Anger without explicit connotation of irritation were not found in
impersonal constructions until the fourteenth century onwards, and even then
the attested examples were virtually nonce expressions (e.g. wratthen,
wrēthen). In this section I will discuss Middle English verbs of Anger in the
same way as I discussed Middle English verbs of Fear in section 5.3.2. I will first
examine occurrence patterns of pre-fourteenth-century impersonal verbs of
Anger and contemporary near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs in an attempt
to find out whether there are any noteworthy distinctions between the two sets
132 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
of verbs. I will then move on to the situation in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. All the verbs concerned are adopted from the HTOED category ‘Anger’.
5.4.2.1 Before the Fourteenth Century
According to the MED definitions, other than grāmen, grēmen, and tēnen,
the following verbs were recorded in early Middle English and denoted irritation or provocation. Provocation is not always clearly distinguishable from irritation; the MED definition of grēmen suggests that it could also mean provocation (see section 4.4). For the purpose of detecting semantic distinctions,
it is helpful to include verbs which are not completely synonymous but which
share a certain element (see Carroll 1997: 29). All of these verbs, accompanied
by the MED definitions, are subsumed under the HTOED subsection ‘Irritation’ in the category ‘Anger’.
• agrillen [ME coinage; < grillen]: ‘annoy’ [OED s.v. agrill(e ‘to provoke
(someone); offend, annoy’]
• grillen [OE grillan]: ‘to offend (sb.), provoke to anger; enrage (someone’s heart)’
• terren [OE tirgan]: ‘to provoke (sb., God), anger, vex; provoke (sb. to
wrath, battle, etc.); with inf.: incite (sb. to do sth.); also, provoke (anger)’
It should be noted that (a)grillen can be used in impersonal constructions, if
not as verbs of Anger; see (5-59) and (5-60) above. Hence, more attention
should be paid to the lack of impersonal usage with terren.
Also to be taken up here as non-impersonal verbs of Anger are wratthen
and wrēthen, which were not yet employed in impersonal constructions in
early Middle English, and their near-synonyms, namely verbs of Anger without an explicit sense of irritation:
• abelȝen [OE ābelgan]: ‘to anger or incense (sb.)’; ‘to grow angry’
• anbelȝen [OE *onbelgan]: ‘to grow angry’
• grēven [OF grever]: ‘to make (sb.) angry, enrage’; ‘to feel anger, become
angry’
Grēven is one of the impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering (see section
4.3), but its use as a verb of Anger, or indeed as an emotion verb, does not in
fact seem to be very common. The sense quoted here appears under 3b. in the
MED entry. The only pre-fourteenth-century instance looks like an impersonal construction with formal it, although hit here is arguably referential:
(5-72) Ȝef . . . he let
lutel to þe, hit
greueð þe
se swiðe þet tu
if
he consider little to you it-nom angers you-obj so strongly that you
wult inohreaðe . . . makien him poisun.
will very much
make him poison
‘If . . . he thinks little of you, it makes you angry so much that you very much
want . . . to make him poison.’
[c1225(?c1200) HMaid.(Bod 34) 28/476]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 133
table 5.10 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger before
the fourteenth century: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive,
transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions
Impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest date
ToE
Ø
grēmen
tēnen
grāmen
c893
971
c1200
transitive
PP
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
*
* ambiguous examples are attested
Non-impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest date
ToE
Ø
abelȝen
grillen
terren
(i)wrēthen
(i)wratthen
angren
grēven
anbelȝen
agrillen
eOE
c897
a900
c900
c1075
?c1200
?c1225 (?a1200)
c1275 (?a1200)
c1275 (?a1216)
transitive
PP
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
1
5
4
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
2
11
1
This instance is classified under the sense ‘to affect with grief or deep
sorrow’ in the OED (s.v. grieve 5. b.), and the sense ‘to make angry’ is dated
from the beginning of the fourteenth century (sense †6. a.). Grēven as a
verb of Anger might thus not be clearly distinct from that as a verb of
Mental pain/suffering, but in view of the resulting action (of making
poison), anger may be contextually more suitable in (5-72) than grief or
deep sorrow.
Table 5.10 summarizes instances of the pre-fourteenth-century impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Anger in Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions.22 None of the three impersonal verbs is found in any of the four constructions, except for one
instance which is ambiguous between an impersonal construction (þe reue:
objective) and an intransitive construction (þe reue: nominative; indicated by
an asterisk in the table):
134 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
table 5.11 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger before
the fourteenth century: Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions
impers. verbs
grāmen (2), grēmen (4), tēnen (1)
non-impers. verbs
abelȝen (1), agrillen (1), anbelȝen (0), angren (1), grēven (0),
grillen (1), terren (2), (i)wratthen (8), (i)wrēthen (10)
(5-73) Swa þe reue
gromede þet he gristbetede.
so [the reeve]-nom/obj angered that he ground his teeth
‘The reeve was so angry that he ground his teeth.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 59/639]
The three impersonal verbs are all attested in ToE-subject transitive constructions; see Table 5.11.
(5-74) Ah þu
me
hauest sore igramed Þat min heorte is wel neh
but you-nom me-obj have sorely angered that my heart is very nearly
alamed.
paralysed
‘But you have sorely angered me that my heart is very nearly paralysed.’
[c1275(?a1216) Owl & N.(Clg A.9) 1603]
The availability of the syntactically causative use ties in with the MED definitions of the three verbs, which assign explicitly causative senses (e.g. ‘to make
angry’; see section 4.4). However, the causative use is also shared with the
majority of contemporary non-impersonal verbs of Anger, so it is not a single
sufficient condition for impersonal usage. More crucial determinants of impersonal use therefore lie elsewhere.
The MED data point to subtle semantic distinctions between impersonal
and non-impersonal verbs of Anger. The difference is implied, if not identifiable, in the example below, where the impersonal verb grēmen and the stillnon-impersonal verb wrēthen are coordinated with each other:
(5-75) Moni þing schal ham wreaðen & gremien & make to carien.
many thing shall them anger
and provoke and make to lament
‘Many things shall anger and provoke them and make them lament.’
[c1225(?c1200) HMaid.(Bod 34) 24/393]
This is the only example of an impersonal verb and a non-impersonal verb
being used in word pairs. There are no instances of manuscript variants where
they are paired.
As far as the MED data show, wratthen and wrēthen are generally neutral in the degree and kind of anger. They tend to describe that someone is in,
or falls into, a state of anger:
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 135
(5-76) Wreaðe se þu wreaðe; Do þet tu do wult; nule ich, ne ne mei
be angry as you are angry do what you do will not will I
nor not may
ich, lengre heolen hit.
I longer hide it
‘Be angry as you are angry; do what you want to do; I will not, or cannot, hide
it any longer.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 9/77]
Grāmen, grēmen, and tēnen, on the other hand, are generally more specific in use. As was observed in the previous section, these verbs are sometimes employed to describe intense anger which leads to wild actions; see
(5-73) above, where the Experiencer is infuriated to the extent that he ground
his teeth. There is another relevant example from the same text, St. Juliana:
(5-77) Hire feader, bitterliche iteonet, bitahtte hire eleusium.
her father bitterly
enraged handed her to Eleusius
‘Her father, bitterly enraged, handed her over to Eleusius.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 17/192]
Here the strong degree of anger may largely be attributable to the adverb bitterliche ‘bitterly’, but a wider context shows that the Experiencer (Hire feader,
i.e. Juliana’s father Affricanus) is at the height of fury at this point. The quotation is from the scene immediately after Juliana still stoutly refuses to marry
the heathen Eleusius despite her father’s command, rage, and torture. As it
happens, the MED entry for wratthen includes a sentence which precedes
the scene in (5-77):
(5-78) Hire feader feng on to wreaððin swiðe ferliche.
her father began on to be angry very terribly
‘Her father began to be angry very terribly.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 13/134]
The degree of anger is fairly strong here too, but what is important is that
tēnen, not wratthen or wrēthen, is used when the anger reaches the maximum in (5-77). Examples (5-77) and (5-78) let us conclude that tēnen can express more fierce anger than wratthen or wrēthen. It should also be pointed
out that tēnen, grāmen, and grēmen are not used to describe mild anger,
while wrēthen is:
(5-79) Heo biwende hire aȝein, sumdel iwreððet, & etwat
ham hare
she turned her again somewhat angered and reproached them their
wop.
weeping
‘She turned around, somewhat angered, and reproached them for their
weeping.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Kath.(1) (Einenkel) 2331; see also (5-76) above]
136 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
The sense of intense anger is not clearly recognizable either in instances of
other non-impersonal verbs of Anger, which in the MED are nevertheless defined with such a sense, i.e. (a)grillen and terren. This may explain why
these verbs did not behave impersonally in systematic ways, but the data are
too scarce to advance this argument any further. Abelȝen and anbelȝen, the
two non-impersonal verbs which are near-synonymous with wratthen and
wrēthen, can also be used to denote rather strong anger, as in (5-80), but can
express more general anger too, as in (5-81). This may be because the Old English equivalents of these verbs, namely a/onbelgan, were the most prominent
expressions of anger (Gevaert 2007: 33)—their uses were not limited to describing a specific kind of anger.
(5-80) Brutus wes on-bolȝen swa bið þa wilde bær.
Brutus was enraged
as is the wild boar
‘Brutus was enraged as is the wild boar.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 1696]
(5-81) Þo abalh Ȝaweyn and wreþþede him swiþe.
then angered Gawain and was angry him strongly
‘Then Gawain grew angry and was strongly enraged.’
[c1300 Lay. Brut (Otho C.13) 26359]
table 5.12 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger
before the fourteenth century: Examples of (in)animate Targets of
Emotion
Impersonal verbs
verbs
animate
inanimate
grāmen
grēmen
tēnen
1
5 [1]
1
1
1
0
* [ ] examples in impersonal constructions
Non-impersonal verbs
verbs
abelȝen
agrillen
anbelȝen
angren
grēven
grillen
terren
(i)wratthen
(i)wrēthen
animate
inanimate
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
9
8
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
3
6
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 137
Animacy of the Target of Emotion does not particularly distinguish impersonal verbs of Anger from non-impersonal verbs, and the tendency to choose
inanimate ToEs, as has been noted in previous studies, is not observable; see
Table 5.12. Grēmen, for instance, is found more often with animate ToEs.
Words for God, which were found to draw a line between verbs of Fear
which became impersonal during early Middle English and those which did
so in late Middle English (see section 5.3.2.2), appear to be irrelevant here.
These words mostly occur as the Experiencer, not as the Target of Emotion, for
both impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Anger:23
(5-82) Summe lauerdes . . . god gremiað, swa saul þe king dude, þe forsech
some
lords
God anger
so Saul the king did who seeks
godes heste.
God’s command
‘Some lords . . . anger God, as King Saul did, who seeks out God’s command.’
[a1225(OE) Lamb.Hom.VA (Lamb 487) 111]
(5-83) Adam & Eua agulten
& Gode wreðædon on neorxnawo[n]gæ.
Adam and Eve committed sin and God angered
in Paradise
‘Adam and Eve committed sin and angered God in Paradise.’
[c1175(?OE) Bod.Hom.(Bod 343) 112/12]
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that collocation with words for God is mentioned explicitly in the MED entries for some of the non-impersonal verbs of
Anger (e.g. terren, wratthen, wrēthen), whereas such a reference is completely absent from the entries for grāmen, grēmen, and tēnen. This may suggest that early Middle English impersonal verbs of Anger do not collocate well
with words for God—their uses are semantically more restricted than other
verbs of Anger. These slight semantic differences between impersonal and nonimpersonal verbs of Anger will be further investigated in the next section.
5.4.2.2 From the Fourteenth Century
The number of verbs which denoted irritation or provocation with special reference to anger increased in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Most of
them are of foreign origin:
•
•
•
•
•
erten [ON erta]: ‘to incite, taunt, or provoke (someone)’
excīten [OF exciter]: ‘to provoke (someone to anger or revenge)’
fōrth-callen [ME coinage]: ‘to provoke, incite’
mēven [OF movoir]: ‘to arouse or provoke (sb.) to anger’
prōvōken [OF provoquer]: ‘to anger (sb.), enrage, vex’; ‘to provoke (sb. to
anger); goad (sb. into being angry, showing cruelty, etc.)’
• tarīen [OF tarier]: ‘to incite wrath, be vexatious. . .; provoke (sb., God),
irritate, annoy’
Verbs which expressed general anger of the type denoted by wratthen and
wrēthen also increased:
138 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
• endeinen [OF endaignier]: ‘to be or become displeased or indignant, to
take offence’
• forwretthen [ME coinage; < OE wreccan]: ‘to anger (someone) exceedingly’
• wrēchen [ME coinage]: ‘to become angry with (sb.)’; ‘to provoke (sb. or
God) to wrath, anger’
• wrōthen [OE wrāþian]: ‘to become angry’; ‘to provoke (sb.) to wrath,
anger’24
Some of these non-impersonal verbs are found in word pairs or manuscript
variants with impersonal verbs, as shown in Table 5.13.
(5-84) Þe kynges . . . sone . . . gan to tarry and to angre þe Longobardes wiþ
the king’s
son
began to irritate and to anger the Longobards with
dispitous wordes.
spiteful words
‘The king’s . . . son . . . began to irritate and anger the Longobards with spiteful words.’
[(a1387) Trev. Higd.(StJ-C H.1) 5.355]
(5-85) Are I þat worthliche wreche [vrr. wrethe, wrathe], þat al þis world
before I that omnipotent anger
that all this world
wrouȝt, Betere is wemles weende of þis world wyde.
made
better is blameless go
of this world wide
‘Before I anger that omnipotent that made all this world, it is better to go out
of this wide world without any blame.’
[c1390 Susan.(Vrn) 150]
table 5.13 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of word pairs and MS
variants
Word pairs
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
angren
tarīen (2)
terren (1)
mēven (1)
wratthen
MS variants
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
grēmen
wratthen
wrēthen
grēven (2)
wrēchen (3)
wrēchen (2)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 139
There is also an instance where impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of
Anger are used together to gloss a Latin word (Irrito ‘to incite, excite, stimulate, instigate, provoke, exasperate, irritate’; Lewis 1966 s.v. inrītō):
(5-86) Tenyn, or wrethyn, or ertyn: Irrito.
[(1440) PParv.(Hrl 221) 489]
These examples demonstrate that impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of
Anger are not completely synonymous, although the examples themselves do
not reveal their semantic differences.
The previous section showed that pre-fourteenth-century impersonal verbs
of Anger and wratthen or wrēthen are slightly distinct from each other in
the degree of anger. The example below provides further supporting evidence
that they are not absolute synonyms:25
(5-87) Þen wrathid þo worthi [for wont of þe burde,] And tenyt [full tite
then angered the worthy for want of the woman and enraged very quickly
for tarying so longe].
for tarrying so long
‘Then the worthy person got angry [for the absence of the woman,] and got
enraged [very quickly for tarrying so long].’
[c1540(?a1400) Destr.Troy (Htrn 388) 12086]
The causes of anger are different, and the choice of verbs may well have been
influenced by the need for alliteration. However, the context implies that the
degree of anger denoted is stronger for tēnen than for wratthen:26 the Experiencer becomes increasingly angry towards the woman. This change of state
is made evident by the modifier full tite, which has the same function as rate
adverbs like quickly. Tenyt here therefore clearly has an eventive reading
(‘became angry’). By contrast, the examples of wratthen and wrēthen in
the MED entries suggest that they usually express common kinds of anger.
This is best indicated by the instance below, where wratthen glosses the
Latin deponent verb īrāscor ‘to be angry’ (Lewis 1966 s.v. īrāscor):
(5-88) Þei, aȝens Judam hugeli wrathed [L irati], ben turned aȝeen in to þer
they against Judas hugely angered
angry are turned again in to their
regioun.
region
‘Greatly angered against Judas, they went back to their region.’
[(a1382) WBible(1) (Bod 959) 2 Par.25.10]
The preliminary semantic generalization about the rise and spread of impersonal usage with verbs of Anger can therefore be largely supported with textual evidence: before the fourteenth century the usage was available only to
the verbs that expressed rather strong anger, which sometimes results in wild
actions, while from the fourteenth century onwards the verbs which express
140 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
anger in general could also appear in impersonal constructions, if only sporadically. Irritation, the common keyword among dictionary definitions of the
early Middle English impersonal verbs of Anger, may not precisely be the
most crucial semantic factor that distinguishes these verbs from new impersonal verbs in late Middle English, but intense anger as described in some
examples of grāmen, grēmen, and tēnen should inevitably involve a considerable amount of irritation, even though it may not be explicitly described in
words.
table 5.14 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions
Impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
grēmen
(i)wrēthen
tēnen
(i)wratthen
grāmen
angren
disdeinen
OED earliest date
c893
c900
971
c1075
c1200
?c1200
c1380
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
2
5
4
8
1
3
2
2
1
8
1
4
6
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
10
1
6
10
3
11
1
1
Non-impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest date
ToE
Ø
grillen
terren
wrōthen
grēven
mēven
fōrth-callen
tarīen
erten
wrēchen
excīten
endeinen
prōvōken
forwretthen
c897
a900
c975
?c1225 (?a1200)
c1275
a1300
a1300
c1325
c1330
a1340
a1382
a1425 (1400)
c1450
transitive
PP
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
8
6
1
4
4
1
1
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 141
Just like impersonal verbs of Fear, impersonal verbs of Anger exhibit a
wider range of complementation patterns in late Middle English, as summarized in Table 5.14. All the impersonal verbs are attested in Experiencer-subject intransitive constructions. The Target of Emotion is also commonly left
unexpressed or governed by a preposition in impersonal constructions (compare Table 5.9 above), but semantic distinctions between the two constructions do not always match the distinctions proposed in the literature:
(5-89) [The prowde paleys dide he pulle doun to the erthe,
the proud palace did he pull down to the earth
That was rialeste
of araye and rycheste undir the heven.]
that was the most royal of array and richest under the heaven
And þen þe Trogens
of Troye teneden
full sore . . . and
and then the Trojans-nom.pl of Troy became angry-pl very sorely and
sadly
þay foughten.
vigorously they fought
‘[He pulled the proud palace down to the earth, which was the most royal of
array and richest under the heaven.] And then the Trojans of Troy became
angry very sorely . . . and they fought vigorously.’
[c1450(?a1400) Parl.3 Ages (Add 31042) 319–22]27
(5-90) [þe apostels spekand þus and mar,
the apostles speaking thus and more
þe preistes come in þat siquar,
the priests came in that time
þe temple maisters wit þam bun,
the temple masters with them together
All þai war of on commun.]
all they were of one common
At þair talking þam
tenid sare.
at their talking them-obj angered sorely
‘[The apostles speaking thus and more, the priests came at that time, together with the temple-masters, they were all of the same fellowship.] They
got sorely angry at their speech.’
[a1400(a1325) Cursor (Vsp A.3) 19115–19]28
In (5-89) with an Experiencer-subject intransitive construction, the Experiencer’s anger seems to be uncontrolled and to arise rather immediately, which
are the characteristics typically associated with an impersonal construction.
Such characteristics are also displayed quite clearly in (5-90) with an impersonal construction: the Experiencers (the priests) become angry at the sight of
apostles talking. A change of state (‘to get angry’) is very likely to be implied
in both of these examples. Compare also the following pair of instances; it
is not quite obvious whether or not the Experiencer’s anger is controlled or
142 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
i­mmediate, but one has an intransitive construction while the other uses an
impersonal construction:
(5-91) I
anger;
I wote not what dewill me alys.
I-nom am angry I know not what devil me release
‘I am angry; I do not know what devil may release me.’
[a1500(a1460) Towneley Pl.(Hnt HM 1) 169/113]
(5-92) Me
angers at Arthure and att his hathell bierns.
me-obj angers at Arthur and at his noble soldiers
‘I am angry with Arthur and his noble soldiers.’
[c1440(?a1400) Morte Arth.(1) (Thrn) 1662; see also (5-69) above]
Especially in late Middle English, when a number of verbs are found in impersonal constructions virtually as nonce expressions, semantic distinctions
from personal constructions may not necessarily have been clear-cut. Nonimpersonal verbs can also be used to express uncontrolled and episodic anger;
compare below with (5-90):
(5-93) Again melusine wrothed
he
ful sore, That to hir sayd moch
against Melusina became angry he-nom full sorely that to her said much
repref.
reproof
‘Against Melusina he became angry very sorely that he said much reproof to
her.’
[a1500 Partenay (Trin-C R.3.17) 1254]
It is thus often difficult to draw a line between impersonal and non-­
impersonal verbs of Anger in terms of control or duration of the emotion, but
Table 5.14 points to a few differences between them in constructional patterns. First, less than half of the non-impersonal verbs are exemplified in intransitive constructions, whereas all the impersonal verbs have examples.
This might be largely because of the generally small number of records for the
non-impersonal verbs, but among those which have instances of intransitive
constructions, grēven and grillen behave as impersonal verbs in other
‘Emotion’ categories (see sections 4.3 and 5.3.2.2 respectively), and both of the
two examples with endeinen are found in the translation of the Bible, which
may have been influenced by the syntax of the original:
(5-94) Whether vp on these thingus I shal not endeyne.
whether up on these things I shall not be indignant
‘Shall I not be indignant at these things?’
[(a1382) WBible(1) (Dc 369(1)) Is.57.6]
As far as verbs of Anger are concerned, some correlation may therefore exist
between impersonal usage and intransitive use.
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 143
By contrast, not much correlation may exist between impersonal use and
transitive use: only a few of the impersonal verbs have examples of transitive
constructions. These verbs, however, became impersonal in late Middle English, and none of the impersonal verbs from before the fourteenth century is
exemplified in any kind of Experiencer-subject transitive constructions. The
‘conative alternation’ is available only with disdeinen and wratthen, and
only the intransitive variant is found with grēmen and tēnen:
(5-95) Thy selff wold me a coward holde, When thou ovghte at me
yourself would me a coward hold when you ought [at me]-pp
tened.
became angry
‘You would consider me a coward, when you ought to have become angry at
me.’
[a1500(a1400) Ipom.(1) (Chet 8009) 7457]
(5-96) (a) Ȝut bad
me Michel . . . Worschipen þe, or elles god Wolde wrathen
yet ordered me Michael worship
you or else God would be angry
me.
me-obj
‘Yet Michael ordered me . . . to worship you, or else God would be angry
with me.’
[c1400(1375) Canticum Creat.(Trin-O 57) 288]
(b) Caymes kynde & his kynde coupled togideres, Tyl god wratthed
Cain’s kind and his kind coupled together till God angered
for her werkis.
[ for their works]-pp
‘Cain’s kind and his kind coupled together, till God became angry with
their deeds.’
[c1400(c1378) PPl.B (LdMisc 581) 9.128]
The availability of the alternation with disdeinen and wratthen but not with
grēmen and tēnen parallels the situation with verbs of Fear before the fourteenth century, when the alternation was similarly available with the then
non-impersonal verbs, i.e. (a)drēden, but not with the impersonal verbs
(a)grīsen. Examples (5-95), (5-96a), and (5-96b) are indicative of subtle differences between tēnen and wratthen in transitivity: transitivity may be reduced in the intransitive variant (see section 5.3.2.2), and tēnen, in allowing
only the intransitive variant, may have lower transitivity than wratthen.
Most of the impersonal verbs of Anger are attested in either or both of passive and reflexive constructions, whereas only several non-impersonal verbs
have relevant instances. Examples are particularly limited for reflexive constructions. Correlation between these two constructions, especially reflexive
constructions, and impersonal usage can thus be claimed to a certain extent; as
144 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
far as verbs of Anger are concerned, impersonal and reflexive constructions
may share similar functions. All the examples of reflexive constructions correspond to middle-reflexive uses, where the reflexive pronoun in the simple form
is semantically redundant, whether the verb is impersonal or non-impersonal:
(5-97) Þen teonede
him
Teologye
whon he þis tale herde.
then became angry him-refl Theology-nom when he this tale heard
‘Theology became angry when he heard this tale.’
[c1390 PPl.A(1) (Vrn) 2.83]
(5-98) Thau he
wrothe hym
never so sore, For sothe I nylle prove
though he-nom is angry him-refl never so sorely for sooth I will not prove
hym no more.
him no more
‘Though he is never angry so sorely, indeed I will not prove him any more.’
[a1450 7 Sages(3) (Cmb Dd.1.17) 1780]
The previous section saw that syntactically causative use, i.e. occurrence in
transitive constructions where the Target of Emotion is the subject, is not a
sole sufficient prerequisite for impersonal usage, since both impersonal and
near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs are recorded in these constructions.
The same holds for the late Middle English data; see Table 5.15.
(5-99) For þou
angrus me
þat y am neyȝe wode!
for you-nom anger me-obj that I am almost mad
‘For you anger me that I am almost mad!’
[a1450 St.Editha (Fst B.3) 3948]
(5-100) Þe deuel . . . tysede Eue . . . Þus he
tariede hem.
the devil
tempted Eve
thus he-nom irritated them-obj
‘The devil . . . tempted Eve . . . thus he irritated them.’
[c1400(1375) Canticum Creat.(Trin-O 57) 33]
Among impersonal verbs, disdeinen and grēmen have no examples of ToEsubject transitive constructions, but the latter has examples in the early Middle
English data (see Table 5.11 above). Disdeinen, which became impersonal in
the fifteenth century, is not found either in the passive variant of these
table 5.15 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of ToE-subject transitive
constructions
impers. verbs
angren (6), disdeinen (0), grāmen (1), grēmen (0), tēnen (5),
(i)wratthen (13), (i)wrēthen (12)
non-impers. verbs
endeinen (0), erten (3), excīten (3), fōrth-callen (2), forwretthen (1),
grēven (7), grillen (3), mēven (4), prōvōken (7),
tarīen (18), terren (8), wrēchen (1), wrōthen (2)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 145
constructions, namely Experiencer-subject passive constructions (see Table
5.14 above). Causative use is therefore no longer an essential condition for the
realization of impersonal usage at this period of the English language. It is at
least not a single sufficient condition, since all but one of non-impersonal
verbs are attested in ToE-subject transitive constructions. The impersonal use
of disdeinen may be due mostly to the general sense of anger or displeasure
possessed by the verb, especially in view of the fact that it is a nonce expression. Non-impersonal verbs which similarly denote anger in general (endeinen, forwretthen, wrēchen, wrōthen) may lack evidence of impersonal use simply accidentally, either because the number of examples available
is rather small or because the impersonal use of verbs of Anger is not very
frequent after all.
For the other non-impersonal verbs, absence of impersonal usage is attributable to the fact that the sense of anger is not always inherent in them, even
though they can be associated with anger:
(5-101) I womman haue vn-buxum bene And tarid
myn husband to tene.
I woman have disobedient been and provoked my husband to anger
‘I have been a disobedient woman and provoked my husband to anger.’
[a1400(a1325) Cursor (Vsp A.3) 28153]
In this instance, co-occurrence with a word meaning anger (tene) makes it
clear that provocation or incitement alone, i.e. without anger, is intended in
tarid; otherwise to tene would be pleonastic. The lack of the sense of anger is
also confirmed by the fact that tarīen and terren are used as the glosses for
Latin irritāre and prōvocāre, fōrth-callen for prōvocāre, and erten for
irritāre, respectively. Irritation, provocation, or incitement alone is therefore
not a sufficient semantic component for a verb to be employed in impersonal
constructions, but the feeling of anger has to be present in the first place;
compare semantic distinctions between impersonal verbs of Fear and nonimpersonal verbs of shuddering in section 5.3.2.2. In short, verbs like tarīen
and terren only describe a precondition for an emotion, not an emotion itself
(see Diller 1994: 221).29 Other than tarīen, examples like (5-101) are found
with excīten, mēven, prōvōken, and terren, which are all non-impersonal.
See also the following instance, which would not be felicitous if ertid contained any sense of anger:
(5-102) What dede haue we don . . . But ertid
our Enmys, & angert hom
what deed have we done but provoked our enemies and angered them
noght.
not
‘What deed have we done . . . but we provoked our enemies and did not
anger them.’
[c1540(?a1400) Destr.Troy (Htrn 388) 5602]
146 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
This subtle semantic difference has repercussions on the aspect of nonimpersonal verbs of provocation or incitement in comparison with that of the
impersonal verbs of Anger. The former verbs do not have clear evidence for a
stative reading. In the instance below, tarien has a habitual interpretation in
the simple present—the described event is not occurring at the time of
utterance—­and can thus be considered eventive:
(5-103) Þise temptacions . . .
tarien
þe sowle, bute þei appeiren nouȝt
these temptations-nom.pl provoke-pl the soul but they damage not
þe sowle.
the soul
‘These temptations . . . provoke the soul, but they do not damage the soul.’
[?a1475(a1396) * Hilton SP (Hrl 6579) 1.38.23a]
By contrast, impersonal verbs of Anger allow for a stative reading not only
in impersonal constructions (see e.g. (5-68) and (5-69) above) but also in personal constructions. In the instance below, the described event in the simple
present tense is valid at the time of utterance and has a non-habitual
interpretation:
(5-104) Why þow
wratthest now, wonder me þynkeþ.
why you-nom are angry now wonder me seems
‘I wonder why you are angry now.’
[c1400(?a1387) PPl.C (Hnt HM 137) 4.229]
An eventive reading is also possible in some contexts, however. The following
example, where wratthen co-occurs with a rate adverb (anon), bears clear evidence of an eventive reading:
(5-105) Wraþþi
he wolde him anon & awreke him in þe place.
become angry he would him quickly and avenge him in the place
‘He would become angry quickly and avenge himself in the place.’
[a1325 SLeg.Becket (Corp-C 145) 641/971]
Impersonal verbs of Anger therefore may not be regarded as consistently
stative or eventive, but emphasis should be put on the fact that they do allow
for a stative reading, whereas only an eventive reading is possible with nonimpersonal verbs of provocation or incitement. Allowing a stative reading
therefore seems crucial for a verb of Anger to be attested in impersonal
constructions.
Animacy of the Target of Emotion does not distinguish impersonal verbs of
Anger from non-impersonal verbs; see Table 5.16. Most of them have more
examples for animate ToEs (e.g. angren, tēnen, wratthen, wrēthen;
tarīen, terren)—they thus differ from the impersonal verb līken and Old
English impersonal verbs, which generally prefer inanimate ToEs (see section
2.2.3)—while a few verbs (e.g. disdeinen, grēven) are divided between
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 147
table 5.16 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Anger in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: Examples of (in)animate Targets of
Emotion
Impersonal verbs
verbs
angren
disdeinen
grāmen
grēmen
tēnen
(i)wratthen
(i)wrēthen
animate
inanimate
9 [1]
4
3
1
8 [1]
28
17
2
4
0
0
1 [1]
7
1 [1]
* [ ] examples in impersonal constructions
Non-impersonal verbs
verbs
endeinen
erten
excīten
fōrth-callen
forwretthen
grēven
grillen
mēven
prōvōken
tarīen
terren
wrēchen
wrōthen
animate
inanimate
0
2
4
2
1
11
2
4
4
19
11
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
11
3
3
3
6
0
0
0
animate and inanimate ToEs. The examples of impersonal constructions do
not show any particular tendency either.
Words for God are again regularly used as the Experiencer. The only exception that I could find is the following:
(5-106) He greueth hym aȝeines god and gruccheth aȝeines resoun.
he is angry him against God and complains against reason
‘He feels angry against God and complains against reason.’
[c1400(c1378) PPl.B (LdMisc 581) 6.317]
The rare selection of words for God as the Target of Emotion may be natural,
since being angry with God is very unlikely to be a common situation in Middle
English texts, which are strongly influenced by the medieval Christian culture.
148 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
To summarize, among the five predetermined factors for data analysis,
aspect can be regarded as the most important determinant of the impersonal usage with verbs of Anger diachronically. The three pre-fourteenthcentury impersonal verbs involve more intense feeling of anger than the
(post-)fourteenth-century counterparts, but both sets of verbs show features of stativity, which suggests that a stative reading has to be allowed for
a verb of Anger to be used in impersonal constructions throughout Middle
English. Non-impersonal verbs denoting irritation or provocation never
gained impersonal usage because they only allow for an eventive reading,
and many of them do not possess the sense of anger in their inherent semantics, even though they can be associated with anger. These findings
closely parallel the findings made with regard to verbs of Fear in section 5.3.
Verbs of Anger and verbs of Fear are also analogous to one another in the
role of causation over time: while early Middle English impersonal verbs
have syntactically causative use, not all the late Middle English counterparts do so (e.g. disdeinen, ofdrēden). Just as the semantic condition for
the realization of impersonal usage became less specific from around the
fourteenth century, causation became a less crucial factor in the course of
Middle English.
5.5 Verbs of Pity/Compassion
5.5.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions
Table 5.17 summarizes the complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with Middle English impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion as exemplified in their MED entries. The impersonal use of reuen may well be considered relatively fixed in that most of the examples represent the pattern with
the Target of Emotion expressed in the prepositional phrase; see e.g.
­(5-109) below. Neither reuen nor areuen is found with an infinitival or
clausal Target of Emotion. The single unambiguously impersonal use of
areuen, where the ToE is expressed as an objective pronoun (NP-OBJ in
the table), is reproduced below:30
(5-107) I schrift schawið him . . . ower laðlukeste sunnen forþi þet him
in shrift show
him
your most loathly sins
so
that him-obj
areowe ow,
& þurh þe areownesse inwardluker crie crist
feel pity you-obj and through the compassion fervently
cry Christ’s
mearci for ow.
mercy for you
‘In shrift show him . . . your most hateful sins so that he may feel pity for
you, and via the compassion fervently call for Christ’s mercy for you.’
[c1230(?a1200) *Ancr.(Corp-C 402) 16b]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 149
table 5.17 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with impersonal
verbs of Pity/compassion
verbs
earliest impers. use
no. of exx.
areuen
reuen
OE
OE
1
12
ToE
Ø
NP-OBJ
PP
INF
CL
1
2
10
Reuen has two examples of impersonal constructions with formal it, both
with the ToE unexpressed:
(5-108) Iosep sauȝ his breþren wepe; sore hit
him
gan rewe.
Joseph saw his brothers weep sorely it-nom him-obj did pity
‘Joseph saw his brothers weeping; he pitied sorely.’
[?a1300 Jacob & J.(Bod 652) 423]
In terms of aspect, reuen has a non-habitual interpretation in the simple
present and thus allows for a stative reading. In the sample instance below, the
Experiencer feels pity at the time of utterance:
(5-109) Fayre cosyn, me
ruys of thy hurtys.
fair cousin me-obj pities of your sorrows
‘Fair cousin, I feel pity for your sorrows.’
[(a1470) Malory Wks.(Win-C) 211/27]
There are no instances in the MED entry where reuen collocates with an
eventive adverb. Impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion may thus provide further support for the argument that stativity is required for Middle English
verbs of emotion to be employed in impersonal constructions.
Just like impersonal verbs of Fear and Anger, reuen is sometimes, but not
always, used in impersonal constructions to describe episodic and uncontrollable feeling:
(5-110) Esau ðo ran him to And kissede and wept, ðo rew him
so.
Esau then ran him to and kissed and wept then pitied him-obj so
‘Esau then ran to him and kissed and wept, then he felt pity.’
[a1325(c1250) Gen.& Ex.(Corp-C 444) 1828]
(5-111) [But yet, by Seint Thomas,]
but yet by Saint Thomas
Me
reweth sore of hende Nicholas.
me-obj pities sorely of gentle Nicholas
[He shal be rated of his studying,
he shall be scolded for his studying
If that I may, by Jhesus, hevene kyng!]
if that I may by Jesus heaven’s king
‘[But yet, by Saint Thomas,] I feel great pity for gentle Nicholas. [He shall be
scolded for his study, if I can, by Jesus, heaven’s king!]’
[(c1390) Chaucer CT.Mil.(Manly-Rickert) A.3461–4]31
150 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
In (5-110) the feeling of pity arises spontaneously after Esau’s series of actions,
while the same may not apply to (5-111)—the quotation appears in the middle
of a long speech by the Carpenter, and the previous lines have no direct relevance to what is described in the quotation; the feeling of pity in this instance
seems more controlled and is not caused immediately. Thus, even the verb
which has been impersonal since Old English was not always correlated with
lack of control or immediate feeling when used in impersonal constructions
in Middle English.
5.5.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs Compared
Section 4.6 showed that the three Old and Middle English impersonal verbs
of Pity/compassion, i.e. earmian, (ge)hrēowan/reuen, and ofhrēowan/
areuen, shared the sense ‘to cause/feel pity’, but that only (ge)hrēowan/
reuen is richly recorded in impersonal constructions diachronically. This
common sense is also present in the following four Middle English verbs,
none of which is known to have had impersonal usage, except for mēnen,
which as a verb of Mental pain/suffering is attested in an impersonal construction as a nonce expression (see section 4.3):
• bimēnen [OE bemǢ nan]: ‘to express or feel sympathy’; ‘to pity or condole
with (sb.)’
• bireuen [ME coinage; < reuen]: ‘to have sympathy with (sb.), pity’
• bireusen [OE behrēowsian]: ‘to pity (sb.)’
• mēnen [OE mǢ nan]: ‘to pity (sb. or sth.), sympathize with (sb.)’
Bimēnen should have the semantic potential for impersonal usage, since it is
a derivative of mēnen and the prefix bi- does not prevent making a verb impersonal (see e.g. tharf and betharf ‘to need’ in section 2.2.2). Bireuen is also
a derivative of the impersonal verb reuen, while bireusen is related to reusen,
which in Old English was attested in impersonal constructions, though only
in glosses modelled on Latin impersonal constructions ((ge)hrēowsian; see
section 4.3).
Table 5.18 summarizes occurrence patterns of these four non-impersonal
verbs and the two impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion in four types of construction.32 There are no relevant examples for word pairs or manuscript variants matching an impersonal and a non-impersonal verb.
Except for reuen, the number of examples available is fairly small, and this
could be the major cause of the absence of impersonal use of bimēnen,
bireuen, and bireusen. Complementation patterns of intransitive and transitive constructions with (a)reuen mostly overlap with those of impersonal constructions (compare Table 5.17), so the syntactic realization of the Target of
Emotion does not have much effect on the choice between impersonal and
personal constructions. As with verbs of Fear and Anger, semantic distinctions between the two constructions are not always obvious, and personal constructions are sometimes used to describe an uncontrolled feeling that arises
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 151
Table 5.18 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive,
and reflexive constructions
Impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
reuen
areuen
OED earliest date
eOE
c1000
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
4
25
1
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
9
2
1
Non-impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest date
ToE
Ø
mēnen
bimēnen
bireusen
bireuen
eOE
c1000
c1000
?c1200
transitive
PP
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
9
4
1
1
2
immediately or inadvertently, which is commonly regarded as a feature of impersonal constructions. Compare the two instances below:
(5-112) If ye knewe Of myn astat,
ye
wolde rewe.
if you knew of my condition you-nom would pity
‘If you knew about my condition, you would pity.’
[(a1393) Gower CA (Frf 3) 5.5760]
(5-113) Blode may nouȝt se blode blede but hym
rewe.
blood may not
see blood bleed but him-obj pity
‘Blood may not see blood bleeding without feeling pity.’
[c1400(c1378) PPl.B (LdMisc 581) 18.393]
In some examples, on the other hand, personal constructions describe more
long-lasting feelings of pity; in what follows, the Experiencer’s pity is a daylong emotion:
(5-114) Alle daie he
rewes and lenes his þinge.
all day he-nom pities and offers his things
‘All day he takes pity and gives away his things.’
[a1400 NVPsalter (Vsp D.7) 36.27]
152 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
The same variation exists with non-impersonal verbs too; in (5-115) the feeling of pity emerges immediately at the sight of a cruel act, while in (5-116) it is
rather a permanent disposition of the Experiencer:
(5-115) Þei sayh Maryn sitte so schent, And summe of hem ful sore hir
they saw Maryn sit so punished and some-nom of them full sorely her
ment.
pitied
‘They saw Maryn sitting so punished, and some of them pitied her very
sorely.’
[c1390 NHom.Narrat.(Vrn) 260/102]
(5-116) Þe gode and þe clene . . . Nulle hoe
neuer ene Birewen ne
the good and the clean
will not they-nom never once pity
nor
bimene.
sympathize
‘The good and the pure . . . they will never pity or sympathize.’
[?a1300 Sayings St.Bede (Dgb 86) 353]
Distinguishing between impersonal and personal constructions in terms of
control or duration of the emotion does not seem to be very feasible with verbs
of Pity/compassion. Semantic or functional distinctions between the two constructions are often vague in Middle English, and this may well be one of the
causes for the eventual loss of impersonal constructions. Granted that control
or duration of the emotion was one of the underlying factors for impersonal
use to some extent, it is probably not the most critical factor.
The most noticeable difference between impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs of Pity/compassion in terms of constructional patterns is that the latter
do not take a prepositional Target of Emotion. Consequently, they do not participate in the ‘conative alternation’, whereas (a)reuen does:
(5-117) (a) Leuedi, þou rewe me.
lady
you pity me-obj
‘Lady, you pity me.’
[c1325 Wiþ longyng (Hrl 2253) 7]
(b) Leuedi, of me
þu reowe.
lady
[of me]-pp you pity
‘Lady, you have pity on me.’
[a1300 Moder milde flur (Corp-O 59) 6]
(5-118) We ne bymeneth the
noȝt, for thu noldest beo iwar bifore.
we not pity
you-obj not for you would not be careful before
‘We do not pity you, for you would not be careful before.’
[c1300 SLeg.Becket (Hrl 2277) p.49]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 153
The lack of the intransitive variant with non-impersonal verbs can be attributed to the scarce data available, but it could also be related to difference in
transitivity: the transitivity of bireuen and (bi)mēnen, which have only the
transitive variant, may be higher than the transitivity of (a)reuen, which is
recorded in the intransitive variant beside the transitive variant. In allowing
the alternation, or at least the intransitive variant with reduced transitivity,
(a)reuen is similar to most of the impersonal verbs of Fear and Anger.
The reduced transitivity of the two impersonal verbs is also indicated in
their aspect. (A)reuen regularly has a non-habitual interpretation in the
simple present (see e.g. (5-123) and (5-124) below) and may thus be considered
stative, but eventive readings are found with the non-impersonal verbs
(bi)mēnen. In (5-119) below, meneþ and its manuscript variant bimeneþ have a
habitual interpretation in the simple present, i.e. the event is not occurring at
the time of utterance, while in (5-120) mēnen co-occurs with a rate adverb
anone ‘quickly’, which is only compatible with eventive verbs (see also (5-122)
below). This aspectual difference may have had some influence on the nonuse of these verbs in impersonal constructions.
(5-119) Serewe if þu hauest and þe erewe
hit wot, by-fore he þe meneþ
sorrow if you have and the base fellow it knows before he you pities
[Mdst: bimeneþ; Trin-C: bimenid], by-hynde he þe teleþ.
behind he you mocks
‘If you have sorrow and the base fellow knows it, he pities you in your presence, he mocks you behind your back.’
[a1300(?c1150) Prov.Alf.(Jes-O 29) 95/213]
(5-120) Anone he meaned hym and wolde have had hym home unto his
quickly he pitied
him and would have had him home unto his
ermytage.
hermitage
‘He quickly pitied him and would have had him home to his hermitage.’
[(a1470) Malory Wks.(Win-C) 821/22]
None of the verbs of Pity/compassion, impersonal or non-impersonal, has
examples of Experiencer-subject passive constructions, so correlation between
impersonal usage and passive use cannot be maintained.33 Reflexive uses are
restricted to areuen and bimēnen, though there is only one instance for each
verb. Unlike impersonal verbs of Fear and Anger, areuen takes the self-­
strategy and the example is transitive-reflexive (see section 2.2.2), where the
reflexive pronoun is in the emphatic, self-form. By contrast, the instance with
bimēnen corresponds to middle-reflexive use, i.e. the reflexive pronoun in the
simple form is semantically redundant. Middle English verbs of Pity/compassion thus do not support functional connections between impersonal use and
middle-reflexive use.
154 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-121) Reue, areow þe seoluen.
reeve pity [you self ]-refl
‘Reeve, pity yourself.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 49/537]
(5-122) Anon hire
bemande Rewðe
and sade . . . ‘haue . . . milce of ðe
quickly her-refl pitied
Pity-nom and said
have
mercy of the
wrecche Adame soule!’
wretch Adam’s soul
‘Pity pitied quickly and said . . . “Have . . . mercy on the wretch Adam’s soul!”’
[a1225(c1200) Vices & V.(1) (Stw 34) 115/7]
Another noteworthy fact is that none of the six impersonal and non-­
impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion has the unambiguously causative use,
i.e. attestation in ToE-subject transitive constructions. However, the usage is
recorded in Old English with (a)reuen (Fischer & van der Leek 1983: 352, Anderson 1986: 171), and the OED entry for rue quotes one clearly causative use
as follows, though not from Middle English:
(5-123) Deare dame, your suddein ouerthrow Much rueth me.
‘Dear dame, your sudden overthrow causes me much pity.’
[1590 Spenser Faerie Queene i. ii. sig. B6]
(A)reuen has a few potential examples of the causative use, but they can be
interpreted morphologically as impersonal constructions (see note 30 for this
chapter):
(5-124) Me
areoweð þi sar.
me-obj pities
[your pain]-obj/nom
‘I feel pity for your pain / Your pain causes me pity.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 31/317]
The minor role of the causative use for verbs of Pity/compassion during
Middle English is also indicated by the lack of examples of Experiencersubject passive constructions, namely the passive variant of the causative use.
Possessing the causative use was thus not a prerequisite for Middle English
verbs of Pity/compassion to be used in impersonal constructions. In view of
the fact that no verb in the same category newly acquired impersonal usage
from Middle English onwards, the impersonal use of (a)reuen may have been
practically a relic from Old English or preserved due to their impersonal use
as verbs of Mental pain/suffering (see section 4.3).
Animacy of the Target of Emotion does not differentiate impersonal verbs
from non-impersonal verbs: as shown in Table 5.19, both sets of verbs generally favour animate ToEs (see e.g. (5-117) and (5-119)).
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 155
table 5.19 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion
Impersonal verbs
verbs
animate
inanimate
areuen
reuen
4 [1]
46 [6]
3
20 [4]
* [ ] examples in impersonal constructions
Non-impersonal verbs
verbs
bimēnen
bireuen
bireusen
mēnen
animate
inanimate
5
2
0
9
0
0
0
1
It is probably better to regard this preference for animate ToEs as a common
characteristic of verbs of Pity/compassion, whether impersonal or non-­
impersonal. On the other hand, it contrasts with līken and Old English impersonal verbs, which typically choose inanimate ToEs (see section 2.2.3).
Even in the examples of impersonal constructions, inanimate ToEs are not
preferred to animate ToEs.
To summarize, the data from the MED entries demonstrate similarities
between verbs of Pity/compassion and verbs of Fear and Anger in terms of
aspect: impersonal verbs allow for a stative interpretation. The rather minor
role of the causative use even in the most representative verb in the category,
i.e. reuen, seems to disagree with tendencies among impersonal verbs of
Fear and Anger, most of which have causative use. However, unlike verbs of
Fear and Anger, which became impersonal from Middle English, the category
Pity/compassion has had impersonal verbs since Old English, and causative
use is recorded in Old English. The less close correlation between causative
use and impersonal usage during Middle English parallels the situation of
verbs of Fear and Anger in late Middle English, when a few verbs newly appear
in impersonal constructions, despite being non-causative (e.g. disdeinen,
ofdrēden).
5.6 Verbs of Humility
5.6.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions
Table 5.20 summarizes the complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with Middle English impersonal verbs of Humility as illustrated in
their MED entries.34
156 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
table 5.20 C
omplementation patterns of impersonal constructions with impersonal verbs of Humility
verbs
shāmen
ofshāmen
earliest impers. use
no. of exx.
OE
a1325
28
1
ToE
Ø
PP
INF
CL
9
1
5
7
7
Shāmen allows for different syntactic realizations of the Target of Emotion,
while ofshāmen has only one attestation, which is reproduced below:
(5-125) Wymmen þat þere stode about & yseie hure defouled more And euere
women
that there stood about and saw her defiled more and ever
naked so uilliche hom
ofssamede sore.
naked so wickedly them-obj ashamed sorely
‘Women who stood around there and saw her afflicted more and ever naked
so wickedly they were ashamed greatly.’
[a1325 SLeg. (Corp-C 145) 323/242]
Shāmen is also attested in impersonal constructions with formal it, though
the MED entry cites just three instances (two with the ToE unexpressed, as
below, and one with a clausal ToE):
(5-126) Forsoþe it
shal not shamen þee;
for of þe confusioun of þi
indeed it-nom shall not shame you-obj for of the confusion of your
ȝouþe þou shalt forȝeten.
youth you shall forget
‘Indeed you shall not be ashamed; for you shall forget about the confusion
of your youth.’
[(a1382) WBible(1) (Bod 959) Is.54.4]
Impersonal constructions with shāmen, when used in the simple present
tense, generally have a non-habitual interpretation—the Experiencer’s act of
feeling ashamed holds true at the time of utterance:
(5-127) To asken help thee
shameth in thyn herte.
to ask help you-obj shames in your heart
‘You are ashamed in your heart to ask help.’
[(c1390) Chaucer CT.ML.(Manly-Rickert) B.101]
Shāmen in impersonal use thus allows for a stative reading and shares this
aspectual feature with Middle English impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion,
Fear, and Anger.
Just like these contemporary impersonal verbs of other ‘Emotion’ categories, the impersonal usage with shāmen can not only describe a rather
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 157
uncontrollable feeling of shame that arises immediately, as in (5-128), but also
apparently a more controllable and less immediate feeling, as in (5-129):
(5-128) Ah sone se hit ischawet bið birewsinde i schrifte, þenne scheomeð
but soon so it shown is repenting in shrift
then shames
me
þer-wið, & fleo ham from.
me-obj therewith and flee them from
‘But as soon as it is shown repenting in shrift, then I will be ashamed therewith and flee from them.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Marg.(1) (Bod 34) 34/30]
(5-129) To nyht eu
schal scomye þat ye me euere yseye.
tonight you-obj shall shame that you me ever saw
‘Tonight you shall be ashamed that you ever saw me.’
[a1300 I-hereþ nv one (Jes-O 29) 130]
It is thus hard to conclude that lack of control or immediate feeling correlated
regularly with realization of impersonal constructions. Granted that correlation was generally valid in Old English, it most probably became less relevant
in the course of Middle English. It may not have become completely irrelevant,
however, considering that the feeling of shame in (5-125), the only attestation
of the impersonal use of ofshāmen, is contextually rather uncontrolled and
arises immediately or spontaneously upon perception of the situation.
5.6.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs Compared
Section 4.7 showed that the three Old and Middle English impersonal verbs of
Humility, namely (ge)sceamian/shāmen, forsceamian, and ofshāmen,
shared the causative sense ‘to make ashamed’. This particular sense is also
present in the following three verbs, which are all subsumed under the same
HTOED category ‘Humility’. Nevertheless, none of them is known to have
been used in impersonal constructions in the history of English:
• āsceamian/ashāmen35
BT definition: ‘to be ashamed, to make ashamed or abashed’
DOE definition: ‘to be ashamed, feel shame’
MED definition: ‘to feel shame or embarrassment’
• (ge)scendan/(i)shēnden36
BT definition: ‘to shame, put to shame, confound, corrupt’; ‘to put to
shame, to abuse, insult, harm’
MED definition: ‘to put (sb.) to shame, disgrace; violate (sb.); embarrass
(sb.)’
• bishēnden [ME coinage; < shēnden]
MED definition: ‘to bring to shame, ruin (sb.)’; ‘to come to shame, be ruined’
158 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Āsceamian is defined causatively in BT, while it is not defined so in the DOE
and MED but is simply given the non-causative (and stative) sense. The OED
entry (s.v. ashame 2) dates the causative sense ‘to put to shame, to make
ashamed’ only from the end of the sixteenth century. This may imply that
āsceamian/ashāmen was not found in impersonal constructions partly because it lacks the causative sense shared by all the impersonal verbs of Humility. The MED in fact has separate entries for the verb ashāmen and the past
participle ashāmed (‘filled with shame or a feeling of disgrace; ashamed, disgraced’), and the former has only two illustrative quotations. The OED also
has a separate entry for ashamed. This fixed usage as past participle could have
prevented the spread of impersonal use to ashāmen. In what follows, examples of ashāmed will be treated as those of ashāmen.
The absence of impersonal usage from (ge)scendan/(i)shēnden may be
less straightforward to explain (see Ogura 2012: 31, 2013: 125). The verb clearly
has a causative sense in Old and Middle English (see also OED s.v. shend), and
semantically it is most closely related to (ge)sceamian/shāmen among verbs
of Humility which are not its derivatives. The MED entry for shēnden even
includes one instance of an impersonal construction with formal it:
(5-130) Hit
ssolde ous ssende
and astonie huanne þo þet weren
it-nom should us-obj embarrass and astonish when
those that were
paenes . . . cliuen in to þe helle of perfeccion of liue.
pagans climb in to the hill of perfection of life
‘It should embarrass and perplex us when those who were pagans . . . climb
into the hill of perfection of life.’
[(1340) Ayenb.(Arun 57) 126/8]
Nevertheless, the systematic lack of evidence for impersonal constructions
without a formal subject (e.g. ous ssolde ssende . . . ‘we should be embarrassed
. . .’) is highly significant and must be due to some principled cause.
The MED data demonstrate clear differences between shēnden and
shāmen in constructional patterns; see Table 5.21.
table 5.21 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Humility:
Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive, and
reflexive constructions
Impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
shāmen
ofshāmen
OED earliest date
c897
OE
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
7
10
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
5
9
3
22
8
12
(continued)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 159
table 5.21 (continued)
Non-impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest date
ToE
Ø
(i)shēnden
ashāmen
bishēnden
c825
c1000
a1400 (a1325)
transitive
PP
1
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
1
20
29
While shāmen is attested in all four constructional patterns and with different syntactic manifestations of the Target of Emotion, just as it is in examples of impersonal constructions (compare Table 5.20), (i)shēnden is restricted to Experiencer-subject passive constructions. However, this is also the
case with the impersonal verb ofshāmen, and as mentioned above, ashāmen
is mostly limited to uses as past participle; all of its examples of ‘passive’ constructions come from the entry for ashāmed. Hence, there seems to be no
particular causal relation between impersonal use and passive use.
The availability of the syntactically causative use does not distinguish impersonal verbs from non-impersonal verbs either; as Table 5.22 shows, both
sets of verbs have examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions (see e.g.
(5-133), (5-138)). This provides another piece of evidence that the presence of
causative use alone was not sufficient for a verb of emotion to be employed in
impersonal constructions in Middle English.
Dictionary definitions show that (ge)scendan/(i)shēnden expresses stronger
shame such as disgrace or dishonour, instead of the more general feeling of
shame, and this is most likely to be the primary cause for its lack of impersonal
use. Semantic differences between shēnden and shāmen are implied in their
uses in word pairs (MED s.v. shēnden 3. (a)); see Table 5.23.
(5-131) Prophettes . . . suld be shent and shamed bot yf þei held þem styll.
prophets
should be shamed and disgraced but if they held them still
‘Prophets . . . should be shamed and disgraced unless they held them still.’
[c1450(a1425) MOTest.(SeldSup 52) 13799]
Examples like (5-131) indicate that shēnden and shāmen are near-synonymous
at best. Further evidence is offered by the following instance, which is not felicitous unless the two verbs are semantically distinct:
(5-132) Him swiðe scomede þat he swa i-scend wes.
him greatly shamed that he so disgraced was
‘He was greatly ashamed that he was so disgraced.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 4852]
160 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
table 5.22 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Humility:
Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions
impers. verbs
ofshāmen (0), shāmen (17)
non-impers. verbs
ashāmen (0), bishēnden (3), (i)shēnden (18)
table 5.23 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Humility:
Examples of word pairs and MS variants
Word pairs
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
shāmen
shēnden (10)
MS variants
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
shāmen
ashāmen (2)
shēnden (2)
ashāmen (3)
ofshāmen
The rather specific sense of humility implied in shēnden is also manifest
from the instances where it occurs with words like honour or fame:
(5-133) The shame were to me . . . if that I sholde assente . . . that he thyn honour
the shame were to me
if that I should assent
that he your honour
shente.
disgrace
‘I would be ashamed . . . if I should assent . . . that he disgraced your honour.’
[a1425(c1385) Chaucer TC (Benson-Robinson) 2.357]
(5-134) Allas, why dede wee this offence Fully to shende the olde Englisshe
alas why did we this offence fully to dishonour the old English
fames?
fames
‘Alas, why did we do this offence fully to dishonour the old English
­reputations?’
[a1450–a1500(1436) Libel EP (Warner) 606]
Shāmen is also used to express that a non-human entity is shamed (e.g. moon,
soul), but less commonly than shēnden, which co-occurs with body, honesty,
house, and realm. It should also be pointed out that ‘to disgrace’ or ‘to dishonour’ is only one of the several different senses of shēnden; the senses below
are all recognized in the MED entry:
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 161
• ‘to do harm to (sb.), injure; bring (sb.) to ruin, overcome’
(5-135) Autumpne . . . With strange passions sodeynly men schent.
autumn
with strange passions suddenly men ruins
‘Autumn . . . with strange passions suddenly ruins men.’
[c1450(a1449) Lydg. SSecr.(Sln 2464) 1424]
• ‘to corrupt (sb. or sth.) morally; also, mislead (sb.)’
(5-136) Foles companies and wikked felawschep schyndeþ lyȝtliche a child and
fools’ companies and wicked fellowship corrupt easily
a child and
techeþ hem schrewed games.
teach him shrewd games
‘Fools’ companies and wicked fellowship easily corrupt a child and teach
him evil games.’
[c1450(c1400) Vices & V.(2) (Hnt HM 147) 244/3]
• ‘to kill (sb.); bring about the death of (sb.)’
(5-137) Þinges þat þey preiseþ þey schendeþ and sleeþ wiþ hire preisynge.
things that they praise they ruin
and kill with their praising
‘Things which they praise they ruin and kill with their praising.’
[(a1387) Trev. Higd.(StJ-C H.1) 2.187]
Some of these senses may be contextually assigned rather than inherent in the
verb, but (5-135) to (5-137) clearly indicate that the degree of shame is much
stronger than the shame implied in shāmen. Such semantic distinctions lead
to aspectual differences: in all these three instances in the simple present
tense, shēnden has a habitual interpretation—the described event is not occurring at the time of utterance—and may therefore be eventive. The punctual adverb sodeynly ‘suddenly’ in (5-135) is compatible only with eventive verbs
(Croft 2012: 85, 86). I could not find any obvious examples of shēnden with a
stative reading in the available data, but shāmen is generally stative, whether
or not it is used causatively like shēnden. In both of the two examples below,
shāmen has a non-habitual reading in the simple present, since the described
event holds at the time of utterance:
(5-138) Þis gude lif schamis vs, And confundis.
this good life shames us and confounds
‘This good life shames and confounds us.’
[a1425 Ben.Rule(1) (Lnsd 378) 47/22]
(5-139) Forwhy I schame not þe ewangelye, for it is þe vertue of god in to
therefore I shame not the Gospel
for it is the virtue of God in to
hele to alle folc.
heal to all folk
‘I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to
everyone.’
[a1425(a1400) Paul.Epist.(Corp-C 32) Rom.1.16]
162 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Exceptions are the cases where the verb is used in the sense ‘to disgrace’ as
in (5-140), which is often ambiguous between a habitual and a non-habitual
interpretation, and where it means ‘to blush’ as in (5-141), which involves a
change of state:
(5-140) Thou shamyst all knyghthode.
you shame all knighthood
‘You disgrace all knighthood.’
[(a1470) Malory Wks.(Win-C) 1122/12]
(5-141) Not now shal be confoundid Jacob, ne now his chere shal shame.
not now shall be confounded Jacob nor now his face shall blush
‘Jacob shall not be confounded now, nor shall his face blush now.’
[(a1382) WBible(1) (Dc 369(1)) Is.29.22]
Shāmen is therefore not invariably stative, but the fact that it allows a stative
reading in most contexts, including impersonal constructions (see section
5.6.1), while shēnden does not should not be underestimated, especially because impersonal verbs of other ‘Emotion’ categories also allow for a stative
reading. It can be concluded that strong associations of shēnden with eventive senses most importantly prevented it as well as its derivative bishēnden
from appearing in impersonal constructions. The same reasoning can be applied to the Old English period, since the definitions of (ge)scendan in BT are
essentially identical to those of (i)shēnden in the MED, although this needs
to be examined against the actual data. Whether or not a verb of Humility
could be used in impersonal constructions was thus defined quite rigidly in
the semantic system of Old and Middle English, and impersonal usage was
not licensed if the sense of humility or shame was even slightly more specific
than that expressed by shāmen.
Animacy of the Target of Emotion also distinguishes between shāmen and
shēnden, as can be seen in Table 5.24: the former has approximately equal
number of examples for animate and inanimate ToEs, while shēnden is attested more often with animate ToEs (see e.g. (5-133), (5-137)).
table 5.24 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Humility:
Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion
Impersonal verbs
verbs
animate inanimate
ofshāmen
shāmen
1
29 [2]
0
23 [3]
* [ ] examples in impersonal constructions
(continued)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 163
table 5.24 (continued)
Non-impersonal verbs
verbs
ashāmen
bishēnden
(i)shēnden
animate
inanimate
2
3
17
9
0
6
Examples of impersonal constructions do not demonstrate any particular
preference for the animacy of the Target of Emotion. This may be due to the
limited availability of the relevant data, but shāmen forms an exception to the
general tendency of impersonal verbs to choose inanimate ToEs, as has been
pointed out in the literature.
In addition to the lack of clear tendencies for the animacy of the ToE,
presence of the causative use, and feasibility of a stative interpretation,
shāmen shares several features with other contemporary impersonal verbs
of emotion. Experiencer-subject (in)transitive constructions, i.e. personal
constructions, can be employed to describe either uncontrollable shame
that arises immediately, as in (5-142), or more controlled and long-term
shame, as in (5-143) (note ay ‘always’), thus making it not always straightforward to semantically distinguish from impersonal constructions (see
section 5.6.1):
(5-142) In þe erþe he wrote anone Þe synnes of hem euer ech one . . .
in the earth he wrote quickly the sins
of them ever each one
Þai
schamed þo & were agaste.
they-nom shamed then and were aghast
‘On the earth he quickly wrote the sins of each one of them . . . they then got
ashamed and were aghast.’
[?a1450 MLChrist (Add 39996) 1160]
(5-143) Þai
salle swa schame ay
of þair syn Þat þam salle thynk
they-nom shall so
shame always of their sin that them shall think
als þai suld bryn.
as they should burn
‘They shall always be so ashamed of their sin that they shall think as they
should burn.’
[a1425(a1400) PConsc.(Glb E.9 & Hrl 4196) 7159]
In late Middle English, distinctions between impersonal and personal constructions sometimes seem to be reduced to formal differences only. This is
best illustrated by the case where one manuscript has an impersonal construction and the other has a personal construction for the same line of the same
text:
164 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-144) Ofte comen tiðinde to Vortiger þan kinge; þer-fore him
ofte
often came news to Vortigern the king therefore him-obj often
scomede, & his heorte gromede.
shamed and his heart angered
‘News often came to Vortigern the King; because of it he was often ashamed,
and his heart was infuriated.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 6868]
(5-145) Ofte com þeos tidinge to Vortiger . . . þar-fore he
ofte samede and
often came this news
to Vortigern therefore he-nom often shamed and
his heorte gramede.
his heart angered
‘This news often came to Vortigern . . . because of it he was often ashamed
and his heart was infuriated.’
[c1300 Lay. Brut (Otho C.13) 6868]
The difference in the form of the Experiencer could be the result of the Otho
scribe’s attempt at modernization of the text,37 although the impersonal use of
shāmen was still current in the fourteenth century.
Just like most of the impersonal verbs of emotion discussed thus far,
shāmen is exemplified in the ‘conative alternation’, as in (5-146), and all of its
examples of reflexive constructions correspond to middle-reflexive uses,
where the reflexive pronoun in the simple form is semantically redundant:
(5-146) (a) For Crist seiþ in þe gospel: ‘Whoso shameþ me and my wordis
for Christ says in the Gospel whoso shames [me and my words]-obj
bifore men, I shal shame him bifore my fadir þat is in heuene.’
before men I shall shame him before my father that is in heaven
‘For Christ says in the Gospel: “Whoever is ashamed of me and my
words before men, I shall be ashamed of him before my father that is in
heaven.”’
[c1400 7 Gifts HG (Ryl Eng 85) 153]
(b) He that shames of me and my wordes, hym shall mannes Son
he that shames [of me and my words]-pp him shall man’s son
shame when he shall come in his awne maieste.
shame when he shall come in his own majesty
‘He that is ashamed of me and my words, man’s son shall be ashamed
of him when he comes to his own majesty.’
[c1450(c1415) Roy.Serm.(Roy 18.B.23) 296/25]
(5-147) Þe lady . . . bigan hir
forto shame And hirself fast forto blame.
[the lady]-nom began her-refl to
shame and herself fast to
blame
‘The lady . . . began to be ashamed and blame herself fast.’
[a1425(?c1350) Ywain (Glb E.9) 1025]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 165
With none of the non-impersonal verbs being recorded in reflexive constructions, there may be link between impersonal usage and (middle-)reflexive use.38
These several common characteristics among impersonal verbs of emotion
suggest that impersonal usage during Middle English was determined not by
one but by multiple conditioning factors. Since not all the impersonal verbs of
emotion have all these characteristics, relative significance of each factor appears to be different. As far as verbs of Humility are concerned, aspect can be
concluded to be the most significant factor.
5.7 Verbs of Hatred/Enmity
5.7.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions
Table 5.25 summarizes the complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with Middle English impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity recorded
in their MED entries.39 Wlāten, irken, and uggen are rather infrequent in
impersonal use, and none of the four verbs is found with a finite clause.
Lōthen and wlāten have examples of impersonal constructions with formal
it (two and one token respectively, all with an infinitival Target of Emotion):
(5-148) Com and take thi money to me of trust commended . . . from hensfurth
come and take your money to me of trust commended
from henceforth
it
werieth and lothith me
to kepe it.
it-nom wearies and loathes me-obj to keep it
‘Come and take your money to me from commended trust . . . from henceforth it wearies and disgusts me to keep it.’
[a1500 Discip.Cler.(Wor F.172) 37]
Even within the limited data, lōthen and wlāten show that, when used in
impersonal constructions, they allow for a stative reading. Both of the following examples in the simple present have a non-habitual interpretation—the
Experiencer feels displeasure or disgust at the time of utterance:
table 5.25 C
omplementation patterns of impersonal constructions with impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity
verbs
lōthen
wlāten
irken
uggen
earliest impers. use
no. of exx.
OE
OE
c1450
c1450
* ambiguous examples are attested
166 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
11
4
1
1
ToE
Ø
PP
INF
3
3
4
1
1
*
4
1
*
*
CL
(5-149) To helpe hem at nede certys me
loþys.
to help them at need certainly me-obj loathes
‘I certainly dislike helping them at need.’
[a1400(c1303) Mannyng HS (Hrl 1701) 752]
(5-150) Wyth her unworþelych werk me
wlatez wythinne; Þe gore þerof
with their shameful
work me-obj disgusts within
the filth thereof
me hatz greved.
me has angered
‘I am disgusted inside with their shameful work; their filth has enraged me.’
[c1400(?c1380) Cleanness (Nero A.10) 305]
Example (5-150) is the only example for wlāten in impersonal use and in the
simple present, while lōthen in six other such instances also has a non-­
habitual interpretation. The two verbs thus conform to other Middle English
impersonal verbs of emotion in terms of aspect (i.e. a stative reading has to be
allowed for them to be used in impersonal constructions). None of the four
verbs co-occurs with eventive adverbials when they are employed in impersonal constructions.
The four impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity show variation with regard to
describing how the emotion is controlled or how it arises. Example (5-149)
describes the Experiencer’s inherent, controllable nature which is not caused
immediately by the situation, whereas the word wythinne in (5-150) suggests
that the Experiencer has control over the feeling, at least superficially. The
examples of lōthen in impersonal use generally do not show that the disgusting feeling emerges immediately or spontaneously, though the following may
be an exception:
(5-151) Smit him se luðerliche þet him
laði & drede to snecchen eft
beat him so viciously that him-obj loathe and dread to snatch
again
toward te.
towards you
‘Beat him so viciously that he would be disgusted and afraid of snapping
again at you.’
[c1230(?a1200) Ancr.(Corp-C 402) 167/3]
Here the Experiencer’s feeling is caused as a direct and immediate result of
being beaten viciously. Wlāten also has a similar example:
(5-152) Ȝef ha hit stunken,
ham
walde wleatie þer wið.
if they it perceive smell them-obj would disgust therewith
‘If they perceive its smell, they would be disgusted therewith.’
[c1230(?a1200) Ancr.(Corp-C 402) 46/9]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 167
The single attestations of the impersonal use of irken and uggen are found
in a translation from Latin, namely Alphabet of Tales, so their usage may have
been affected by the original (see section 4.5). To sum up, just like other verbs
of emotion, it is difficult to generalize the correlation between impersonal
usage with verbs of Hatred/enmity and the Experiencer’s degree of controlling the feeling. Lack of control or immediate feeling does not always result in
the choice of an impersonal construction.
5.7.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs Compared
In section 4.5 Old and Middle English impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity
were found to be not very synonymous with each other, except that some sense
of loathing is involved, and that all but lāðian/lōthen imply some physical
effect (e.g. weariness). In the MED definitions, the following three verbs, all
subsumed under the same HTOED category ‘Hatred/enmity’, also denote
some loathing but are not known to have been used in impersonal
constructions:
• alōthen [OE alāþian]: ‘to become or be odious to (sb.), disgust (sb.)’
• hāten [OE hātian]: ‘to feel hatred for (sb.)’; ‘to hate (sth.), loathe; dislike
(sth.) intensely; strongly disapprove of’
• horren [L horrēre]: ‘to abhor (sth.)’
The absence of impersonal usage with alōthen and horren may well be
due to their very few attestations. Alōthen is infrequent in Old English (DOE:
‘9 occ. (mainly in glosses)’), and the seven Middle English illustrative quotations in the OED entry are exactly the same as those in the MED entry, which
confirms that evidence was indeed fairly limited. The three quotations in the
MED entry for horren are in fact all from the same text, the Life and Martyrdom of Saint Katherine (a1450). The OED entry also has three citations, two of
which overlap with those in the MED entry, while the last, from the Mirror of
our Lady, is not much later than these two quotations (1450–1530). The use of
horren as a verb of Hatred/enmity therefore had very limited distribution
textually and diachronically, and this as well as the late date of the first occurrence in English is very likely to have worked against its acquisition of impersonal usage.
The most noteworthy of the above three non-impersonal verbs is hāten,
which has sometimes been mentioned as an example of verbs which have the
potential for impersonal usage (Denison 1990: 126, Allen 1995: 129 n. 35). Its
apparent lack of impersonal use is particularly interesting in view of the fact
that its near-synonym lōthen was employed in impersonal constructions. 40
The close relationship between hāten, lōthen, and other impersonal verbs
of Hatred/enmity is most aptly illustrated in examples where they are coordinated with each other, when one appears as the manuscript variant of another,
or when the two verbs are used in parallel structures, which are respectively
illustrated below (see also Table 5.26):
168 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
table 5.26 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Hatred/
enmity: Examples of word pairs and MS variants
Word pairs
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
lōthen
wlāten
hāten (2)
hāten (1)
MS variants
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
uggen
hāten (1)
(5-153) Thei turneden the peple . . . forto lothee and hate the Apostilis.
they turned
the people
to
loathe and hate the Apostles
‘They turned the people . . . to loathe and hate the Apostles.’
[(c1449) Pecock Repr.(Cmb Kk.4.26) 342]
(5-154) Hee fleeth worshipes . . . & vggeth [vr. hateþ] preysynge.
he flees worships
and hates
praising
‘He avoids worship . . . and hates praising.’
[c1400 PLove (Hrl 2254) 42/6]
(5-155) It is A filthe þat God almithten hateȝ, A foul sting þat is angeles
it is a filth that God almighty hates a foul stench that his angels
wlateȝ.
despise
‘It is a filth that God Almighty hates, a foul stench of sin that his angels
­despise.’
[1372 ME Verse in Grimestone PB (Adv 18.7.21) p.31]
Examples (5-153) and (5-155) suggest that hāten is not entirely synonymous
with lōthen or wlāten, but how they are different is not made clear from
these examples alone. More patterns must be looked at. Table 5.27 summarizes the (non-)occurrences of impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of
Hatred/enmity in four constructional patterns.
Complementation patterns of intransitive and transitive constructions
with the four impersonal verbs overlap mostly with those of impersonal constructions (compare Table 5.25). The choice between impersonal and personal
constructions is thus not crucially affected by how the Target of Emotion is
syntactically realized.
The table demonstrates a crucial difference between hāten and the four
impersonal verbs. Hāten is not found in intransitive constructions with a
prepositional Target of Emotion in the MED entry or the OED entry, whereas
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 169
table 5.27 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Hatred/
enmity: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive,
and reflexive constructions
Impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
lōthen
wlāten
uggen
irken
OED earliest date
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
1
*
1
1
2
2
3
4
c893
c1000
a1250 (?a1200)
c1330
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
14
4
5
3
3
1
1
5
* ambiguous examples are attested
Non-impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest date
ToE
Ø
hāten
alōthen
horren
c897
OE
c1430
transitive
PP
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
4
101
2
2
3
all four impersonal verbs have such examples. They also participate in the
‘conative alternation’, whereas hāten is limited to the transitive variant:
(5-156) (a) Þat me is lef,
all
she loþes.
that me is pleasant all-obj she loathes
‘She hates all that is pleasing to me.’
[a1450 The tixt of holy writ (Dgb 102) 141]
(b) Of hir life
she gan to loothe.
[of her life]-pp she began to loathe
‘She was disgusted with her life.’
[a1450 Gener.(1) (Mrg M 876) 7718]
(5-157) Hir lif
sche hateþ & curseþ eke fortune.
[her life]-obj she hates and curses also fortune
‘She hates her life and also curses fortune.’
[c1425(a1420) Lydg. TB (Aug A.4) 2.391b]
The apparent non-availability of the ‘conative alternation’, or specifically the
intransitive variant, with hāten makes a contrast with the majority of impersonal verbs of emotion discussed in this chapter so far, which allow
either the alternation (e.g. reuen, shāmen) or at least the intransitive
170 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
variant (e.g. agrīsen, tēnen). In lacking ways to express reduced transitivity
as in (5-156b), the transitivity of hāten may be higher than that of the four
impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity.
Another difference between hāten and the impersonal verbs shown in
Table 5.27 is that the reflexive use is recorded only with the impersonal verb
wlāten, though the MED entry has just one example. The example in question illustrates middle-reflexive use—the reflexive pronoun in the simple
form is semantically redundant:
(5-158) Gif man
si innan unhal oððer him
wlatie, þanne nime
if man-nom be inside sick or
him-refl disgust then take
betonica, [etc.].
betony
‘If a man is sick inside or feels disgusted, then take betony, [etc.].’
[c1150(OE) Hrl.HApul.(Hrl 6258B) 35/8]
Of the four Middle English impersonal verbs, only wlāten is explicitly defined causatively in the MED (see definitions in section 4.5). However, lōthen
and uggen, not just wlāten, are attested in ToE-subject transitive constructions (i.e. syntactically causative uses) while hāten is not; see Table 5.28.
(5-159) Moni þing ham schal twinnen & tweinen þat
laðes
many thing them shall separate and estrange that-nom loathes
leouie men.
[loving men]-obj
‘Many things which are hateful to loving people shall separate and estrange
them.’
[a1250 HMaid.(Tit D.18) 25/403]
(5-160) If my handis schyne as clennes . . . ȝit sall þou toche me with fylth, for
if my hands shine as cleanliness yet shall you touch me with filth for
venial synnes þat may not be esschwyd, & my clothes
sall vg
venial sins
that may not be eschewed and [my clothes]-nom shall disgust
me.
me-obj
‘Even if my hands shine as cleanliness . . . yet you shall touch me with filth,
for venial sins that may not be avoided, and my clothes shall disgust me.’
[(1434) Misyn ML (Corp-O 236) 122/4]
table 5.28 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Hatred/
enmity: Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
irken (0), lōthen (8), uggen (4), wlāten (1)
alōthen (2), hāten (0), horren (0)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 171
The lack of evidence for ToE-subject transitive constructions with hāten
must be systematic (see Pylkkänen 2000: 429), considering the ample data
available for the verb. Irken, the only impersonal verb without evidence in
these constructions, is far less frequent than hāten, but its lack of causative
use may not be accidental. Impersonal use of irken is found only exceptionally in the middle of the fifteenth century, and the previous sections have already shown that the presence of causative use was not always a prerequisite
for a verb of emotion to be employed in impersonal constructions in late
Middle English (e.g. disdeinen, ofdrēden). The causative use may not in fact
be significant for Middle English impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity in general, given that the MED entries include no instances of Experiencer-subject
passive constructions, the passive variant of ToE-subject transitive constructions. Passive uses of impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity
are both restricted to ToE-subject passive constructions:
(5-161) Alle mete
es wlated
þar saule suld fede.
[all food]-nom is disgusted-ppl where soul should feed
‘All food is disgusting where soul should feed.’
[a1400 NVPsalter (Vsp D.7) 106.18]
(5-162) Al we wilniþ to ben old—wy is eld
ihatid?
all we wish to be old why is age-nom hated-ppl
‘We all wish to be old—why is age hated?’
[?a1325 Elde makiþ me (Hrl 913) p.170]
A slight aspectual distinction may be said to exist between impersonal
verbs of Hatred/enmity and hāten. All of these verbs regularly have a nonhabitual interpretation in the simple present (see e.g. (5-154), (5-155), and
(5-156a) above) and may be considered stative. However, a couple of examples
of the potentially eventive use are found only with hāten:
(5-163) Þey hatiþ & blameþ and schendiþ hire frendes and somtyme smytiþ
they hate and blame and insult
their friends and sometimes smite
and sleeþ hem.
and slay them
‘They hate (?) and blame and insult their friends and sometimes smite and
slay them.’
[(a1398) * Trev. Barth.(Add 27944) 36b/b]
(5-164) Þe wesel purseweþ & chaceþ serpentz and hateþ and eteþ mys.
the weasel pursues
and chases serpents and hates and eats mice
‘The weasel pursues and chases serpents and hates (?) and eats mice.’
[(a1398) * Trev. Barth.(Add 27944) 293a/b]
172 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
It is not impossible to interpret these instances as stative (‘to hate’), but an
eventive reading may be contextually more favourable since hāten is used
alongside clearly eventive verbs which describe habitual actions not occurring
at the time of utterance. 41
There also seems to be some difference in the nature of the hateful feeling
expressed by hāten and the impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity. The previous
section noted that impersonal constructions with lōthen and wlāten can
describe either a controllable and less immediate feeling or an uncontrollable
feeling that arises immediately. Personal constructions, on the other hand,
generally describe the former situation:
(5-165) Schome and dispit þei
most proudliche loþeden; all maner
shame and despite they-nom.pl most proudly
loathed-pl all manner
schome and despit Crist suffrede.
shame and despite Christ suffered
‘They loathed shame and despite most proudly; Christ suffered all kinds of
shame and despite.’
[c1400 *Bk.Mother (Bod 416) 109/22]
(5-166) Alle þyng he [God] loueþ, but synne he hates; ȝyf þou hym louest, with
all thing he
loves but sin
he hates if you him love
with
synne þou
wlates.
sin
you-nom loathe
‘He [God] loves all things, but he hates sin; if you love him, you are disgusted with sin.’
[a1400(c1303) Mannyng HS (Hrl 1701) 9932]
Hāten is also regularly used to describe a hateful feeling inherent in the Experiencer which is controllable and not ‘episodic’ (Pylkkänen 2000: 429; see
e.g. (5-157) above). It may thus appear to be challenging to differentiate hāten
from lōthen and wlāten as far as their occurrences in personal constructions are concerned. Nevertheless, emphasis should be put on the fact that
hāten apparently lacks the option of describing an uncontrollable feeling that
arises immediately, whereas lōthen and wlāten have this option in impersonal constructions. Lack of control or immediateness may be an incompatible notion for hāten, which can describe a feeling that has lasted for many
years:
(5-167) Ichab him ated seþþe ic was boren.
I have him hated since I was born
‘I have hated him since I was born.’
[c1400 St.Greg.(Cleo D.9) 116/726]
The MED entry for hāten has another citation like this example (c1450(c1380)
Chaucer HF (Benson-Robinson) 200). By contrast, none of the four impersonal verbs is attested in an instance like (5-167). Long-term feeling involved
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 173
in hāten is also demonstrated by its frequent co-occurrence with lŏven, another verb said to express such feeling (see section 1.3.1):
(5-168) Tu luuedest rihtwisnesse and hatedest unrihtwisnesse.
you loved
righteousness and hated
unrighteousness
‘You loved righteousness and hated unrighteousness.’
[a1225(c1200) Vices & V.(1) (Stw 34) 33/2]
Instances like (5-167) and (5-168) imply that hāten remained non-impersonal
because its inherent semantics of expressing a feeling with long duration do
not match the semantics of impersonal constructions, which often, if not consistently, involved immediate and episodic feelings. This offers support to the
hypothesis presented in section 5.3.2.2 with regard to verbs of Fear that verbs
which tend to denote long-term feeling are by nature incompatible with impersonal usage. This issue will be revisited in the discussion about lŏven and
near-synonymous impersonal verbs (section 5.8.2).
Finally, animacy of the Target of Emotion also distinguishes hāten from
the four impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity, as summarized in Table 5.29.
Hāten does not show clear preferences, whereas all four impersonal verbs are
found more often with inanimate ToEs (see e.g. (5-160), (5-165), (5-166) above).
Instances of impersonal constructions, where the ToE is expressed as a prepositional phrase, all choose inanimate ToEs.
The difference between hāten and the four impersonal verbs partly parallels Allen’s (1995) statistical survey, which found that the impersonal verb
līcian/līken commonly selected an inanimate ToE, while cwēman/quēmen,
which remained non-impersonal until the fourteenth century, generally occurred with an animate ToE. Impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity also share
table 5.29 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Hatred/
enmity: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion
Impersonal verbs
verbs
animate
inanimate
irken
lōthen
uggen
wlāten
0
7
1
4
10 [1]
39 [4]
14
17 [1]
* [ ] examples in impersonal constructions
Non-impersonal verbs
verbs
animate
inanimate
alōthen
hāten
horren
2
58
1
3
60
2
174 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
the tendencies of Old English impersonal verbs in general, which typically
occurred with inanimate ToEs (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 109, 150; see section 2.2.3).
The data from the MED entries demonstrate that most of the predetermined criteria for distinguishing impersonal verbs from near-synonymous
non-impersonal verbs are relevant to impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity and
hāten: presence or absence of the causative use, (non-)participation in the
‘conative alternation’, and animacy of the Target of Emotion. They also offer
further support for the importance of stativity, which is shared among the
impersonal verbs of the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories discussed in the preceding sections. Furthermore, examples of hāten confirm general incompatibility between long-term feeling and impersonal usage, which was shown earlier
with some verbs of Fear. A number of factors thus influence the boundaries
between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs.
5.8 Verbs of Pleasure/Enjoyment
5.8.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions
Table 5.30 summarizes the complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with Middle English impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment as
attested in their MED entries. 42 The examples available are scarce except for
(i)līken, listen, and lusten. Impersonal usage with verbs of Pleasure/­
enjoyment is more restricted than one might expect from the large number of
verbs involved.
Just like most other Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion, impersonal constructions with verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment regularly have a nonhabitual interpretation in the simple present; see the instances below:
table 5.30 C
omplementation patterns of impersonal constructions with impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment
verbs
(i)līken
listen
lusten
bilŏven
gāmen
glāden
paien
quēmen
plēsen
rejoisen
earliest impers. use
no. of exx.
OE
OE
c1175(?OE)
c1225(?c1200)
c1225(?c1200)
c1225(?c1200)
c1300
c1300
c1450
a1500
49
74
43
4
3
2
3
3
5
1
ToE
Ø
NP-OBJ
PP
INF
CL
25
30
18
2
2
6
2
1
1
4
5
4
11
37
20
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
*
1
1
1
1
3
1
* ambiguous examples are attested
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 175
(5-169) And . . . tolde hym . . . Why Dido cam . . . Of which as now me
and
told him
why Dido came of which as now me-obj
lestethnat toryme.
pleases not to rhyme
‘And . . . told him . . . why Dido came . . . of which I am not pleased now to
rhyme.’
[c1430(c1386) Chaucer LGW (Benson-Robinson) 996]
(5-170) In good feith, Sone, wel me
qwemeth, That thou thiself hast thus
in good faith son well me-obj pleases
that you yourself have thus
aquit Toward this vice.
acquitted towards this vice
‘In good faith, son, it pleases me well that you have thus acquitted yourself
towards this vice.’
[(a1393) Gower CA (Frf 3) 4.966]
In both of these examples the Experiencer feels pleasure at the time of utterance, and the two verbs can be regarded as stative. This further strengthens
the argument that, as far as Middle English verbs of emotion are concerned,
presence of impersonal usage presupposes that the verb allows for a stative
reading, at least when used in impersonal constructions. None of the examples of impersonal constructions with verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment involves
eventive adverbials.
Impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment are also like other contemporary
impersonal verbs of emotion in that they do not always describe lack of control
or immediately arising feeling. In (5-169) above, the Experiencer’s feeling is
not caused immediately but appears rather controlled, while it most probably
emerges uncontrollably and immediately in the following, which also involves
listen:
(5-171) Whanne hiss fasste forþedd wass, Þa lisste himm affterr fode.
when
his fasting finished was then pleased him-obj after food
‘When his fasting was finished, he wanted food.’
[?c1200 Orm.(Jun 1) 11334]
The same can be observed for verbs which became impersonal in Middle English. The pleasant feeling in (5-172) arises quite spontaneously upon perception of the situation, but in (5-173) it is part of the Experiencer’s inherent disposition, which is neither particularly uncontrolled nor immediate:
(5-172) Þis ihorde þe kaiser, and him
paide swiþe wel.
this heard the emperor and him-obj pleased very well
‘The emperor heard this, and he was pleased very well.’
[c1300 Lay. Brut (Otho C.13) 5255]
176 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-173) This is my sone, he saide, In whome me
paies full wele.
this is my son he said in whom me-obj pleases full well
‘“This is my son,” he said, “in whom I am pleased very well.”’
[a1450 Yk.Pl.(Add 35290) 377/82]
It is therefore difficult to maintain that lack of control or immediateness was
closely connected with the use of impersonal constructions in Middle English. This is especially the case with the relatively frequent impersonal verbs
of Pleasure/enjoyment, which are often found in formulaic expressions such
as if you liketh ‘if it pleases you’ and whan him list ‘when he is pleased’. As
Middle English wore on, the original semantic-pragmatic function of impersonal constructions as assumed in the literature is very likely to have been
gradually reduced. At least in some contexts, impersonal and personal constructions seem to be distinct only on formal levels, in that both constructions
are allowed as manuscript variants of the same line of the same text (see
(5-144) and (5-145) above):
(5-174) Offer or leeue, wheþer þe
lyst [vr. thu
list].
offer or leave whether you-obj please
you-nom please
‘Offer or stop, whichever you like.’
[a1400(?c1300) LFMass Bk.(Roy 17.B.17) 243]
(5-175) Þou schalt answeren . . . No lenger plaie þou
ne list
[vr. þe
you shall answer
no longer play you-nom not please
you-obj
ne lyst].
not please
‘You shall answer . . . you no longer wish to play.’
[c1330(c1250) Floris (Auch) 377]
Most of the verbs in Table 5.30 are attested in impersonal constructions
with formal it too. Table 5.31 summarizes the complementation patterns of
these examples. 43 Note that tikelen and joien are not found in genuine impersonal constructions (i.e. without it).
(5-176) I am free To wedde, a goddes half, wher it
liketh me.
I am free to wed
on God’s half where it-nom pleases me-obj
‘I am free to marry, for God’s sake, where it pleases me.’
[(c1395) Chaucer CT.WB.(Manly-Rickert) D.50]
The number of examples is generally smaller than in Table 5.30, except for
līken and plēsen. The use of plēsen in impersonal constructions with formal
it is largely formulaic and often employed as politeness strategies (e.g. if hit the
plese ‘if it pleases you (king, lord, God)’). Impersonal constructions with formal
it therefore did not always mean simply inserting a dummy subject to impersonal constructions; they had different distribution in uses.
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 177
table 5.31 C
omplementation patterns of impersonal constructions with formal it
with impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment
verbs
līken
listen
lusten
bilŏven
glāden
quēmen
plēsen
rejoisen
tikelen
joien
no. of exx.
ToE
Ø
PP
INF
CL
55
6
2
1
1
3
34
2
30
3
1
17
3
2
7
1
1
1
1
1
2
16
1
13
2
5
1
Līken and joien are also exemplified in constructions where that is
used instead of a dummy subject it (four and one examples respectively).
Unlike it, that in these instances may well be referential, especially in the
following, where that is preceded by a finite clause (see Möhlig-Falke 2012:
173):
(5-177) Which trees tolde him his fortunes, that
lyked him
but litel.
which trees told him his fortunes that-nom pleased him-obj but little
‘Which trees told him his fortune, that pleased him but little.’
[a1500(1413) *Pilgr.Soul (Eg 615) 4.5.59a]
The other four examples belong to the pattern with the Target of Emotion left
unexpressed, the most frequent pattern found for impersonal constructions
with formal it. Thus, constructions like (5-177) closely parallel impersonal constructions with formal it.
5.8.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs Compared
It was observed in section 4.2 that the causative sense ‘to please’ is shared
among the majority of the Old and Middle English impersonal verbs of
Pleasure/enjoyment, namely (ge)līcian/līken, (ge)lystan/listen/lusten,
(ge)lustfullian, bilŏven, glāden, paien, plēsen, quēmen, and rejoisen.
This leads to the hypothesis that the sense ‘to please’ played a crucial role in
the licensing of impersonal usage diachronically. In order to test this assumption, in this section I will compare the behaviour of the Middle
English impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment with the behaviour of
178 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(i) contemporary verbs which also meant ‘to please’ but which are not known
to have been used in impersonal constructions and (ii) their non-causative
counterparts which denote ‘to be glad, rejoice’. The verbs in question were
all extracted from the same HTOED category ‘Pleasure/enjoyment’, and in
a number of them causative and non-causative senses coexist:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
apaien [OF apaier]: ‘to satisfy or please (sb.)’
blīthen [ME coinage]: ‘to rejoice’; ‘to gladden (sb.), cheer, encourage’
dēlīten [OF delitier]: ‘to be delighted’; ‘to give pleasure’
emplēsen [ME coinage]: ‘to please (someone)’
enjoien [OF enjoier]: ‘to rejoice, feel joyful, be glad’; ‘to gladden (someone)’
fainen [OE fægenian]: ‘to be joyful, glad, or happy; to rejoice’; ‘to make
happy, gladden’
gleuen [OE glēowian]: ‘to manifest or experience joy; make merry, rejoice’; ‘to make (sb.) merry; delight or please (sb.)’
highten [OE hyhtan]: ‘to hope for (sth.); refl. rejoice’
joissen [OF joir]: ‘to rejoice, be glad’
līten [ME coinage; < dēlīten]: ‘to delight’
mirīen [OE myrgan]: ‘to be happy’; ‘to make (sb.) happy, gladden; please
(sb.)’
mirthen [OE; < mirth]: ‘please (sb.), afford pleasure to’; ‘to rejoice, be
glad’
rejoien [AN rejoier; also joien]: ‘to rejoice, exult’; ‘to give pleasure to
(sb. or sth.), make (sb. or sth.) happy’
sāvŏuren [OF savorer]: ‘to give pleasure to (sb.), appeal to’
Some of these verbs are either derivatives of impersonal verbs (e.g. apaien,
emplēsen) or share the same etymology with them (e.g. joissen, rejoien),
so their lack of impersonal usage could be accidental or due to their limited
attestations. However, the same reasoning does not work for lŏven, which
is the most representative verb in the HTOED category ‘Love’ (02.02.22)—
the category without any impersonal verbs of its own—and is sometimes
contrasted with the impersonal verb līken (Denison 1990: 126, Allen 1995:
129 n. 35):
• lŏven [OE lufian]: ‘to feel affection or friendship for (sb., an animal),
love; also, show love to (sb.), behave lovingly toward’
Love is also subsumed in the category ‘Pleasure/enjoyment’ (see section 4.1)
and will be discussed in this section as one of the non-impersonal verbs. The
number of illustrative quotations in its MED entry is much larger than that of
any of the impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment.
While its derivative bilŏven is an impersonal verb, it is not known to have occurred in impersonal constructions except for the single instance below, reproduced from section 3.1:
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 179
(5-178) The Fader was first as a fust with o fynger folden,
the father was first as a fist with one finger folded
Til hym
lovede and liste
to unlosen his finger
till him-obj loved and pleased to unloose his finger
‘The Father was first like a fist with one finger folded, until it pleased him to
stretch forth his finger.’
[Piers Plowman B-Text XVII 139–40]
A number of verbs of emotion are recorded in impersonal constructions for
the first time in late Middle English and only sporadically, but none of them is
found in the pattern like (5-178), which involves direct coordination with one
of the most commonly used impersonal verbs (liste). This exceptional instance
therefore does not critically affect the fact that lŏven lacked regular impersonal use, and this is very likely to be due to some systematic factors.
Just like other verbs of emotion, impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of
Pleasure/enjoyment are sometimes, if not very frequently, found in word pairs
or manuscript variants, attesting to slight semantic differences between them;
see Table 5.32.
(5-179) Þad we [read: ȝe] alle dredin ȝure dristin crist, lovin him & likin.
that we
you all dread your Lord Christ love him and please
‘That you all dread your Lord Christ, love and please him.’
[a1275(?c1150) Prov.Alf.(Trin-C B.14.39) 74/43]
table 5.32 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment: Examples of word pairs and MS variants
Word pairs
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
bilŏven
gāmen
glāden
līken
paien
lŏven (2)
gleuen (1)
gleuen (2)
lŏven (4)
dēlīten (1)
joien
mirthen (1)
MS variants
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
bilŏven
glāden
paien
plēsen
rejoisen
lŏven (1)
blīthen (1)
joissen (1)
apaien (6)
apaien (1)
rejoien (3)
joien
joissen (1)
180 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-180) Al þat leodliche folc bilufde [Otho: lofuede] þesne ilke ræd.
all that national people loved
this same plan
‘All the people in the country loved this particular plan.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 19121]
The data from the MED entries present a complicated picture on the relevance of the causative sense to impersonal usage. The OED entry does not
mention any causative use of love, and the MED entry for lŏven contains no
examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions, namely syntactically causative use (e.g. He loves me *‘He causes to love me’). Thus, the hypothesis that
the lack of a causative sense or the syntactically causative use prevented love
from appearing in impersonal constructions in the history of English seems
to be justifiable. On the other hand, despite the fact that most of the impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment were found to share the causative sense ‘to
please’, not all of them are exemplified in ToE-subject transitive constructions.
The MED entries for bilŏven, listen, and lusten do not contain any unquestionable examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions; see Table 5.33. 44
Listen and lusten are occasionally found in constructions where the
Target of Emotion is apparently ambiguous between a nominative and an
objective:
(5-181) He dooth al that
his lady
lust
and lyketh.
he does all that-nom/obj [his lady]-obj/nom pleases/wishes and pleases/likes
‘He does all that pleases his lady / his lady wishes.’
[(c1395) Chaucer CT.Mch.(Manly-Rickert) E.2012]
The example here may be understood either as an Experiencer-subject transitive construction (his lady: nominative; ‘all that his lady wishes’) or as a ToEsubject transitive construction (his lady: objective; ‘all that pleases his lady’),
but according to Allen (1995: 85), the Old English verb lystan did not occur in
ToE-subject transitive constructions. When it occurred with two NPs, lystan
was virtually restricted to ‘Type N’ constructions with a dative/accusative
Experiencer and a genitive Theme (i.e. Target of Emotion). There is therefore
not sufficient historical background for interpreting (5-181) as causative,
though actual interpretation may have been affected by analogy with nearsynonymous verbs which have solid evidence for causative use (e.g. glāden,
table 5.33 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment: Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
bilŏven (0), gāmen (7), glāden (34), (i)līken (22), listen (0),
lusten (0), paien (17), plēsen (54), (i)quēmen (43), rejoisen (1),
joien (5), tikelen (3)
apaien (4), blīthen (3), dēlīten (2), emplēsen (1), enjoien (2),
fainen (2), gleuen (2), highten (0), joissen (0), līten (0),
lŏven (0), mirīen (3), mirthen (4), rejoien (1), sāvŏuren (7)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 181
līken, quēmen). Previous sections in this chapter drew attention to some impersonal verbs which similarly lack the causative use (e.g. disdeinen, irken,
ofdrēden), but all of them first appeared in impersonal constructions in
Middle English, especially during late Middle English, in contrast to listen,
which has been impersonal since Old English. The gloss ‘to please’, which is
recurrent in the MED entries for listen and lusten, is thus misleading for
the user. These verbs remind us of the occasional gap between dictionary definitions and use of the word in illustrative quotations.
Nevertheless, the MED data of the non-impersonal verbs imply that the
sense ‘to please’ indeed played a significant role in the licensing of impersonal
usage with verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment, even though not all of these verbs
with this sense became impersonal in the end. The entry for dēlīten, which
is not known to be impersonal but includes the sense ‘to please’, in fact has
one example of an impersonal construction with formal it:
(5-182) To rede forth hit
gan me
so delite.
to read forth it-nom did me-obj so delight
‘It delighted me so much to read on.’
[c1430(c1380) Chaucer PF (Benson-Robinson) 27]
The instance below may also qualify, although it can be anaphoric for desir:
(5-183) And ay the more that desir me biteth To love hire best, the more
and ever the more that desire me bites to love her best the more
it
me
deliteth.
it-nom me-obj delights
‘And ever the more desire burns me to love her best, the more it delights me.’
[a1425(c1385) Chaucer TC (Benson-Robinson) 3.1652]
The following instance of blīthen, another non-impersonal verb, may also
be interpreted as an impersonal construction with formal it:45
(5-184) When Troilus hade [told, &] his tale endit, Hit
blithet
all the
when Troilus had told and his tale ended it-nom gladdened [all the
buernes [þat aboute stode, Of his wit, & his wille, & wordes full
men]-obj that about stood of his wit and his will and words very
bolde; And confermyt his counsell by comyn assent].
bold and confirmed his counsel by common assent
‘When Troilus had [told and] ended his tale, it gladdened all the men [who
stood around, of his wit, his will, and very bold words; and confirmed his
counsel by common assent].’
[c1540(?a1400) Destr.Troy (Htrn 388) 2554]
Among the impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment, joien and tikelen are
restricted to impersonal constructions with formal it. As for tikelen, this
could be partly due to the relatively late occurrence of the verb in English
182 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(see section 4.2). The same reasoning may apply to the lack of examples of
impersonal constructions (without it) with blīthen, since it is first recorded
only in late Middle English (OED s.v. †blithe, v.).
The MED entry for sāvŏuren has one example which looks similar to an
impersonal construction. Compare the following pair:
(5-185) Hym savered no þinge but all-only God.
him-obj pleased no thing but all-only God
‘Nothing pleased him but all-only God.’
[c1450(c1415) Roy.Serm.(Roy 18.B.23) 5/33]
(5-186) Þe kyng axed of þe erle . . . how hym
liked suche hontynge.
the king asked of the earl
how him-obj pleased such hunting
‘The king asked of the earl . . . how such hunting pleased him.’
[(a1387) Trev. Higd.(StJ-C H.1) 7.27]
One might conclude that no þinge in (5-185) is nominative since sāvŏuren is
not known to have been attested in impersonal constructions. However, such
straightforward judgement does not work for (5-186), which involves the impersonal verb līken. The MED assigns the causative sense ‘to give pleasure
to (sb.), make happy, please’ to (5-186), thus suggesting the interpretation
‘such hunting pleased him’. However, since suche hontynge is morphologically ambiguous between nominative and objective, hym liked suche hontynge
can also be interpreted as an impersonal construction, with suche hontynge in
the objective (‘he liked such hunting’). See also the following instance, which
is structurally very similar to the subordinate clause in (5-186) but is classified as an impersonal construction in the MED, i.e. þe lufe is the object of the
verb:
(5-187) Swa he mare lufe hæfð to . . . Gode swa him
lust
swiðor þe lufe.
so he more love has to
God so him-obj pleases more the love
‘The more love he has towards . . . God, the more he desires the love.’
[c1175(?OE) Bod.Hom.(Bod 343) 118/8]
It must be admitted that it is difficult to argue that þe lufe is in the nominative (‘the love pleases him the more’), because, as mentioned above, listen
in Old English is not known to have occurred in ToE-subject transitive
constructions. However, interpreting suche hontynge in (5-186) as in the
objective case—hence the whole construction as impersonal—may not be
entirely dismissed, especially because līken is attested several times in
impersonal constructions where the Target of Emotion is unambiguously
in the objective case (see Table 5.30 above, especially the column
‘NP-OBJ’):
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 183
(5-188) So wel vs
liketh yow . . . that we Ne kouden nat . . . deuysen how We
so well us-obj pleases you-obj that we not could not
devise how we
myghte lyuen in moore felicitee.
might live in more felicity
‘We are pleased with you so well . . . that we cannot . . . imagine how we
might live in more happiness.’
[(c1395) Chaucer CT.Cl.(Manly-Rickert) E.106]
Constructions like (5-188) are described as ‘blended pers. and impers. constructions’ in the MED. Although (5-185) per se does not serve as decisive evidence that sāvŏuren was employed in an impersonal construction, it may
well indicate that the verb had some potential for impersonal usage. Nothing
other than the assumption that it apparently did not behave impersonally in
the history of English seems to prevent the interpretation of (5-185) as an impersonal construction. The presence of the impersonal usage and the sense ‘to
please’ are thus closely, if not completely, correlated with each other.
Impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment are generally
not quite distinguishable in other constructional patterns; see Table 5.34. 46 It
should also be pointed out that complementation patterns of intransitive and
transitive constructions are often different from those of impersonal constructions (compare Table 5.30 above). The syntactic realization of the Target
of Emotion may therefore have some effect on whether or not the verb occurs
in impersonal constructions. However, with different verbs showing different
tendencies, it is difficult to generalize the relationship between impersonal
use and the type of the Target of Emotion.
Although Table 5.34 does not immediately reveal boundaries between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs, on careful inspection, lŏven often behaves differently from the impersonal verbs. Traces of the causative sense can
be detected in Experiencer-subject passive constructions (i.e. passive variant
of the causative use). The MED entry for lŏven has two apparent instances of
an Experiencer-subject passive construction, both involving the preposition
with:
(5-189) Sa wel i
am, ya, luued
with þe Þat þi wisdom man clepes me.
so well I-nom am yes loved-ppl with you that your wisdom man calls me
‘I indeed love you so much that people call me your wisdom.’
[a1400(a1325) Cursor (Vsp A.3) 9729]
(5-190) Sone, loke thu fellaship with hem that
bene loued
with God
son look you fellowship with them that-nom are loved-ppl with God
[Scrope: with tho þat louethe God].
with those that love
God
‘Son, look for fellowship with those who love God.’
[(a1460) DSPhilos.(Helm) 243/24]
184 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
table 5.34 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive,
passive, and reflexive constructions
Impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest
date
(i)quēmen
glāden
līken
listen
gāmen
bilŏven
paien
lusten
plēsen
rejoisen
eOE
c825
c888
c888
OE
a1225
a1225
c1230
c1350
c1350
joien
tikelen
c1260
c1330
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
4
9
8
11
15
5
1
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
14
5
7
21
2
*
2
5
7
1
10
8
3
4
2
1
4
2
9
2
3
2
1
1
1
55
1
24
5
3
4
3
* ambiguous examples are attested
Non-impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
lŏven
fainen
gleuen
highten
mirīen
dēlīten
apaien
sāvŏuren
līten
joissen
rejoien
enjoien
blīthen
mirthen
emplēsen
OED earliest
date
eOE
c888
c900
c1000
OE
?c1225 (?a1200)
a1250
a1300 (?a1250)
a1300
c1320
c1350 (a1333)
c1380
a1400 (1325)
a1400 (1325)
no date
transitive
ToE
passive reflexive
Ø
PP
43
3
4
1
1
265
1
10
2
2
1
3
5
1
1
3
6
NP-OBJ INF CL
24
1
2
1
2
5
1
2
2
1
3
2
1
4
13
1
4
14
1
1
4
2
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 185
The MED glosses ben loved with as ‘love (sb.)’, which is probably appropriate for
(5-189), where the king’s only son expresses his admiration and loyalty to the
king; the interpretation ‘I am loved by you’ (i: Target of Emotion; þe: Experiencer) is contextually unlikely. On the other hand, (5-190) requires caution,
since the MED’s interpretation seems to be driven by the variant active transitive reading indicated within the square bracket. Hence, hem is understood as
the Experiencer and God as the Target of Emotion, just as tho and God in the
variant reading are respectively the Experiencer and the ToE. However, the
sentence makes perfect sense if it is interpreted as a ToE-subject passive construction, with hem as the ToE and God as the Experiencer (i.e. ‘with those
who are loved by God’). Compare the example below which also uses with,
where me is unquestionably the Experiencer:
(5-191) So haue I mad þe worthy to me, onys louyd & euyrmor lovyd
so have I made you worthy to me once loved and evermore loved-ppl
wyth me.
with me
‘So I have made you worthy for me, once loved and always loved by me.’
[(a1438) MKempe A (Add 61823) 49/27]
Considering that the causative use of lŏven is apparently not recorded and
that different manuscripts do not necessarily have the same reading (see Dekeyser’s (1990) argument in section 5.2), it might be better to interpret (5-190)
as a ToE-subject passive construction, which is illustrated several times in the
MED entry. At the very least, the use of lŏven in Experiencer-subject passive
constructions is very exceptional, with the choice of prepositions limited to
only one kind. There is therefore virtually no compelling counter-evidence to
the hypothesis that the presence or absence of the causative use crucially distinguished lŏven from impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment.
Only four other non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment are attested
in Experiencer-subject passive constructions, among which apaien has the
largest number of examples:
(5-192) God
was worst apaied
with her thanne before.
God-nom was worst pleased-ppl with her than
before
‘God was most displeased with her than before.’
[?c1450 Knt.Tour-L.(Hrl 1764) 61/24]
There is thus not much correlation between non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/­
enjoyment and passive uses. Impersonal verbs also have a divided tendency.
Most of those from before the fourteenth century have very limited evidence
for Experiencer-subject passive constructions; for instance, the MED entry for
lusten has only one relevant example, which is based clearly on the Latin
original (delectatus sum ‘I am delighted’):
186 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-193) I was mined of god with me, And i
am lusted
[L delectatus sum].
I was reminded of God with me and I-nom am pleased-ppl
‘I was reminded of God with me, and I am pleased.’
[a1400 NVPsalter (Vsp D.7) 76.3]
The virtual lack of evidence for these constructions may be predictable since
lusten is not exemplified in the active variant, namely ToE-subject transitive
constructions (see Table 5.33 above). Experiencer-subject passive constructions
are not illustrated at all in the MED entries for bilŏven and listen either, the
other two verbs absent from ToE-subject transitive constructions. Bilŏven,
listen, and lusten are thus similar to lŏven, which also lacks evidence for
ToE-subject transitive constructions and is found in Experiencer-subject passive constructions only exceptionally. Examples of these passive constructions
are missing from gāmen too, which is however attested in ToE-subject transitive constructions, while the MED entry for līken contains one instance:
(5-194) Ðor quiles it folgede heli wil, God
self ðor quile liket
is;
there while it followed holy will God-nom self there while pleased-ppl is
An un-lif
quuanne it wile mis.
and displeased when
it will sin
‘While it followed holy will, God himself is pleased; and displeased when it
inclines to sin.’
[a1325(c1250) Gen.& Ex.(Corp-C 444) 205]
The limited availability of Experiencer-subject passive constructions for
impersonal verbs from before the fourteenth century may strengthen MöhligFalke’s (2012: 193–7) observation that Old and Middle English impersonal
verbs are rarely recorded in passive constructions. Functional ties between
impersonal and passive constructions were thus not necessarily strong. By
contrast, the verbs which became impersonal in late Middle English are all
employed in these constructions with the exception of tikelen, whose impersonal use is restricted to impersonal constructions with formal it. Differences
in correlation with passive use between pre-fourteenth-century impersonal
verbs and (post-)fourteenth-century impersonal verbs add further support to
the idea that the fourteenth century represents a turning point for the use of
verbs of emotion in impersonal constructions (see section 4.9).
A number of impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment
are exemplified in reflexive constructions:
(5-195) But natheles, he
gladed hym
in this: He thought he
but nevertheless he-nom pleased him-refl in this he thought he
misacounted hadde his day.
miscalculated had his day
‘But nevertheless, he was pleased in this: he thought he had miscalculated
his day.’
[a1425(c1385) Chaucer TC (Benson-Robinson) 5.1184]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 187
(5-196) For I . . . gretly me
delyte Euery morowe this gardyn to visyte.
for I-nom greatly me-refl delight every morning this garden to visit
‘For I . . . am greatly delighted to visit this garden every morning.’
[a1450(?c1421) Lydg. ST (Arun 119) 2353]
Both of these instances illustrate middle-reflexive uses, where the reflexive
pronoun in the simple form is semantically redundant. DĒlīten, glāden, and
līken are also found in the self-strategy, i.e. the personal pronoun plus a
form of sylf (see section 2.2.2), but the reflexive pronoun still seems pleonastic, especially in (5-198), where the Latin original does not have a reflexive
pronoun (gaudent ‘[they] are glad’):
(5-197) Y refreynede myn herte, that ne it
vside al lust,
and delitide
I refrained my heart that not it-nom used all pleasure and delighted
it silf
[L oblectaret se] in these thingis whiche I hadde maad redi.
itself-refl
in these things which I had made ready
‘I did not withhold my heart from enjoying every pleasure and delighting in
these things which I had prepared.’
[a1425(c1395) WBible(2) (Roy 1.C.8) Eccl.2.10]
(5-198) Oothere bestes
gladen hemself [L gaudent] to diggen hir traas . . .
[other
beasts]-nom glad
themselves-refl
to dig
their trace
in the erthe.
in the earth
‘Other beasts are delighted to dig their track . . . in the earth.’
[?a1425(c1380) Chaucer Bo.(Benson-Robinson) 5.m.5.10]
(5-199) Quen þe Lorde . . . lyked hymselven For to mynne . . . his meth . . .
when [the Lord]-nom pleased himself-refl for to remember his mercy
Þen he wakened a wynde.
then he wakened a wind
‘When the Lord . . . was pleased to remember . . . his mercy . . . then he wakened a wind.’
[c1400(?c1380) Cleanness (Nero A.10) 435]
Glāden and līken respectively have three and one more examples of the selfstrategy, all in non-translation texts, while (5-197) is the only relevant example
with dĒlīten and is likely to have been influenced by the reflexive construction in the Latin original (oblectaret se ‘delighted itself’).
Impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment thus do not
seem to have any crucial differences in the formation of reflexive constructions, but lŏven exhibits contrasting usage. The middle-reflexive use is not
acknowledged in the MED entry or the OED entry, and all the instances involving reflexive pronouns in the MED entry are transitive-reflexive constructions, where the reflexive pronoun is not redundant but more emphatic:47
188 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-200) Hu miht ðu luuiȝen ðine nexte al swa ðe seluen ðane þu
ne
how might you love
your next all so yourself
when you-nom not
luuest noht þe seluen?
love not yourself-refl
‘How could you love your next person as yourself when you do not love
yourself?’
[a1225(c1200) Vices & V.(1) (Stw 34) 37/26]
Möhlig-Falke (2012: 187–92) proposes that early English impersonal constructions and middle-reflexive constructions shared middle semantics (Kemmer
1993). The apparent lack of the middle-reflexive use of lŏven may provide
another piece of evidence that the semantics of the verb was not suitable for
impersonal usage.
Table 5.34 does not demonstrate clear distinctions between impersonal and
non-impersonal verbs in intransitive and transitive constructions. Both sets of
verbs participate in the ‘conative alternation’, though their number is rather
limited (impersonal verbs: līken, listen, lusten; non-impersonal verbs:
dĒlīten, enjoien, fainen, highten, lŏven, rejoien):
(5-201) (a) Þe whiche stroke
he lyked ful ille.
[the which stroke]-obj he liked very badly
‘Which stroke he disliked very much.’
[c1425(a1420) Lydg. TB (Aug A.4) 3.2847]
(b) Of this message he liked yll.
[of this message]-pp he liked badly
‘He disliked this message.’
[a1450 Gener.(1) (Mrg M 876) 3124]
(5-202) (a) Ich . . . wulle . . . fainen mines lauerdes & is fæirliche cume.
I
will
rejoice [my
lord
and his unexpected coming]-obj
‘I . . . will . . . be happy about my lord and his unexpected coming.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 3588]
(b) Þa fainede swiðe folc an hirede Of Arðures cume.
then rejoiced greatly folk and army [of Arthur’s coming]-pp
‘Then folk and army greatly rejoiced about Arthur’s coming.’
[c1275(?a1200) Lay. Brut (Clg A.9) 21843]
A few more impersonal and non-impersonal verbs are attested in the intransitive
variant like (5-201b) and (5-202b) only (impersonal: glāden, plēsen; non-­
impersonal: gleuen, joissen), while bilŏven is restricted to the transitive variant, presumably on analogy with lŏven. Lŏven is the only verb that is recorded
much more abundantly in the transitive variant. Its MED entry includes three
instances of the intransitive variant, but all of them are from translations of Latin
texts and are thus unlikely to represent genuine English syntax of this time:
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 189
(5-203) Loue we not in word,
nether in tunge,
but in werk and treuthe.
love we not [in word]-pp neither [in tongue]-pp but [in work and fidelity]-pp
‘We love not in word or speech but in work and fidelity.’
[(c1384) WBible(1) (Roy 1.B.6) 1 John 3.18]
(5-204) He haþ loued for [L zelatus est
pro] his god
& haþ purged
he has loved [ for (zealous has been for) his God]-pp and has purged
þe ydous synne of þe sonys of Irael.
the hideous sin
of the sons of Israel
‘He has been zealous for his God and has purged the hideous sin of the
sons of Israel.’
[(a1382) WBible(1) (Bod 959) Num.25.13]
(5-205) Ather of þaim war passand besy to fynd resons . . . to prefer þe Saynt
either of them were passing busy to find reasons
to prefer the Saint
Iohn þat he luffid with.
John that he loved with-pp
‘Each of them was very busy finding reasons . . . for preferring the Saint
John that he felt love for.’
[c1450 Alph.Tales (Add 25719) 275/5]
Example (5-204) indicates explicitly that the use of the preposition for is
motivated by the Latin preposition pro ‘for’. The OED entry for love cites
sporadic instances with a prepositional object only from the end of the sixteenth century until the late nineteenth century (1. †f. intr. to love with: ‘to
feel love for, to pay court to; to be in love with’. Obs.). It is therefore safe to
conclude that love virtually does not participate in the ‘conative alternation’
in Middle English, being limited to the transitive variant. Considering that
more than half of its quotations in the MED entry illustrate Experiencersubject transitive constructions, love may be associated with higher transitivity than any other impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment.
Another feature which draws a line between lŏven and impersonal and
other non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment is the nature of the emotion they express. The previous section pointed out that impersonal constructions with these verbs describe either an uncontrolled feeling that arises immediately or a more controlled and less immediate feeling, just like impersonal
constructions involving other Middle English verbs of emotion. Personal constructions, on the other hand, generally describe controllable feeling which
does not arise immediately or spontaneously, whether the verb in question is
impersonal or not:
190 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-206) ‘Whethir lyke ye
better the swerde othir the scawberde?’ ‘I
whether like you-nom better the sword or
the scabbard
I-nom
lyke bettir the swerde,’ seyde Arthure.
like better the sword said Arthur
‘“Do you like the sword better or the scabbard?” “I like the sword better,”
said Arthur.’
[(a1470) Malory Wks.(Win-C) 54/7,8]
(5-207) Þou
enioyest of þi wyckydnesse.
you-nom enjoy
of your wickedness
‘You enjoy your wickedness.’
[c1450 Jacob’s W.(Sal 174) 77/8]
Lŏven is also used to express more controllable and non-immediate feeling
(see e.g. (5-203) above). There does not seem to be aspectual differences among
lŏven, impersonal verbs, and the other non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/­
enjoyment: all allow for a stative reading, with a non-habitual interpretation in
the simple present—the Experiencer feels love or pleasure at the time of utterance. What is however peculiar to lŏven is that, just like hāten, it can be used
to express a lifelong disposition (al his lif; see (5-167) above):
(5-208) If fader saw his son þar . . . Or frend he lufd had al his lif.
if father saw his son there or friend he loved had all his life
‘If the father saw his son there . . . or the friend he had loved all his life.’
[a1400 Cursor (Phys-E) 23336]
The MED entry for lŏven includes several instances like this, whereas none of
the impersonal or other non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment is attested in a similar example, with the exception of the following, which is possibly affected by the Old French original:
(5-209) Hyre holynesse and hyre blysse, long time ich me lykede.
her holiness and her bliss
long time I me liked
‘I have liked her holiness and bliss for a long time.’
[c1350 Ayenb.App.(Arun 57) 267/22]
The MED data thus reinforce the hypothesis that verbs which express longlasting feeling are not compatible with use in impersonal constructions (see
sections 5.3.2.2 and 5.7.2). The feeling described by impersonal constructions
with verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment is not necessarily momentary (see e.g.
(5-170) and (5-173) above) but is not indicative of such a long duration as one’s
lifetime. Love is very likely to have not added itself to impersonal verbs of
Pleasure/enjoyment due to the difference in the inherent length of the feeling
involved.
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 191
Such difference is also reflected in the animacy of the Target of Emotion, as
summarized in Table 5.35. Most of the impersonal verbs prefer inanimate
ToEs, which agrees with the tendencies of Old English impersonal verbs in
general (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 109, 150; see section 2.2.3). The preference is particularly strong for listen and lusten, which choose inanimate ToEs almost
exclusively (see e.g. (5-171) and (5-187) above). Inanimate ToEs are also generally favoured in impersonal constructions, except for līken, which has more
examples for animate ToEs. On the other hand, several impersonal verbs do
not show any definite tendencies, and plēsen and (i)quēmen clearly prefer
animate ToEs, as found in Allen’s (1995) statistical survey (see section 2.2.3).
table 5.35 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion
Impersonal verbs
verbs
bilŏven
gāmen
glāden
līken
listen
lusten
paien
plēsen
(i)quēmen
rejoisen
joien
tikelen
animate
inanimate
4
1
32
24 [8]
0
1 [1]
25 [1]
65
65 [1]
2
4 [1]
7 [1]
34 [1]
94 [2]
26 [7]
13 [3]
44
49
22
4
3
1
7
2
* [ ] examples in impersonal constructions
Non-impersonal verbs
verbs
apaien
blīthen
dēlīten
emplēsen
enjoien
fainen
gleuen
highten
joissen
līten
lŏven
mirīen
mirthen
rejoien
sāvŏuren
animate
inanimate
5
1
4
1
1
3
2
0
1
0
200
2
6
1
3
7
2
39
0
11
5
4
3
0
2
120
1
4
9
11
192 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Non-impersonal verbs also either clearly favour inanimate ToEs or do not exhibit any definite preferences because of the limited number of examples
available, and lŏven is the only verb with evident preference for animate
ToEs. Impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment therefore
apparently cannot be clearly distinguished in the animacy of ToEs, yet there is
a crucial difference in the kinds of animate ToEs, especially between lŏven,
on the one hand, and impersonal and other non-impersonal verbs of Pleas­
ure/enjoyment, on the other. Lŏven collocates with words for God (e.g. God,
Christ, Drihten, Lord) in approximately one-fifth of its examples with animate
ToEs:
(5-210) Þa gode menn þatt lufenn Crist.
the good men that love
Christ
‘Those good men who love Christ.’
[?c1200 Orm.(Jun 1) 3602]
Common ties between love and God are recognized in the MED entry for
lŏven (sense 2) and agree with C. S. Lewis’s claim that God is the ultimate
source of love (as cited in Tissari 2003: 38). Tissari (2004: 241) argues in turn
that, in contrast to love, like is ‘unfit for religious discourse, because the existence of God arouses stronger emotions’. 48 By contrast, impersonal and
other non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment choose words for God as
the ToE only sparingly. In their MED entries, fainen, mirthen, and plēsen
have merely one such citation, while līken occurs with Lord only twice.
Glāden is recorded with God-words more frequently than others, but mostly
in asseverations (see MED s.v. glāden 1a. (b)):
(5-211) ‘Nay, so God glad me!’ seide þe gome þenne.
no so God glad me said the man then
‘“No, may God give me bliss!” said the man then.’
[c1390 PPl.A(1) (Vrn) 6.25]
At the end of section 5.3.2.2 I argued that dŏuten and drēden, which were
never used in impersonal constructions systematically, commonly chose
words for God as the Target of Emotion because fears or other emotions targeted at God are likely to be permanent dispositions. These two verbs of Fear
were considered to generally express permanent feelings on the grounds that
they often co-occur with lŏven, whose feeling is hypothesized to be longlasting by Pishwa (1999: 133). Pishwa’s hypothesis can be supported by the
above discussion on the duration of the feeling of love, and the fact that three
(effectively) non-impersonal verbs of emotion favour God as the Target of
Emotion while their near-synonymous impersonal verbs do not should not be
dismissed as a mere coincidence. We can conclude that lŏven as well as
dŏuten and drēden preferred words for God as the Target of Emotion at least
partly because it generally expressed long-term disposition, and that this
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 193
semantic nature crucially prevented acquisition of regular impersonal usage
throughout the history of English.
It is also noteworthy that three of the four parameters which distinguish
lŏven from at least some of the impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment—
causative use, ‘conative alternation’, and animacy of the Target of Emotion—
similarly distinguish hāten from impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity (see
section 5.7.2). This shows that the absence of the impersonal use with lŏven
and hāten was systematic and offers further support for the argument that
these three parameters played important roles in (non-)realization of impersonal usage with Middle English verbs of emotion. The availability of (middle-)
reflexive use, on the other hand, is relevant only for lŏven and impersonal
verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment, but it is nevertheless one of the crucial factors
that differentiate them.
The MED evidence gives the impression that non-impersonal verbs of
Pleas­ure/enjoyment other than lŏven cannot be strictly distinguished from
the impersonal counterparts, apart from the presence or absence of impersonal use. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that these non-impersonal
verbs are mostly peripheral members among verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment,
and that their overall examples are considerably limited. As mentioned at the
beginning of this section, lack of impersonal usage may be accidental for
those which are derivatives of the impersonal verbs (e.g. apaien, emplēsen)
and those which share the same etymology with them (e.g. joissen, rejoien).
For other verbs, relatively weak ties with the causative use, which importantly
distinguishes lŏven from most impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment,
might have resulted in the absence of impersonal use (e.g. dĒlīten, enjoien,
fainen, gleuen, mirīen). The rather minor importance of the sense ‘to
please’ may have made mirthen non-impersonal: its meanings range from ‘to
comfort or console (sb.), distract (sb.) from sorrow’, ‘amuse or entertain (sb.)’
to ‘inspire (sb., the mind or soul) with joy’, and ‘to please’ is not necessarily its
core meaning. Subtle semantic differences from other verbs of Pleasure/­
enjoyment are implied in the following instance:
(5-212) Blisse of my joye that ofte me murthed is turned in-to galle, to
bliss of my joy that often me comforted is turned into gall to
thinke on thing that may not . . . in armes me hente.
think on thing that may not
in arms me catch
‘Bliss of my joy that often comforted me is turned into gall, to think on
things that may not . . . catch me in arms.’
[1532 rev.(c1385) Usk TL (Thynne:Skeat) 5/11]
Co-occurrence with blisse and joye makes it unlikely that murthed here is used
in the sense ‘pleased’. Its relatively late first occurrence in the English language (a1400 (1325); OED) may also have inhibited the spread of impersonal
use to this verb and a few others (e.g. emplēsen, enjoien). Not just one but
multiple factors thus lied behind the presence or absence of impersonal usage
with verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment.
194 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
5.9 Verbs of Mental Pain/Suffering
5.9.1 Characteristics of Impersonal Constructions
Table 5.36 summarizes the complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with Middle English impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering
which are illustrated in their MED entries. None of these fifteen verbs has
a very large number of examples, but it is worth noting that most of them
are recorded in the pattern where the Target of Emotion is left unexpressed
(see e.g. (5-217) below). Grāmen, smerten, and sŏuen are restricted to this
pattern. This may imply that the impersonal use of verbs of Mental pain/
suffering was affected, at least to some extent, by how the Target of Emotion is syntactically realized. This assumption is strengthened by the fact
that not many of the complementation patterns in Table 5.36 are found
when these verbs occur in personal constructions (compare Table 5.41
below). The common choice of the clausal ToE for forthinken and
ofthinken may have something to do with the meaning of the stem (see
also overthinken).
Impersonal constructions with verbs of Mental pain/suffering generally
have a non-habitual interpretation in the simple present, just like impersonal constructions with verbs of most other ‘Emotion’ categories. In the
examples below, the Experiencer feels sorry or regretful at the time of
utterance:
table 5.36 Complementation patterns of impersonal constructions with
­impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering
verbs
areuen
mislīken
ofthinken
reuen
grāmen
sŏuen
smerten
forthinken
anoien
mēnen
grēven
noien
overthinken
tēnen
irken
earliest impers. use
no. of exx.
OE
OE
OE
OE
a1225(?c1175)
c1230(?a1200)
a1275(?c1150)
a1325(?c1300)
?a1325
c1330(?c1300)
a1375
c1380
a1400
a1450
c1450(?a1400)
2
5
12
18
2
3
10
7
1
1
2
2
3
2
2
ToE
Ø
NP-OBJ
PP
1
4
3
3
2
3
10
1
*
1
*
1
1
1
1
1
1
INF
1
5
CL
8
9
*
*
*
6
1
1
1
*
*
*
2
1
2
1
* ambiguous examples are attested
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 195
(5-213) Himm reoweþþ þatt he dwelleþþ her Swa swiþe lange onn eorþe.
him-obj regrets that he dwells
here so very long on earth
‘He feels sorry that he dwells so very long here on earth.’
[?c1200 Orm.(Jun 1) 5576]
(5-214) ‘Me
ouyr-thynkyth þat I met wyth þe, for me semyth þat þu seyst
me-obj regrets
that I met with you for me seems that you say
ryth good wordys.’ Than seyd sche vn-to hym, ‘Ser, ouyrthynkyth ne
right good words then said she unto him Sir regret
nor
repentith ȝow not þat ȝe met wyth me.’
repent
you not that you met with me
‘“I regret that I met you, for it seems to me that you say right good words.”
Then she said to him, “Sir, don’t repent that you met me.”’
[(a1438) MKempe A (Add 61823) 130/9–11]
Not only the verbs which have been impersonal since Old English (e.g. reuen)
but also the verbs which became impersonal during Middle English (e.g.
overthinken) allow for a non-habitual interpretation in the same environment, thus suggesting that stativity continued to be a relevant factor for impersonalhood throughout Middle English. There is some conflicting evidence,
however:
(5-215) [Ac swa raðe so ðu to him lokedest,] Sone him
rewh
þat he
but so soon so you to him looked
soon him-obj repented that he
hadde swa ȝie-don.
had so done
‘[But as soon as you looked at him,] he quickly repented that he had done so.’
[a1225(c1200) Vices & V.(1) (Stw 34) 45/24]49
(5-216) And ȝut hym
of þoȝte sone þat he was hem so hende.
and yet him-obj regretted soon that he was them so gracious
‘And yet he soon regretted that he was so gracious to them.’
[c1425 Glo.Chron.A (Hrl 201) p.171]
In (5-215), the preceding subordinate clause makes it clear that the adverb sone
co-occurring with the impersonal construction means ‘quickly’ or ‘immediately’ in this context. A change of state is thus involved, and him rewh has an
eventive reading here (‘became repentful’). The same interpretation may apply
to (5-216) too, which similarly involves the adverb sone. These examples, however sporadic, may be taken to imply that stativity was not always a crucial
conditioning factor for impersonal usage, but the other impersonal verbs in
the same ‘Emotion’ category lack this kind of solid conflicting evidence. We
may therefore assume that the rate adverb sone coerces reuen and ofthinken,
which are generally stative, into an eventive interpretation (Croft 2012: 84–6).
196 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
It is often challenging to judge from the available examples whether impersonal constructions with verbs of Mental pain/suffering tend to describe uncontrolled feeling that arises spontaneously, as hypothesized in the literature.
Examples (5-215) and (5-216) support the hypothesis nicely, whereas in (5-214)
the regretful feeling probably arises less immediately, because it is based on
the contemplation of the fact mentioned in the following clause ( for me semyth
þat . . .). Compare also the examples below, where the first one involves an episodic and immediately emerging feeling (and presumably a change of state)
while the second does not appear to involve such an immediate feeling
contextually:
(5-217) Þe king was wod-wroth for þat word þat him
gan þo mislike.
the king was mad
for the word that him-obj did then displease
‘The king was mad for the word that he got then displeased.’
[c1300 SLeg.Becket (LdMisc 108) 539]
(5-218) Begynne we at cownsel, for þarof es maste nede at þe begynnyng of
begin
we at counsel for thereof is most need at the beginning of
owre werkes, þat us
myslike noght afterwarde.
our works that us-obj displease not
afterwards
‘Let’s get to the counsel, for that is most necessary at the beginning of our
works, so that we might not be displeased afterwards.’
[a1450(?1348) Rolle FLiving (Cmb Dd.5.64) 116/7]
It is therefore difficult to maintain that the impersonal use of verbs of emotion correlates regularly with lack of control over the feeling that arises immediately or inadvertently. In view of the fact that quite a few of the examples
are in a specific complementation pattern, at least some of them may better
be regarded as formulaic expressions which no longer retain the semanticpragmatic functions once served by impersonal constructions in Old English.
Most of the verbs in Table 5.36 are attested in impersonal constructions
with formal it too. Table 5.37 summarizes complementation patterns of their
instances. Note that wērīen is not found in genuine impersonal constructions (i.e. without it).
(5-219) Lef
þou no false lore;
ȝef þou dost, hit
wol me
reowe sore.
believe you no false knowledge if you do hit-nom will me-obj repent sorely
‘Don’t believe any false knowledge; if you do so, I will sorely regret.’
[c1325 Lutel wot hit (Hrl 2253) 20]
In general, the total number of examples for each verb does not differ greatly
between Tables 5.36 and 5.37, but their distribution according to complementation patterns is not always similar; compare, for instance, reuen,
ofthinken, forthinken, noien, and overthinken. Just as the case with
verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment (see section 5.8.1), impersonal constructions with
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 197
table 5.37 C
omplementation patterns of impersonal constructions with formal it
with impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering
verbs
ToE
no. of exx.
areuen
mislīken
ofthinken
reuen
grāmen
sŏuen
smerten
forthinken
anoien
grēven
noien
overthinken
irken
wērīen
Ø
1
3
18
21
1
2
3
9
2
1
5
4
1
1
3
15
17
1
2
3
3
PP
INF
1
CL
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
4
1
3
3
formal it involving verbs of Mental pain/suffering are not simply the outcome
of adding it to impersonal constructions which involve the same verbs.
A number of the verbs in Table 5.37 are also found in constructions where
that is used instead of a dummy subject it; see Table 5.38.
(5-220) I haue not lovyd þe alle þe days of my lyue, & þat
sor rewyth
I have not loved you all the days of my life and that-nom sorely regrets
me.
me-obj
‘I have not loved you for all the days of my life, and I regret it sorely.’
[(a1438) MKempe A (Add 61823) 50/27]
table 5.38 C
omplementation patterns of impersonal constructions with formal that
with impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering
verbs
no. of exx.
mislīken
ofthinken
reuen
sŏuen
smerten
forthinken
grēven
overthinken
tēnen
198 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
3
3
12
1
3
3
3
2
1
ToE
Ø
INF
3
3
12
1
3
3
3
2
1
Considering that examples cluster almost exclusively on the pattern without
an explicit Target of Emotion and that they are often immediately preceded by
and as in (5-220), many of these examples may well be formulaic expressions.
5.9.2 Impersonal and Non-impersonal Verbs Compared
Of all the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories, Mental pain/suffering contains the
largest number of verbs recorded in impersonal constructions in Old and
Middle English (see Table 4.1 in section 4.9). Although these verbs are semantically quite heterogeneous, three recurrent (causative) senses were detected
in section 4.3: ‘to repent’, ‘to grieve’, and ‘to displease’. In order to examine
whether these senses are sufficient for licensing impersonal usage in verbs of
Mental pain/suffering, I will compare the occurrence properties of the sixteen
Middle English impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering with those of contemporary verbs which similarly had one or more of the above three senses but
which are apparently not employed in impersonal constructions. The latter
verbs were all extracted from the same HTOED category ‘Mental pain/suffering’, specifically from the entries where one or more of the impersonal verbs
are subsumed. This initial list was further narrowed down according to the
MED definitions, so that only the verbs as near-synonymous to the sixteen
impersonal verbs as possible would remain. I have also included verbs which
mean ‘to mourn’, namely those near-synonymous with mēnen ‘to lament,
complain’, whose impersonal usage is probably a nonce expression (see section 4.3). Inclusion of these verbs is motivated by the fact that Denison (1990:
126) lists the Old English verb murnan ‘to mourn’ among exceptions to impersonal verbs. The resulting list consists of the following twenty verbs:
• bimōnen [OE bimǢ nan]: ‘to bewail or mourn over (sb.)’
• bimŏurnen [OE bemurnan]: ‘to mourn over (sth.), feel sorry for’; ‘to
regret (misdeeds), be remorseful over (sins)’
• cāren [OE carian]: ‘to grieve, be sad; be troubled or vexed; lament, wail’
• compleinen [OF complaindre]: ‘to give expression to suffering or grief,
lament’; ‘to grieve or mourn’
• displēsen [OF desplaisir]: ‘to be displeased or annoyed, feel offended’;
‘to cause displeasure or annoyance’
• dōlen [OF doleir]: ‘to mourn (for the dead), grieve’
• hēvīen [OE hefigian]: ‘to grieve (sb.), sadden’; ‘to vex or trouble (sb.,
oneself)’
• mispaien [OF mespaier]: ‘to displease (sb.), anger, irritate’50
• misplēsen [OF mesplaire]: ‘to displease (sb.), annoy, offend’
• mŏrnen [OE murnan]: ‘to grieve, sorrow’
• offenden [AN offendre]: ‘to displease (sb., someone’s ears, the face of
God), offend’
• pleinen [AN plainer]: ‘to lament (sth., somebody’s death), mourn for (sb.)’
• regrēten [AN regreter]: ‘to express sorrow, lament; lament (sb. or
sth.), weep over’
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 199
• remorden [AN remordre]: ‘to afflict (sb., the conscience, etc.) with remorse, cause remorse to (sb., the conscience)’; ‘to feel remorse’
• sorwen [OE sorgian]: ‘to feel sorrow, be sad, grieve’; ‘to feel remorse, be
contrite, repent’
• swēmen [OE *swǢ man]: ‘to grieve; make (sb.) suffer, grieve (sb., one’s
heart)’
• unlīken [ME coinage]: ‘to be or become displeased’
• unpaien [ME coinage]: ‘to displease (God)’
• waimenten [OF waimenter]: ‘to cry out in sorrow, wail, lament’
• weilen [ON *veila]: ‘to express or experience sorrow, dismay, or regret
at (a circumstance, an event, one’s lot, etc.), deplore’
As is the case with other ‘Emotion’ categories, impersonal and non-­
impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering are found in word pairs and manuscript variants, though the number of examples is not very large, as shown in
Table 5.39.51
(5-221) To Rewe . . . to for-thynke or to sowre.
to regret
to grieve
or to sorrow
‘To regret . . . to grieve or to sorrow.’
[1483 Cath.Angl.(Monson 168) 313]
table 5.39 Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Mental
pain/suffering: Examples of word pairs and MS variants
Word pairs
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
anoien
forthinken
grēven
reuen
sorwen (1)
sorwen (1)
displēsen (1)
hēvīen (1)
mispaien (1)
mŏrnen (1)
sorwen (1)
sorwen (1)
wērīen
waimenten (1)
mēnen
MS variants
impers. verbs
non-impers. verbs
anoien
mislīken
hēvīen (1)
displēsen (1)
mispaien (1)
mŏrnen (1)
reuen
200 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-222) Another thynge that mych was to rewe [Rwl: mowrne] byfelle also.
another thing that much was to rue
mourn happened also
‘Another thing that was much to pity also happened.’
[a1525 Conq.Irel.(Dub 592) 146/1]
Examples like (5-221) suggest that there are subtle semantic differences between the verbs in question in spite of sharing the same senses, but it is difficult to judge from these examples alone how different they are. The fuzzy
boundaries between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Mental pain/
suffering are also demonstrated by the sporadic occurrences of some of the
latter in impersonal constructions (with formal it):
(5-223) Thou art of feire age, and me
hevyeth sore the to sle.
you are of fair age and me-obj grieves sorely you to slay
‘You are of fair age, and it grieves me sorely to kill you.’
[a1500(?c1450) Merlin (Cmb Ff.3.11) 368]
(5-224) It
displeaseth me
mekell, that ever I come hedir.
it-nom displeases me-obj much that ever I came hither
‘It displeases me much that I ever came here.’
[a1500 GRom.(Add 9066) 102]
(5-225) So it
nat displese Nor offende vn-to ȝour womanhede . . . I
so it-nom not displease nor offend unto [your womanhood]-obj I
purpose . . . To wedde ȝou.
purpose
to wed
you
‘So it will not displease or offend your ladyship . . . I intend . . . to marry you.’
[c1425(a1420) Lydg. TB (Aug A.4) 2.4023]
(5-226) It
swemyth me
sore, þus febyly loggyd and in so pore degre,
it-nom grieves
me-obj sorely thus feebly lodged and in so poor degree
goddys sone amonge bestys to be bore.
God’s son among beasts to be born
‘It grieves me sorely, thus feebly lodged and in such a poor degree, to be
born as God’s son among beasts.’
[?a1475 Ludus C.(Vsp D.8) 138/97]
The MED entries for offenden and swēmen have one more instance of an
impersonal construction with formal it, while the entry for displēsen has
three more. All these examples and the above four instances are from the late
fourteenth century and thereafter, when quite a few verbs which had never
behaved impersonally appeared sporadically in impersonal constructions
(with formal it; van der Gaaf 1904: 143–6). Other than (5-224), there are two
potential instances of impersonal constructions with displēsen in Sir Gawain
and the Green Knight (Miura 2008: 193–4; see also Ogura 1991):
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 201
(5-227) And þerfore, I pray yow, displese yow noȝt,
and therefore I pray you displease you not
And lettez be your bisinesse, for I bayþe hit yow neuer
and let
be your business for I agree it you never
to graunte;
to grant
‘And therefore, I pray you, let it not displease you, and stop your importuning, for I may never grant it to you.’
[1839–41]
(5-228) But on I wolde yow pray, displeses yow neuer:
but one I would you pray displease you never
‘But one thing I would pray of you, take offence not at all.’
[2439]
The verb forms in these examples are subject to two readings: displese in (5-227)
can be interpreted either as the impersonal subjunctive or as the reflexive imperative plural, while displeses in (5-228) is possible both as the impersonal indicative and as the reflexive imperative plural. However, it is probably better to
take (5-227) as an impersonal (subjunctive) construction and (5-228) as a reflexive construction, since -e is infrequent as the imperative plural ending and the
use of an indicative form where a subjunctive form is expected is rather uncommon. Example (5-227) is quoted in the MED entry and treated as a reflexive
construction (s.v. sense 1. (a)), but some reconsideration may be necessary.
The MED entries for displēsen, hēvīen, offenden, and swēmen do not
give us any indication that these verbs can be used in impersonal constructions (with formal it); (5-223) to (5-226) are placed among quotations which
illustrate different syntactic constructions, just as some of the instances of
impersonal constructions with verbs of Fear in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries (see section 5.3.2.2). Only (5-223) involves a genuine impersonal
construction (i.e. without a formal subject). However, with the majority of the
impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering attested in impersonal constructions with formal it too (see Table 5.37), instances like (5-224) to (5-226) should
not be underestimated. Examples (5-223) to (5-228), though practically nonce
expressions, show that it is difficult to make a full list of verbs which are attested in impersonal constructions (with formal it) in the history of English
(see section 3.1).
Displēsen, hēvīen, offenden, and swēmen all have clearly causative
senses in their MED definitions and are attested in ToE-subject transitive constructions. These constructions are also recorded with most of the impersonal
verbs of Mental pain/suffering, as demonstrated in Table 5.40.
(5-229) Þe sunnes þat ich habbe i-cvn,
heo
rewweþ me
ful sore.
the sins
that I have experienced they-nom repent me-obj very sorely
‘The sins that I have experienced, they cause me to regret very sorely.’
[?c1250 I-blessed beo þu (Eg 613) 22]
202 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
table 5.40 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Mental
pain/suffering: Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions
impers. verbs
anoien (9), areuen (0), forthinken (2), grāmen (1), grēven (8),
irken (0), mēnen (0), mislīken (8), noien (20), ofthinken (0),
overthinken (0), reuen (4), smerten (12), sŏuen (4), tēnen (5),
wērīen (4)
non-impers. verbs
bimōnen (0), bimŏurnen (0), cāren (0), compleinen (0),
displēsen (15), dōlen (0), hēvīen (8), mispaien (11), misplēsen (6),
mŏrnen (0), offenden (9), pleinen (0), regrēten (0), remorden (3),
sorwen (7), swēmen (5), unlīken (1), unpaien (1), waimenten (0),
weilen (0)
Among the five impersonal verbs without evidence for ToE-subject transitive
constructions, areuen is sparsely recorded in its MED entry, with only six illustrative quotations for the sense related to mental pain or suffering, so the
apparent non-use in ToE-subject transitive constructions may be accidental. It
should also be noted that areuen is attested in these constructions in Old
English (Anderson 1986: 171). The impersonal usage with irken and mēnen
is virtually a nonce expression, as pointed out in section 4.3, so causation may
be a less important conditioning factor than for other verbs which occur more
regularly in impersonal constructions. The other two apparently non-­causative
verbs, ofthinken and overthinken, in fact have potential examples of ToEsubject transitive constructions which may have been interpreted as such due
to analogy with near-synonymous verbs which are unquestionably attested in
these constructions (see (5-181) above):
(5-230) Gif him
her of-þincþ his gult
& bet
his misdede.
if him-obj here grieves [his guilt]-nom/obj and repents his misdeed
‘If his guilt causes him to grieve / he is grieved for his guilt and he atones
for his misdeed.’
[a1225(?c1175) PMor.(Lamb 487) 164]
(5-231) Hure ouer-þoughte mykel more Þe wraþthe
of hure fader þe
her-obj grieved
much more [the wrath]-nom/obj of her father the
kyng Wel more þan any oþer þyng.
king well more than any other thing
‘The anger of her father the king caused her to grieve / She was grieved for
the anger of her father the king much more than anything.’
[a1450(a1338) Mannyng Chron.Pt.1 (Lamb 131) 2350]
We can therefore conclude that the causative nuance is generally a highly relevant factor in licensing impersonal usage with verbs of Mental pain/
suffering too, irrespective of the frequency of the usage. The apparent absence
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 203
of a number of verbs from impersonal constructions may be largely attributed
to the fact that causative uses are not recorded (bimōnen, bimŏurnen, cāren,
compleinen, dōlen, mŏrnen, pleinen, regrēten, waimenten, weilen).
Nevertheless, there are still many non-impersonal verbs which are attested
in ToE-subject transitive constructions. For some of them (e.g. mispaien,
misplēsen, unlīken, unpaien), the lack of impersonal usage could be accidental, since their unprefixed forms are found in impersonal constructions.
As displēsen, hēvīen, offenden, and swēmen are found in impersonal constructions (with formal it), this now leaves remorden and sorwen, both of
which are recorded in unambiguous ToE-subject transitive constructions,
even though it is not a primary usage:
(5-232) For þair fals robbyng And oþir ill mysdoyng Þair conciens
for their false robbing and other ill misconduct [their conscience]-nom
þaim
remors.
them-obj regrets
‘For their false robbing and other ill misconducts their conscience afflicts
them with remorse.’
[?c1450 St.Cuth.(Eg 3309) 5896]
(5-233) Þis word
dude much sorwe þis seli olde kyng.
[this word]-nom did much sorrow [this poor old king]-obj
‘This word deeply sorrowed this poor old king.’
[c1425 Glo.Chron.A (Hrl 201) p.33]
The MED entry for remorden has only ten illustrative quotations, all from
and beyond the late fourteenth century. The use of the verb is somewhat restricted: in more than half of the instances it collocates with conscience, as in
(5-232). Such a fixed pattern may be considered as another, though rather
minor, factor in the lack of impersonal usage with remorden.
Sorwen is difficult to deal with. Except for the absence of impersonal
usage, its syntactic behaviour is quite similar to that of the impersonal verbs
of Mental pain/suffering. Table 5.41 does not exhibit clear differences between
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs, except that none of the latter is recorded in transitive constructions with the infinitival Target of Emotion:
(5-234) Lete us plesyn hym tyl þat he
rewe In hell to hangyn hye.
let us please him till that he-nom grieve in hell [to hang]-inf high
‘Let us please him so that he will grieve to hang high in hell.’
[a1450 Castle Persev.(Folg V.a.354) 723]
This minor difference, however, does not point to any significant semantic
differences between the two sets of verbs. Constructional patterns which distinguish impersonal verbs from non-impersonal verbs in other ‘Emotion’ categories do not differentiate between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of
204 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
table 5.41 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Mental pain/
suffering: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions
Impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest
date
mēnen
mislīken
ofthinken
reuen
tēnen
areuen
forthinken
smerten
grāmen
overthinken
sŏuen
grēven
anoien
noien
irken
eOE
eOE
eOE
eOE
971
c1000
c1000
OE
c1200
?c1200
?c1200
?c1225 (?a1200)
1250
c1300
c1330
wērīen
c890
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
19
3
3
8
4
4
3
9
2
6
1
NP-OBJ INF CL
33
2
5
13
3
8
4
*
22
2
*
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
8
1
*
2
*
passive reflexive
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
22
11
1
3
3
3
1
5
* ambiguous examples are attested
Non-impersonal verbs
intransitive
verbs
sorwen
hēvīen
bimōnen
bimŏurnen
cāren
mŏrnen
mispaien
swēmen
pleinen
unlīken
dōlen
weilen
OED earliest
date
eOE
c825
c1000
OE
OE
OE
?c1225 (?a1200)
?c1225 (?a1200)
c1230 (?a1200)
c1275
13..
c1330
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
41
1
25
1
1
7
40
6
9
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
6
3
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
2
1
12
1
1
1
20
1
22
2
9
20
3
(continued)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 205
table 5.41 (continued)
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest
date
unpaien
compleinen
displēsen
waimenten
offenden
misplēsen
regrēten
remorden
1340
c1374
c1374
1375
a1382
a1400
c1400 (?c1380)
c1400 (?c1380)
transitive
ToE
Ø
PP
2
1
4
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
9
1
11
1
3
7
2
3
1
1
2
2
Mental pain/suffering, especially sorwen. For instance, both sets of verbs
participate in the ‘conative alternation’:
(5-235) (a) Come on whan yow list,
yee shul reewe it
deere.
come on when you pleases you shall regret it-obj heavily
‘Come on when it pleases you, you shall regret it heavily.’
[(1415) Hoccl. Oldcastle (Hnt HM 111) 467]
(b) [I putte cas,] A preest Him viciously gouerne in his lyuynge, Thow
I put case a priest him viciously govern in his living
you
oghtist reewe on it
whan thow it seest.
ought regret [on it]-pp when you it see
‘[Suppose that] a priest conduct himself sinfully in his living, you ought
to have regret about it when you see it.’
[(1415) Hoccl. Oldcastle (Hnt HM 111) 131]52
(5-236) (a) Her crualte,
which mad hem thanne glade, Thei sorwen now.
[their cruelty]-obj which made them then
glad they repent now
‘Their cruelty, which made them glad then, they repent now.’
[(c1400) Gower PP (Eg 2862) 104]
(b) Man oghte to sorwen for hise wikked wordes as wel as for hise
man ought to repent [ for his wicked words]-pp as well as [ for his
wikked dedes.
wicked deeds]-pp
‘Man ought to repent his wicked words as well as his wicked deeds.’
[(c1390) Chaucer CT.Pars.(Manly-Rickert) I.300]
It might still be worth noting that most of the impersonal verbs are attested at
least in the intransitive variant like (5-235b) and (5-236b), which may indicate
their reduced transitivity. Non-impersonal verbs, on the other hand, are divided, with some restricted to one variant and others allowing the alternation.
206 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Both impersonal and non-impersonal verbs are attested in Experiencersubject passive constructions:
(5-237) Of is lijf he
was a-nuyd
and wolde beo ded wel fawe.
of his life he-nom was annoyed-ppl and would be dead well gladly
‘He was annoyed about his life and would be very glad to be dead.’
[c1300 SLeg.Cross (LdMisc 108) 166]
(5-238) I,
he sum tyme plenteuous, feerly am sorewid
[L contritus].
I-nom he some time rich
terribly am destroyed-ppl
‘I, he who used to be rich, am terribly destroyed.’
[(a1382) WBible(1) (Bod 959) Job 16.13]
The MED concludes that (5-238), the only quotation illustrating these constructions in the entry for sorwen, is probably a misreading of Latin contritus
‘worn out, trite’ as contristus ‘saddened, gloomy’, so it may not be a genuine
instance of a passive construction with sorwen. Among impersonal verbs,
only (a)noien is found in passive uses more than occasionally (MED anoien
s.v. 1. (e), 4. (b), 5. (b)), and the other verbs either lack instances or have merely
sporadic examples. Thus, despite the fact that the majority of the Middle English impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering are found in ToE-subject transitive constructions, passive counterparts are considerably limited. This corroborates Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 193–7) observation that Old and Middle
English impersonal verbs are seldom found in passive constructions; functional connections between impersonal and passive constructions were not
very strong with Middle English verbs of Mental pain/suffering. On the other
hand, about half of the non-impersonal verbs are attested in Experiencer-­
subject passive constructions. This may provide some evidence that these
non-impersonal verbs are slightly distinct from the impersonal verbs of
Mental pain/suffering, while sorwen is similar to the impersonal verbs.
Sorwen does not behave differently in reflexive uses either. It is attested in
middle-reflexive constructions, just like a number of impersonal and other
non-impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering:53
(5-239) Wen . . . thow
thenkust on that derne loue . . . And sorus the
of
when
you-nom think
on that secret love
and repent you-refl of
thi synnes, [etc.].
your sins
‘When . . . you think on that secret love . . . and repent your sins, [etc.].’
[a1450 Of alle þe ioyus (Cmb Dd.11.89) 11]
(5-240) He
him
ne ssel naȝt uorþenche his zenne.
he-nom him-refl not shall not repent
his sin
‘He shall not repent his sin.’
[(1340) Ayenb.(Arun 57) 29]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 207
In terms of aspect, impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Mental pain/
suffering are not clearly distinct from each other. Both sets of verbs seem
stative in most contexts. The highlighted verbs in the following instances have
a non-habitual interpretation in the simple present—the Experiencer feels
grief or sorrow at the time of utterance:
(5-241) I
forthynk sore of hir dede, Bot it is long
of yowth-hede.
I-nom grieve
sorely of her deed but it is because of youth
‘I am sorely grieved of her deed, but it is because of youth.’
[a1500(a1460) Towneley Pl.(Hnt HM 1) 94/299]
(5-242) Now . . . þe envious man haþ ioy of þe aduersite of good men, now
now
the envious man has joy of the adversity of good men now
he
sorowiþ of þer pro[s]perite.
he-nom sorrows of their prosperity
‘Now . . . the envious man has joy of the adversity of good men, now he is
vexed with their prosperity.’
[c1450(c1415) Roy.Serm.(Roy 18.B.23) 232/23]
Incidentally, in neither of these two instances the feeling of mental pain or
suffering seems to arise immediately or be particularly uncontrolled. This
agrees with the semantic-pragmatic function of personal constructions which
have been proposed in the literature, but personal constructions can also be
used to express situations which are commonly ascribed to impersonal constructions, at least in some contexts. In the following couple of examples, the
Experiencer regrets or mourns upon immediate perception of the situation
and may rather lack control over the emotion:
(5-243) Whan Gifflet sye this, he
forthought it sore.
when Gifflet saw this he-nom regretted it sorely
‘When Gifflet saw this, he regretted it sorely.’
[a1500(?c1450) Merlin (Cmb Ff.3.11) 137]
(5-244) Watur be for þem non þei fand . . . þerfor þei
mournyd and
water before them none they found therefore they-nom mourned and
mad grett mone.
made great moan
‘They found no water before them . . . therefore they mourned and made a
great cry.’
[c1450(a1425) MOTest.(SeldSup 52) 1899]
Thus, just like other verbs of emotion, uncontrolled feeling that arises immediately or spontaneously is not necessarily correlated with impersonal constructions, at least in Middle English.
208 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
An eventive reading is allowed occasionally for both impersonal and nonimpersonal verbs, just as impersonal constructions allow for an eventive interpretation at least in some contexts (see section 5.9.1). This is most obvious
when these verbs co-occur with eventive adverbs:
(5-245) Ther is anothere yit that sodanly sowys vs full sore: ffor todis and
there is another yet that suddenly distresses us very sorely for toads and
froskis may no man flyt.
frogs may no man escape
‘There is yet another that suddenly causes us to suffer hardship very sorely:
for no man can flee from toads and frogs.’
[a1500(a1460) Towneley Pl.(Hnt HM 1) 73/283]
(5-246) What man that dede, he shulde it sone wayle.
what man that did he should it soon regret
‘Whoever did that should regret it soon.’
[c1450 Capgr. St.Kath.(Arun 396) 1.30]
The punctual adverb sodanly in (5-245) coerces sŏuen, which is usually stative,
into a non-stative interpretation (Croft 2012: 84–6; see (5-215) and (5-216)
above). Weilen in (5-246) is commonly used in the sense ‘to lament’ or ‘to
complain’, and verbs with such meanings regularly have an eventive reading.
In the instances below, the described event is not occurring at the time of utterance and thus has a habitual interpretation:
(5-247) My gret unese full ofte I meene.
my great unease full often I complain
‘I very often complain my great unease.’
[a1425(?a1400) RRose (Htrn 409) 2596]
(5-248) Allas! who seith wommen can nat wepe! . . . Plente y-nowe . . . sorweles
alas who says women
can not weep
plenty enough
sorrowless
mornen and compleyne.
mourn and complain
‘Alas! Who says women cannot weep! . . . Plenty enough . . . express grief
and complain without sorrow.’
[c1425(a1420) Lydg. TB (Aug A.4) 4.3695]
Among the impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering, only mēnen can describe physical manifestations of the feeling of sorrow as in (5-247).
Compleinen, mŏrnen, and weilen have examples which show that these
manifestations are even audible; the verbs in these instances may better be
regarded as verbs of utterance:
(5-249) He herde hem murnen, he hem freinde for-quat.
he heard them mourn he them asked why
‘He heard them mourning and asked them why.’
[a1325(c1250) Gen.& Ex.(Corp-C 444) 2053]
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 209
Physical manifestations of sorrow in fact crucially distinguish sorwen
from the impersonal verbs. Just like compleinen, mŏrnen, and weilen,
sorwen can mean ‘to lament’ or ‘to express sorrow’ (see MED s.v. sense 2. (a)),
and in this use it has an eventive reading. In the following two examples, the
Experiencer does not sorrow at the time of utterance but does so habitually:
(5-250) Ofte y syke ant serewe among; may y neuer blynne.
often I sigh and sorrow among may I never stop
‘Often times I sigh and express sorrow; I can never stop it.’
[c1325 I-blessed beo þu (Hrl 2253) 7]
(5-251) Sir pryamus . . . Wepes and sorouwes nyght and daye ffor sir Ectour.
Sir Priamus
weeps and sorrows night and day for Sir Hector
‘Sir Priamus . . . weeps and groans night and day for Sir Hector.’
[a1475 Siege Troy(1) (Hrl 525) 199/ 1522b]
Particular attention should be paid to the coordination of sorwen with sīken
‘to sigh’ and wēpen ‘to weep’, both of which express actions rather than states.
See also the following instance, where it would be contextually more natural
to interpret zorȝeþ as eventive, since it is coordinated with verbs which clearly
express actions:
(5-252) Þe kyng, þe erl, þe prince, þe emperour . . . nou ine helle wepeþ and
the king the earl the prince the emperor
now in hall weep and
gredeþ, yelleþ and zorȝeþ.
cry
yell
and sorrow
‘The king, the earl, the prince, the emperor . . . now weep, cry, yell, and
groan in the hall.’
[(1340) Ayenb.(Arun 57) 71/11]
None of the Middle English impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering coordinates with sīken or wēpen in their MED entries, with the exception of the
following two instances:
(5-253) Hard is þe heorte þat þis hureþ bote he wepe & smerte.
hard is the heart that this hears but he weep and grieve
‘Hard is the heart that hears this without weeping and suffering grief.’
[a1325(c1280) SLeg.Pass.(Pep 2344) 1584]
(5-254) Swa þet heo mei wepen & meanen, sari man, wið þe salmwruhte.
so that she may weep and repent
sorry moan with the Psalmist
‘So that she may weep and repent, sorry lamentation, with the Psalmist.’
[c1230(?a1200) Ancr.(Corp-C 402) 141/25]
In the MED data sorwen commonly coordinates with sīken, while weilen,
another non-impersonal verb of Mental pain/suffering, is found by far the
most frequently with wēpen. The choice is undoubtedly governed by the
210 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
alliteration between the pair, but sīken also coordinates with non-impersonal
verbs cāren and mŏrnen, while wēpen is found with cāren, compleinen,
mŏrnen, regrēten, sorwen, and waimenten, all of which are nonimpersonal verbs. Such clear boundaries in distribution are indicative of
subtle semantic distinctions between impersonal and near-synonymous nonimpersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering: close associations with ‘physical,
externalised manifestations of emotions’ (A. Fischer 1992: 51) such as sighing
and weeping, which are generally not observable with the impersonal verbs,
may well have prevented sorwen and many other non-impersonal verbs from
acquiring impersonal usage.
Finally, as summarized in Table 5.42, most of the impersonal verbs of
Mental pain/suffering prefer inanimate Targets of Emotion (see e.g. (5-241)
and (5-247) above). They thus conform with Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 109, 150)
table 5.42 I mpersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of Mental
pain/suffering: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion
Impersonal verbs
verbs
animate
inanimate
anoien
areuen
forthinken
grāmen
grēven
irken
mēnen
mislīken
noien
ofthinken
overthinken
reuen
smerten
sŏuen
tēnen
5
0
0
1
3
0
4
3 [1]
5
1
0
3 [1]
2
4
3 [1]
21
4 [1]
22
0
6
5 [1]
44
21
24
15 [1]
5
50 [5]
33
3
9 [1]
wērīen
3
7
* [ ] examples in impersonal constructions
Non-impersonal verbs
verbs
bimōnen
bimŏurnen
cāren
compleinen
animate
inanimate
2
2
3
5
0
4
6
16
(continued)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 211
table 5.42 (continued)
verbs
displēsen
dōlen
hēvīen
mispaien
misplēsen
mŏrnen
offenden
pleinen
regrēten
remorden
sorwen
swēmen
unlīken
unpaien
waimenten
weilen
animate
inanimate
12
0
4
5
2
7
12
3
1
0
12
4
1
1
1
17
20
2
8
15
4
12
4
24
1
10
38
1
3
0
3
26
observation that ToEs of Old English impersonal verbs are typically inanimate. The preference for inanimate ToEs is clear especially with verbs which
are richly illustrated (e.g. forthinken, mēnen, reuen, smerten). The only
verbs with more examples of animate ToEs are grāmen and sŏuen, though
the number is meagre.
Inanimate ToEs outnumber animate ToEs in the majority of the non-­
impersonal verbs too, so this can be seen as a common feature among
Middle English verbs of Mental pain/suffering, whether or not they are impersonal. Some verbs, however, have not a small number of instances of animate ToEs (e.g. displēsen, sorwen, weilen). In a few verbs animate ToEs
outnumber inanimate ToEs (e.g. bimōnen, swēmen, unpaien), though only
very marginally, and this is most remarkable in offenden. It could be another reason why the verb was not systematically employed in impersonal
constructions.
Boundaries between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Mental
pain/suffering are often very subtle but tend to be affected by most of the factors presented at the beginning of this chapter: causative use, stativity, constructional patterns (specifically passivization), and animacy of the Target of
Emotion, all of which have been found to be key factors in one or more of the
other six HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories which include impersonal verbs. This
allows us to make reasonable generalizations about what kinds of emotion
verbs are likely to occur in impersonal constructions in Middle English. Further discussion will be provided in Chapter 6.
212 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
5.10 Other Verbs of Emotion
Section 4.1 saw that the following HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories lack verbs
which were attested in impersonal constructions in Old and Middle
English:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Emotion
Seat of the emotions
Emotional perception
Quality of affecting emotions
Effect produced on emotions
Emotional attitude
State of feeling/mood
Manifestation of emotion
Capacity for emotion
Sentimentality
Absence of emotion
Types of emotion
Intense/deep emotion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sincere/earnest emotion
Zeal/earnest enthusiasm
Strong feeling/passion
Violent emotion
Excitement
Composure/calmness
Love
Indifference
Jealousy/envy
Gratitude
Pride
Courage
As mentioned in section 3.2, ‘Seat of the emotions’, ‘Types of emotion’, and
‘Sincere/earnest emotion’ include no verb headings, while ‘Sentimentalilty’ and ‘Zeal/earnest enthusiasm’ do not subsume any Old or Middle English verbs. The absence of impersonal verbs of ‘Love’ was taken up in section 5.8.2, where the behaviour of lŏven and near-synonymous
non-impersonal verbs was compared with that of Middle English impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment. The lack of impersonal usage in ‘Emotion’ to ‘Excitement’ and ‘Composure/calmness’ may be ascribable to the
fact that the words in these categories do not express specific emotions like
love or hate but only represent ‘generic emotion concepts’ (Diller 2008:
126; see section 4.1). The irrelevance of ‘Indifference’ and ‘Gratitude’ as
emotional concepts was pointed out in section 4.1. What therefore remains
and is especially noteworthy is that apparently no verbs in ‘Jealousy/envy’,
‘Pride’, and ‘Courage’ are employed in impersonal constructions in the history of English, even though they seem to denote emotions. In this section
I will discuss verbs in these three ‘Emotion’ categories individually in order
to examine whether it is possible to explain their systematic absence from
impersonal constructions.
5.10.1 Verbs of Jealousy/Envy
The HTOED category ‘Jealousy/envy’ includes only two verbs from Middle
English: envīen and nīthen. The latter is a native word, while the former was
borrowed from Old French in the late fourteenth century.
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 213
table 5.43 Verbs of Jealousy/envy: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive,
transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest date
ToE
Ø
nīthen
envīen
OE
1382
transitive
PP
1
2
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
1
4
1
• envīen [OF envier]: ‘to feel annoyance and ill-will toward another because of his superior advantages; to envy, be jealous’
• nīthen [OE nīþan]: ‘to envy (sb.), feel ill will towards’; ‘to desire to emulate, feel envious’
The MED evidence for these two verbs is rather scarce (see Table 5.43), especially for nīthen, which has merely two illustrative quotations in its entry,
as reproduced below:
(5-255) Niðede ðat folk
him
fel wel, And deden him flitten hise ostel.
envied [that folk]-nom him-obj very well and made him leave his hostel
‘That folk envied him very strongly, and made him leave his lodging.’
[a1325(c1250) Gen.& Ex.(Corp-C 444) 1521]
(5-256) Blinne fra wreth, and lete breth swiþe; Þat þou be liþered, nil
cease from wrath and let anger fierce that you be attacked will not
þou
niþe [L æmulari].
you-nom envy
‘Cease from wrath, and leave fierce anger; that [though] you be attacked, you
will not feel ill-will.’
[a1400 NVPsalter (Vsp D.7) 36.8]
Both construction patterns, i.e. Experiencer-subject transitive construction
(with Target of Emotion in the objective) and Experiencer-subject intransitive
construction, respectively, are attested with many impersonal verbs in other
‘Emotion’ categories, although (5-256) is a translation of Latin.
Constructional patterns found with the other verb, envīen, are not particularly different from those of impersonal verbs of emotion. Just like many of
them, it participates in the ‘conative alternation’, thus having the potential to
express reduced transitivity:
(5-257) (a) I nyl
envye no virginitee.
I will not envy [no virginity]-obj
‘I will not envy any virginity.’
[(c1395) Chaucer CT.WB.(Manly-Rickert) D.142]
214 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(b) Summe envied at his glorie.
some
envied [at his glory]-pp
‘Some were envious of his glory.’
[(?a1439) Lydg. FP (Bod 263) 3.3398]
Envīen is not attested in Experiencer-subject passive and reflexive constructions.54 There are no relevant Middle English examples in the OED entry
either. Envīen thus contrasts with a large number of impersonal verbs of
emotion which are attested in one or both of these constructions. However,
this should not be taken to be a very significant difference, since several impersonal verbs of emotion are apparently not found in either of these two constructions (e.g. listen, lōthen, ofthinken, smerten). Neither of the two
verbs of Jealousy/envy demonstrates any particular preferences in the animacy of the Target of Emotion; see Table 5.44.
What is notable within the limited data is that the causative use, which is
found with most impersonal verbs of emotion, is virtually absent from both
verbs. Nīthen is non-causative in Old English too (BTS s.v. nīþan), while
envīen has only a single instance in its MED entry, with the sense ‘to cause
(another) to feel wrath’:
(5-258) Wheþer we
enuye god,
þat is, styre we hym to wrathe.
whether we-nom envy God-obj that is stir we him to wrath
‘Do we cause God to feel wrath, that is, do we stir him to wrath?’
[a1425(a1400) Paul.Epist.(Corp-C 32) 1 Cor.10.22]
This example is in fact problematic.55 The MED probably interpreted the first
clause as the exceptional causative use of envīen because the second clause is
definitely causative and is appositive to the first clause. However, (5-258)
cannot in fact be taken straightforwardly as illustrating the causative use of
envīen. The instance corresponds to a verse in the Bible (The First Epistle of
Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians), and the Latin Vulgate, from which the
translator of the Wycliffite Bible was working, has an aemulamur Dominum
numquid fortiores illo sumus (‘Do we envy the Lord? Are we stronger than
him?’), where the first clause is clearly non-causative.56 In addition, the Later
Version of the Wycliffite Bible has Whether we han enuye to the Lord? (‘Do we
have envy to the Lord?’), which is non-causative too (Forshall & Madden 1879:
347). All of this textual evidence works against interpreting enuye in (5-258) as
causative.
table 5.44 Verbs of Jealousy/envy: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion
verbs
animate
inanimate
envīen
nīthen
5
1
4
0
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 215
Old English verbs of Jealousy/envy also practically lack causative use. Apart
from nīþan, the HTOED category of Jealousy/envy subsumes andian,
(ge)æfestian, (ge)elnian, (ge)hrifnian, and ofunnan. Definitions in the
BT and DOE suggest that these are all non-causative, though a corpus study
must be done to investigate whether they are syntactically non-causative too.
Envīen is also distinct from most impersonal verbs of emotion in allowing
an eventive reading. In the instance below the eventive reading is made manifest by the adverb anon ‘quickly’, which implies a change of state:
(5-259) Seyinge . . . þat þey [the Picts] were more famous þen þey [the Scots],
saying
that they
were more famous than they
Anon þey envyed hem.
quickly they envied them
‘Saying . . . that they [the Picts] were more famous than them [the Scots],
they envied them quickly.’
[a1475(a1447) Bokenham MAngl.(Hrl 4011) 29/42]
This aspectual difference might have played some part in preventing the rise
of impersonal usage with envīen, although coercion may actually be at work
here (compare (5-215), (5-216), and (5-245) above), especially because envīen
allows for a stative reading in other contexts. In the instance below involving
the simple present, the Experiencer’s feeling envy holds true at the time of
utterance:
(5-260) Euery man . . . Envyeth now that other shulde thryve.
every man
envies now that other should thrive
‘Every man . . . envies that others should thrive.’
[a1450(?c1421) Lydg. ST (Arun 119) 4673]
Here the envious feeling is an enduring state and belongs to the Experiencer’s
personal nature which is not affected by a particular situation, while in (5-259)
above the envy arises immediately upon perception of the situation, just like
impersonal verbs of emotion in general. As an emotion concept, Jealousy/envy
may not be easy to distinguish from the seven HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories
which include impersonal verbs. The issue of emotions from psychological
perspectives will be discussed in the final chapter.
The MED data allow us to conclude that verbs of Jealousy/envy remained
non-impersonal due to their lack of causative use and, possibly, partly eventive
aspect. Considering that impersonal verbs of Fear from before the fourteenth
century were also partly eventive and that a few impersonal verbs of other
emotions which are generally stative allowed for an eventive reading in some
contexts (e.g. shāmen, sŏuen), absence of causative use is likely to have been
most influential in non-realization of impersonal usage. Apart from these linguistic factors, the rather small number of verbs available in the Middle English period and their limited attestations may also be relevant.
216 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
5.10.2 Verbs of Pride
The HTOED category ‘Pride’ contains more entries than ‘Jealousy/envy’ and
has a large number of verbs recorded during Middle English. From them I
extracted those which have the most general senses of pride, as far as I could
judge from their MED definitions, in an attempt to examine why the concept
of pride is not compatible with impersonal usage. The resulting list comprises
the following eight verbs:
• beyelpen [OE begylpan]: ‘to be proud (of sth.)’
• emprīden [ME coinage; < prīden]: ‘to make (somebody) proud’; ‘to grow
or be proud (of something)’
• enhauncen [AN enhauncer]: ‘to make (someone) proud or arrogant’;
‘to be proud or arrogant, to feel superior or assume superiority’
• glōrīen [L glōriārī]: ‘to boast; ~ayenes, be boastful toward (sb.); ~for (in,
of), be proud of (sth.), take pride in (sth.)’
• glōrifīen [OF glorifier]: ‘to vaunt (one’s high estate)’; ‘to glorify
oneself, be puffed up, be proud, boast; take pride in (being able to do
sth.)’
• prīden [ME coinage; < pride]: ‘to be proud or arrogant, act haughtily’
• prŏuden [OE prutian]: ‘to be or become arrogant or haughty’; ‘to make
(sb.) proud’
• wlenchen [OE gewlencan]: ‘pride oneself (on sth.), take pride (in sth.)’
Some of these verbs involve boasting, which is a verbal or physical manifestation of the proud feeling rather than the feeling itself. Section 5.9.2 showed
that verbs which involve physical manifestation of mental pain/suffering did
not occur in impersonal constructions (e.g. mŏrnen, sorwen), so the same
principle may also apply to verbs of Pride.
Most importantly from a syntactic point of view, causative use is hardly recorded with these verbs; see Table 5.45. Only emprīden and enhauncen are
found in ToE-subject transitive constructions, as illustrated below, though examples are scarce and they are all from the late fourteenth century and beyond.
Weak connections with causative use may well have been influential in preventing verbs of Pride from becoming impersonal.
(5-261) Propir will
seythyt ayens God and enprideth the selfe.
[proper will]-nom seethes against God and prides
[the self ]-obj
‘Private desire seethes against God and makes the self proud.’
[c1450(c1440) Scrope Othea (StJ-C H.5) 65]
table 5.45 Verbs of Pride: Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions
beyelpen (0), emprīden (2), enhauncen (2), glōrīen (0),
glōrifīen (0), prīden (0), prŏuden (0), wlenchen (0)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 217
(5-262) Fortune
hym
hadde enhaunced so in pride That . . . he wende
Fortune-nom him-obj had enhanced so in pride that
he thought
he myghte attayne Vn to the sterres.
he might attain unto the stars
‘Fortune had made him so arrogant that . . . he thought he could attain to
the stars.’
[(c1375) Chaucer CT.Mk.(Manly-Rickert) B.3773]
Example (5-262) suggests that enhauncen itself does not precisely denote ‘to
make somebody proud’; otherwise in pride would be semantically redundant.
Indeed, according to the MED, the verb usually expresses ‘to raise’, ‘to elevate’, or
‘to uplift’, just as enhance in Present-day English does. The sense ‘to make proud
or arrogant’ is merely derivative, appearing under the sixth place in the entry.
Examples for other constructional patterns are likewise mostly scarce, and
there do not seem to be any significant differences from impersonal verbs of
emotion; see Table 5.46. None of the eight verbs of Pride is attested in transitive constructions with an infinitival or clausal Target of Emotion, and the
‘conative alternation’ is exemplified only with glōrifīen:
(5-263) (a) Hi ssollen . . . naȝt glorifie hare heȝnesse.
they shall
not boast [their highness]-obj
‘They shall . . . not be proud of their highness.’
[(1340) Ayenb.(Arun 57) 215/26]
(b) Cupid . . . of this
mayst glorifie; And Venus, thou mayst maken
Cupid
[of this]-pp may boast
and Venus you may make
melodie!
melody
‘Cupid . . . may be proud of this; and Venus, you may make melody!’
[a1425(c1385) Chaucer TC (Benson-Robinson) 3.186]
table 5.46 V
erbs of Pride: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive,
passive, and reflexive constructions
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest
date
ToE
Ø
prŏuden
wlenchen
prīden
beyelpen
glōrifīen
enhauncen
glōrīen
emprīden
OE
c1200
c1225 (?c1200)
c1330 (?c1300)
a1340
c1374
a1382
a1440
transitive
PP
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
5
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
1
2
4
1
218 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
1
1
12
1
11
5
3
4
The passive variant of the causative use, Experiencer-subject passive constructions, is attested with half of the verbs, including those which lack instances of the causative use:
(5-264) Seruys til god in dred, that ȝe
be noght pridid.
serve to God in dread that you-nom be not
proud-ppl
‘Serve to God in fear, so that you will not be proud.’
[a1500(c1340) Rolle Psalter (UC 64) 2.11]
Reflexive constructions are found with all but one of the eight verbs, and
they generally correspond to middle-reflexive constructions as in (5-265)
below, where the reflexive pronoun in the simple form is semantically redundant. However, enhauncen, glōrīen, glōrifīen, and prīden are also found
with the self-form of the pronoun, which does not seem to be pleonastic but is
more emphatic:
(5-265) Þe pokoc
him
prette
uor his uayre tayle, and þe coc
[the peacock]-nom him-refl was proud for his fair tail and the cock
uor his kombe.
for his comb
‘The peacock was proud of his fair tail, and the cock of his comb.’
[(1340) Ayenb.(Arun 57) 258/23]
(5-266) Bute he
mote himseluen pruden, he wole maken fule luden.
unless he-nom may himself-refl be proud he will make foul noise
‘Unless he may be proud of himself, he will make foul noise.’
[a1275(?c1150) Prov.Alf.(Trin-C B.14.39) 650]
Example (5-266) may illustrate transitive-reflexive use, where the subject and
the reflexive pronoun represent different participant roles of the verb (see
­section 2.2.2). This is the only instance of the ‘self-strategy’ (Peitsara 1997)
with prīden, while four of the five examples of reflexive constructions with
enhauncen have this strategy (glōrīen: two out of three; glōrifīen: three
out of eleven). In allowing transitive-reflexive use, or at least the
‘self-strategy’, the four verbs of Pride are distinct from the majority of the
impersonal verbs of emotion (cf. reuen in section 5.5.2 and glāden and līken
in section 5.8.2) and are partly similar to the non-impersonal verb lŏven,
which is not recorded in middle-reflexive uses. To put it differently, non-­
impersonalhood of enhauncen, glōrīen, glōrifīen, and prīden may be reflected in this slightly different formation of reflexive constructions.57
Aspect of verbs of Pride is not always straightforward to judge, but a stative
reading is generally allowed, and there is no evidence for clearly eventive reading, such as co-occurrence with eventive adverbs. The example below with the
simple present tense receives a non-habitual interpretation since the Experiencer feels proud at the time of utterance, which is also made clear from the
Latin original superbit ‘is haughty’ as provided in brackets:
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 219
(5-267) Alle his daiys þe vnpitous man prowdiþ [L impius superbit],
all his days the unrighteous man is proud impious is haughty
& þe noumbre of ȝeeris of his tyraundise is vncerteyn.
and the number of years of his tyranny
is uncertain
‘All his days the unrighteous man is arrogant, and the number of years of
his overbearing aggressiveness is uncertain.’
[(a1382) WBible(1) (Bod 959) Job 15.20]
This example shows that a proud feeling can last as enduringly as one’s lifetime (Alle his daiys). Sections 5.7.2 and 5.8.2 noted that non-impersonal verbs
hāten and lŏven can also express such lifelong feelings. As far as illustrative quotations in the MED entries are concerned, there are no examples
which clearly indicate that a proud feeling arises immediately from the perception of the situation or is rather episodic, the semantic characteristic
often observed with Middle English impersonal constructions involving
verbs of emotion. Such difference in the nature of emotion may be quite
relevant to the lack of impersonal usage with verbs of Pride in the history of
English.
As shown in Table 5.47, most of the Middle English verbs of Pride are
found with both animate and inanimate Targets of Emotion, and they generally do not demonstrate any definite preferences, except for glōrīen and
glōrifīen, which are attested exclusively with inanimate ToEs, and prīden,
which is attested far more often with inanimate ToEs (see e.g. (5-263a) and
(5-265) above).
Glōrīen, glōrifīen, and prīden thus have the same tendencies as Old
English impersonal verbs in general, which typically occurred with inanimate ToEs (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 109, 150). However, this should not be taken
as evidence that they possess an important feature for impersonalhood, since
animacy of the ToE does not draw a clear line between impersonal and nonimpersonal verbs in all of the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories, and some impersonal verbs do not particularly prefer inanimate ToEs (e.g. Anger, Pity/­
compassion, Humility). Just like verbs of Jealousy/envy, it is most likely that
impersonal usage was not assigned to verbs of Pride due to their lack of the
table 5.47 Verbs of Pride: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion
verbs
beyelpen
emprīden
enhauncen
glōrīen
glōrifīen
prīden
prŏuden
wlenchen
animate
inanimate
0
1
2
0
0
2
1
0
1
4
1
5
11
11
1
2
220 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
causative use. For some verbs, long-term feelings which they seem to describe by nature and the semantic component of the physical or verbal manifestation of pride may also have prevented their acquisition of impersonal
usage.
5.10.3 Verbs of Courage
The HTOED category ‘Courage’ has fewer entries than ‘Pride’ but more
than ‘Jealousy/envy’. In order to examine why the verbs in this semantic
category were absent from impersonal constructions, I have selected the
verbs which are recorded throughout or at some point in Middle English
and which have the most general sense of courage, according to the MED
definitions:
• bēlden [OE bieldan]: ‘to embolden or encourage (sb.); comfort (sb.),
cheer up’
• bōlden [OE bealdian]: ‘to become encouraged, take heart, cheer up’; ‘to
embolden or encourage (sb.); comfort (sb.), cheer up’
• durren [OE durran]: ‘to have the courage (to do sth.), dare’
• embōlden [ME coinage; < bōlden]: ‘to make bold, encourage’
• encŏurāğen [OF encoragier]: ‘embolden, encourage (someone)’
• enharden [OF enhardir]: ‘to embolden’
• hardīen [OF hardir]: ‘to embolden (sb., the heart), encourage’; ‘to have
the boldness, daring, or rashness (to do sth.)’
• herten [OE hiertan]: ‘to encourage (sb.), console, reassure’; ‘to make
(sb.) brave, embolden; inspire courage in (sb. to do sth.); embolden (sb.
that he do sth.)’
As can be expected from the definitions quoted here, most of these verbs
occur in ToE-subject transitive constructions; see Table 5.48. Verbs of Courage thus confirm that possessing the syntactically causative use alone was not
sufficient for a verb of emotion to be used in impersonal constructions in
Middle English.
(5-268) Diomedes . . . beholdes Polydomas, how that he
boldes
Them
Diomedes
beholds Polydamas how that he-nom encourages them-obj
of Troye with his sokeryng.
of Troy with his support
‘Diomedes . . . sees how Polydamas encourages those of Troy with his
­support.’
[c1425(c1400) Ld.Troy (LdMisc 595) 9166]
table 5.48 Verbs of Courage: Examples of ToE-subject transitive constructions
bēlden (6), bōlden (13), durren (0), embōlden (1),
encŏurāğen (0), enharden (1), hardīen (4), herten (11)
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 221
table 5.49 V
erbs of Courage: Examples of Experiencer-subject intransitive, transitive, passive, and reflexive constructions
intransitive
verbs
OED earliest
date
ToE
Ø
bēlden
herten
durren
bōlden
hardīen
embōlden
enharden
encŏurāğen
c897
c897
c1000
OE
a1225
c1400
a1450
1483
transitive
PP
passive reflexive
NP-OBJ INF CL
1
7
22
3
81
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
Other constructional patterns present some differences from the impersonal verbs of emotion; see Table 5.49. Only bōlden and durren are recorded
in intransitive and transitive constructions. Of the eight verbs of Courage,
durren is by far the most richly recorded, but it is virtually restricted to the
semi-auxiliary use, accompanying an infinitival Target of Emotion:
(5-269) Ne durste nan man don
oþer bute god, for þe micel eie
of him.
not dares no man do-inf other but good for the much respect of him
‘No man dares to do anything but good, for the great respect of him.’
[?a1160 Peterb.Chron.(LdMisc 636) an.1154]
The MED entry for durren does not include any instances where the ToE is
expressed as a noun phrase, thus lacking evidence for causative use. Such
limited occurrence pattern may well have prevented the impersonal use of
this verb. A few auxiliary verbs were used in impersonal constructions in the
history of English (e.g. must, ought), but this is ascribable to the semantic
analogy with existing impersonal verbs (e.g. verbs of need), whereas durren
is not very synonymous with any of the known impersonal verbs as to be affected by semantic analogy.
Unlike the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories which include impersonal verbs,
none of the above verbs of Courage is attested in the ‘conative alternation’ or
even in either of the intransitive or transitive variants of the alternation. Reflexive constructions are attested only with bōlden, enharden, and hardīen.
Bōlden and hardīen take both the self-form and the simple form of the pronoun, while enharden is found only with the simple form:
(5-270) Iuliene . . . of his blisfule luue balde
hire seoluen.
Juliana-nom of his blissful love encouraged herself-refl
‘Juliana . . . due to his blissful love encouraged herself.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 9/74]
222 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
(5-271) Men
suld bald
þam
to be blith.
men-nom should encourage them-refl to be bliss
‘Men should encourage themselves to be bliss.’
[a1400(a1325) Cursor (Vsp A.3) 10425]
Example (5-270) may correspond to transitive-reflexive use, where the subject and the emphatic reflexive pronoun represent different participant
roles of the verb, while (5-271) may illustrate middle-reflexive use, where
the reflexive pronoun is semantically redundant (see section 2.2.2). In at
least allowing the ‘self-strategy’ (Peitsara 1997), bōlden and hardīen are
similar to some of the verbs of Pride (enhauncen, glōrīen, glōrifīen,
prīden) and the non-­i mpersonal verb lŏven but dissimilar to the majority
of the impersonal verbs of emotion. This apparently small difference in
reflexivity may be correlated with the absence of impersonal usage from
verbs of Courage.
Most of the eight verbs of Courage are exemplified in Experiencer-subject
passive constructions:
(5-272) Non miȝt here strok wiþstond . . . so wel for williams werkes were
none might their stroke withstand
so well for William’s works were
þei
þan herted.
they-nom then emboldened-ppl
‘No one could withstand their attack . . . so they were then well emboldened
for William’s works.’
[a1375 WPal.(KC 13) 3417]
The availability of Experiencer-subject passive constructions as illustrated
here contrasts with tendencies of Old and Middle English impersonal verbs,
which, in Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 193–7) finding, are rarely recorded in these
constructions. Previous sections found that a number of Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion are indeed not employed in Experiencer-­subject
passive constructions, even when they occur in the active causative uses (e.g.
gāmen, lōthen, reuen, smerten). There may thus be some causal relationship between impersonal usage and non-passivization, and one could say that
verbs of Courage were often passivized as a result of not being impersonal. It
must be emphasized, however, that quite a few impersonal verbs of emotion
are used in Experiencer-subject passive constructions (e.g. (a)grīsen, paien,
shāmen, tēnen), so the presumed causal relationship is not absolute.
As summarized in Table 5.50, most of the eight verbs of Courage are found
with both animate and inanimate Targets of Emotion (see e.g. (5-268) and
­(5-272) above respectively). What is noteworthy within the limited data is that
none of these verbs seems to prefer inanimate ToEs, in contrast to Old English
impersonal verbs, whose Targets of Emotion were typically inanimate (MöhligFalke 2012: 109, 150). This might lead one to think that different choices in the
animacy of the Target of Emotion prevented verbs of Courage from acquiring
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 223
table 5.50 Verbs of Courage: Examples of (in)animate Targets of Emotion
verbs
bēlden
bōlden
durren
embōlden
encŏurāğen
enharden
hardīen
herten
animate
inanimate
8
10
0
2
0
0
6
9
0
5
0
0
1
1
2
4
impersonal usage. However, it is probably safer to attribute this different
choice to the common nature of these verbs, since, as we have seen in earlier
sections of this chapter, different categories pattern differently as far as animacy of the Target of Emotion is concerned, whether they contain impersonal
verbs or not.
Aspect of the eight Middle English verbs of Courage is difficult to generalize. Sometimes, the same verb allows both an eventive and a stative reading in
different contexts:
(5-273) He fereþ
and feinteþ his owene menis hertes and boldiþ
&
he frightens and faints his own men’s hearts and encourages and
herteþ his enemyes.
reassures his enemies
‘He frightens and dispirits his own men’s hearts and encourages and reassures his enemies.’
[a1450(1408) *Vegetius(1) (Dc 291) 86a]
(5-274) I calle myself a servaunt of yourez . . . which boldyth me the more to
I call myself a servant of yours
which encourages me the more to
calle upon youre . . . maistyrshyp.
call upon your
mastership
‘I call myself a servant of yours . . . which encourages me the more to call
upon your . . . mastership.’
[(1462) Paston 4.38]
In (5-273) the described event is not occurring at the time of utterance and
thus boldiþ has a habitual interpretation, while in (5-274) encouragement
holds at the time of utterance and boldyth receives a non-habitual interpretation. However, evidence for a stative reading is more limited than that for an
eventive reading. None of the verbs of Courage co-occurs with eventive adverbs, but in the simple present tense like the above two citations, an eventive
reading (or a habitual interpretation) seems to be more common. What complicates the matter is that these verbs often involve not just courage but also
224 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
actions such as comforting or cheering up (see e.g. (5-273)). These peculiar
semantic characteristics could have had some influence on their lack of impersonal usage.
The MED data present subtle distinctions between verbs of Courage and
impersonal verbs of emotion, but their boundaries do not necessarily seem to
be very clear-cut. This is also indicated by the following exceptional use of
bōlden in an impersonal construction with formal it:
(5-275) For barnes in þar bignes, it
baldis
þam
mekill Oft with
for men in their bigness it-nom encourages them-obj much often with
vnprouednes in presse to pas out of lyfe.
inexperience in battle to pass out of life
‘For young men in their strength, it encourages them much, often with inexperience in battle, to pass out of life.’
[c1450(?a1400) Wars Alex.(Ashm 44) 1018]
The use of bōlden here may have been motivated by alliterative requirements,
but alliteration alone cannot explain why the verb is used in an impersonal
construction with formal it instead of any other syntactic construction. This
example certainly does not alter the fact that verbs of Courage lacked impersonal usage systematically. It is crucial that a formal subject is present; impersonal constructions without it such as þam baldis are unattested for verbs of
Courage. However, (5-275) may still imply that bōlden had some potential to
be used in impersonal constructions, especially because a few verbs in other
‘Emotion’ categories are restricted to impersonal constructions with formal it
despite their near-synonyms being used in genuine impersonal constructions
(i.e. those without a formal subject; e.g. joien, tikelen, wērīen). Employing
only linguistic parameters to generalize about which verbs of emotion were
impersonal may have some limitations.
5.11 Summing Up
With full and careful use of the illustrative quotations in the relevant MED
entries, this chapter has examined Middle English impersonal verbs and nearsynonymous non-impersonal verbs in the seven HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories
(Fear, Anger, Pity/compassion, Humility, Hatred/enmity, Pleasure/enjoyment, Mental pain/suffering) in an attempt to identify factors that determined
the presence, absence, and spread of their impersonal usage in Middle English. Verbs in three of the ‘Emotion’ categories which are not known to have
occurred in impersonal constructions in the history of English were also discussed (Jealousy/envy, Pride, Courage). Throughout the chapter, special attention has been paid to the causative use and aspect of all these verbs—critical
concepts in the psych-verb literature—as well as constructional patterns, animacy of the Target of Emotion, and argument alternation, which were found
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 225
to be useful in previous studies of early English lexical semantics (Elmer 1983,
Denison 1990, Allen 1995, Carroll 1997, Loureiro-Porto 2009). All of these
factors turned out to have an effect on the (non-)realization of impersonal
usage. Correlation with duration of the emotion, which has sometimes been
mentioned in the literature (Pishwa 1999, Möhlig-Falke 2012), was also shown
to make a crucial distinction between some impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs. The findings from this chapter demonstrate that much more can be
done with dictionary materials than has generally been assumed in previous
works of English historical syntax and semantics (see Coleman 2012: 107).
This book thus affords an important exception to Kossmann’s (2007: 42) discussion reproduced below, which essentially denies the usability of dictionary
entries in historical lexical semantics:
‘[D]ictionary definitions and lexicographical locations in time’ (Hughes 1988:
26) are not sufficient for an explanation of semantic variation and change. The
different usages and occurrences of the lexemes from a syntagmatic perspective
cannot be established from dictionary entries, not even from individual citations given in these entries, but only from analyses of large amounts of authentic discourse.
Despite supposed restrictions on context, the data from the MED entries have
disclosed a range of relevant factors for the (non-)impersonal use of Middle
English verbs of emotion, which are now summarized.
Section 4.9 pointed out that most of the Old and Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion share causative nuances in their dictionary definitions (e.g. ‘to please’, ‘to anger’, ‘to make ashamed’). The MED data provided syntactic support for this preliminary semantic generalization: most
impersonal verbs of Fear, Anger, Hatred/enmity, Pleasure/enjoyment, and
Mental pain/suffering are attested in ToE-subject transitive constructions,
namely syntactically causative uses. The usage is also found with the most
representative impersonal verb of Humility, i.e. shāmen, and potential, if
not unquestionable, instances are exemplified with impersonal verbs of
Pity/compassion, possibly as remnants of the causative use which was actually recorded in Old English. Close ties between causation and impersonal
usage are also confirmed by the fact that the causative use is virtually nonexistent or marginal with verbs of Jealousy/envy and Pride, none of which
is known to have appeared in impersonal constructions in the history of
English.
Causation can thus be regarded as a critical factor for licensing impersonal usage in Middle English verbs of emotion, but it is not free of problems.
First, not all the impersonal verbs of emotion are used causatively. Exceptions
are mostly the verbs which became impersonal in late Middle English (e.g.
disdeinen, irken, mēnen, ofdrēden), which suggests that causation gradually became less crucial as a condition for realization of impersonal use. It
should also be noted that the majority of these verbs are attested in impersonal constructions only very sporadically, presumably as nonce expressions,
226 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
so licensing of impersonal usage with them may be less directly subject to
conditioning factors that affect the verbs whose occurrences in impersonal
constructions are more frequent and long-established.
On the other hand, listen, one of the impersonal verbs of Pleasure/­
enjoyment, has been impersonal since the Old English period and is one of
the most typical impersonal verbs of emotion cited in the literature, but it
seems to lack causative usage, not just in Middle English but also in Old
English. However, there are examples which could be understood as ToEsubject transitive constructions by analogy with the impersonal verbs of the
same semantic category which are unquestionably found in these constructions (e.g. glāden, līken, quēmen). There are also a number of causative
verbs which do not have impersonal usage (e.g. mirthen, remorden,
shĒnden, sorwen, terren), but slight semantic distinctions from impersonal verbs were detected for most of these verbs. These exceptions show
that causation is not the only determinant for impersonal usage with Middle
English verbs of emotion. Nevertheless, none of the seven HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories with impersonal usage consists exclusively of the impersonal verbs which have never been attested in ToE-subject transitive constructions in the history of English. There is thus generally a high degree of
correlation between causation and impersonal usage, at least for verbs of
emotion. In most cases, accordingly, the Target of Emotion with the Middle
English impersonal verbs of emotion may be understood as Cause rather
than Theme (see section 2.3).
Aspect was also found to be an essential requirement for realization of
impersonal usage with verbs of emotion. Impersonal verbs of most emotions tend to have a stative reading in allowing a non-habitual interpretation in the simple present tense—the Experiencer perceives the emotion at
the time of utterance. This applies especially when these verbs are used in
impersonal constructions. It can therefore be concluded that, to be employable in impersonal constructions, verbs of emotion must allow for a stative
reading. Such a conclusion is strengthened by the fact that some of the
near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs allow a clearly eventive reading
and involve physical manifestations of the emotion, not just perception of
the emotion itself (e.g. bimēnen, mŏrnen, shĒnden, sorwen, tarīen).
However, impersonal verbs of Fear are sometimes clearly eventive even in
impersonal constructions, expressing shuddering (change of state) in addition to the fearful feeling (e.g. (a)grīsen). A change of state also seems to
be implied in some impersonal constructions with verbs of Anger (‘to
become angry’). Verbs of Jealousy/envy, Pride, and Courage allow for a
stative reading too, although they are not known to be impersonal. Just like
causation, therefore, aspect leaves some exceptions or at least cannot be the
only determinant of impersonal use with Middle English verbs of emotion.
Nevertheless, stativity is still very likely to be relevant, considering that, as
far as these verbs are concerned, a stative reading prevails in impersonal
constructions.
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 227
Unlike causation and aspect, constructional patterns, argument alternation, and animacy of the Target of Emotion do not affect all the seven HTOED
‘Emotion’ categories with impersonal usage, but they do have an impact in
several categories.
Impersonal and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs in a few categories are distinguished by the availability of Experiencer-subject passive constructions. These constructions have no examples for many impersonal verbs
of Mental pain/suffering (e.g. ofthinken, (a)reuen, smerten, sŏuen) but are
found with a number of near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs (e.g.
displēsen, mispaien, offenden, remorden). Examples are also practically
missing from some frequent impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment (e.g.
līken, listen) but are attested with some near-synonymous non-impersonal
verbs (e.g. dĒlīten, mirthen) and with most of the late Middle English
impersonal verbs in the same category, whose impersonal use is generally occasional (e.g. paien, plēsen, quēmen, rejoisen). None of the impersonal verbs
of Pity/compassion and Hatred/enmity is attested in Experiencer-subject passive constructions, although most of the latter are found in the active variant,
namely ToE-subject transitive constructions. In addition, most of the verbs of
Courage, which did not behave impersonally in systematic ways, are employed
in Experiencer-subject passive constructions. The incompatibility of a number
of Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion with passive constructions
confirms Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 193–7) observation that Old and Middle English impersonal verbs are rarely attested in passive uses, despite sharing similar perspectival functions. However, impersonal verbs of Fear and Humility
are commonly found in Experiencer-subject passive constructions, and most
of the impersonal verbs of Anger are also recorded in these constructions, in
contrast to their near-synonymous non-impersonal counterparts, only some of
which have relevant instances. Verbs of Jealousy/envy, which are non-­
impersonal, are absent from Experiencer-subject passive constructions, and
verbs of Pride have only sporadic examples, although this could be due to their
generally limited attestations, especially virtual lack of evidence for ToE-­
subject transitive constructions, i.e. the active variant of these passive constructions. Thus, correlation between impersonal constructions and passive
constructions varies among different ‘Emotion’ categories. Allen (1995: 335)
proposed in the framework of the lexical mapping theory that the lack of
­Experiencer-subject passive constructions with like is due to the fact that its
Target of Emotion is a Theme, not a Cause as in the case of queem and please,
and that only the Theme could become the subject of the passive after the
Experiencer, which is a higher argument than Theme, is suppressed in passivization. Alternative potential implications of this distinction will be discussed in the next chapter.
Reflexive constructions, which are often discussed in conjunction with impersonal constructions (Ogura 1991, 2003), occasionally, but not necessarily,
distinguish impersonal verbs from non-impersonal verbs. Impersonal verbs
of Fear, Anger, and Mental pain/suffering are found only in middle-reflexive
228 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
uses, where the nominative subject and the reflexive pronoun in the simple
form represent the identical participant role of the verb and the reflexive pronoun is semantically redundant. This may seem to coincide with Möhlig-­
Falke’s (2012: 187–92) discussion that impersonal and reflexive constructions
shared the semantic property of expressing middle events (Kemmer 1993), but
non-impersonal verbs which are near-synonymous with the impersonal verbs
of the above three ‘Emotion’ categories are also restricted to the middle-­
reflexive use, so it seems difficult to suggest close correlation between impersonal use and middle-reflexive use. Only one of the impersonal verbs of Humility and Hatred/enmity is each recorded in middle-reflexive use, while their
near-synonymous non-impersonal counterparts are simply absent from any
reflexive constructions. Not just the simple form of the pronoun but also the
self-strategy, with the more emphatic self-form of the reflexive pronoun, is
used with some of the impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of Pleasure/­
enjoyment (dĒlīten, glāden, līken) as well as with some verbs of Pride and
Courage. Examples of these latter two groups of non-impersonal verbs may
correspond to transitive-reflexive use, where the nominative subject and the
reflexive pronoun refer to different participant roles. The availability of transitive-reflexive use in fact draws a line between impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs in a couple of categories: the only instance of the reflexive use of impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion (areuen) corresponds to transitive-reflexive
use, whereas near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs are found only in
middle-­reflexive use; the non-impersonal verb lŏven is attested exclusively in
transitive-reflexive constructions, unlike impersonal verbs of Pleasure/­
enjoyment, which are not limited to transitive-reflexive use, as mentioned
above. The non-occurrence of lŏven in middle-reflexive constructions, which
are attested with quite a few impersonal verbs of emotion, may indicate that
lŏven does not have the required semantics for impersonal usage, specifically
middle semantics. However, considering that a large number of impersonal
verbs of emotion are absent from any reflexive constructions (e.g. grēmen,
lōthen, ofthinken, quēmen), causal relationship between middle-reflexive
and impersonal uses may not be regarded as very rigid.
An apparent case of the conative alternation neatly distinguishes impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity from near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs: it
is attested with all the four impersonal verbs but not with any of the non-­
impersonal verbs, including hāten, which is the most representative verb in
this semantic category and is used exclusively in the transitive variant. The
alternation is also exemplified with some of the impersonal verbs of Pleasure/
enjoyment (e.g. līken, listen) but not with the non-impersonal verb lŏven,
for which the intransitive variant is restricted to translations of Latin. Impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion similarly participate in the ‘conative alternation’, while the non-impersonal verbs are limited to the transitive variant. The
alternation is also recorded with one or more of the impersonal verbs of the
other four categories which include impersonal verbs (Fear, Anger, Humility,
Mental pain/suffering), though it does not always distinguish these verbs
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 229
from non-impersonal verbs in the same categories. The availability of the
‘conative alternation’, or more specifically the intransitive variant, with most
impersonal verbs of the seven ‘Emotion’ categories and non-occurrence of
some notable non-impersonal verbs in the intransitive variant may suggest
that the transitivity can be reduced for these impersonal verbs, but not for the
latter non-impersonal verbs. This may be indicative of the low transitivity of
impersonal verbs which has sometimes been referred to in previous studies
(Trousdale 2008, Möhlig-Falke 2012), and we may conclude that verbs with
high transitivity cannot in principle be impersonal. However, verbs of Jealousy/envy and Pride, which are non-impersonal, are also found in the ‘conative alternation’ or its intransitive variant, so capability to allow reduced transitivity does not automatically lead to acquiring impersonal usage.
Animacy of the Target of Emotion distinguishes between impersonal and
near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs in certain categories. Inanimate
ToEs dominate in impersonal verbs of Hatred/enmity but not in any of the
near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs including hāten, which do not demonstrate particular preferences. Inanimate ToEs are also favoured by a number
of the impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment (e.g. gāmen, līken, listen,
lusten, paien), but the non-impersonal verb lŏven prefers animate ToEs,
among which words for God represent the most common choice. In addition,
most of the impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering prefer inanimate ToEs
(e.g. forthinken, mislīken, (a)noien, reuen, smerten). These results indicate that Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 109, 150) observation that ToEs of Old English
impersonal verbs, not only of emotion but also of other fields, are typically
inanimate can be extended to Middle English. In addition, these impersonal
verbs contrast with verbs of Courage, which are non-impersonal and choose
animate ToEs more often. On the other hand, several impersonal verbs are
also more commonly found with animate ToEs (e.g. quēmen, reuen [Pity/
compassion], tēnen, wratthen), and many others do not show clear tendencies, even those which are amply attested (e.g. glāden, shāmen). A large
number of non-impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering are recorded more
frequently with inanimate ToEs, so they are not quite distinguishable from
their impersonal counterparts, which also often favour inanimate ToEs, as
mentioned above. Verbs of Pride, which never behaved impersonally, tend to
choose inanimate Targets too. Animacy of the ToE therefore does not have
unified tendencies across all the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories, whether the
verbs involved are impersonal or non-impersonal. Nevertheless, the bounda­
ries within Hatred/enmity and Pleasure/enjoyment may still be worthy of attention, since they distinguish hate and love, the two most notable non-­
impersonal verbs of emotion, from (many) near-synonymous impersonal
verbs.
It was hypothesized that the frequent choice of words for God as ToEs with
dŏuten, drēden, and lŏven is ascribable to the long-term feelings expressed
by these verbs, and that such verbs in turn are in principle not compatible with
impersonal constructions. Drēden, hāten, lŏven, and prŏuden, none of
230 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
which occurred in impersonal constructions consistently, were actually found
in examples which show that the ‘emotions’ they express can last as long as
the Experiencer’s lifetime. The hypothesis can thus be maintained, at least for
these four verbs, and this establishes an interesting link with the common
claim in the literature that personal constructions are selected when the Experiencer has more control over the feeling which arises less immediately,
whereas impersonal constructions correlate with lack of control over an immediately or spontaneously happening feeling (Croft 1993, Pishwa 1999,
Möhlig-Falke 2012). In other words, drēden, hāten, lŏven, and prŏuden
may have behaved regularly as non-impersonal verbs because the feelings
they express are usually controllable and not immediate. However, the data
from the MED entries have shown that semantic-pragmatic distinctions between impersonal and personal constructions are often vague, with the former
sometimes chosen to describe rather controlled and non-immediate feelings
and the latter to express uncontrolled and spontaneous feelings. It is thus
often challenging to distinguish the semantics of the two constructions, especially in late Middle English, when a number of verbs, including those which
have always been non-impersonal since Old English (e.g. drēden, lŏven),
appear for the first time in impersonal constructions only in nonce expressions. Issues regarding the nature of ‘emotions’ denoted by impersonal and
non-impersonal verbs of emotion will be addressed again in the next chapter.
impersonal and non-impersonal verbs | 231
CHAPTER
6
Concluding Remarks
on the basis of the careful analysis of the data from the MED entries, the
previous chapter demonstrated that Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion are distinguishable from contemporary near-synonymous non-­impersonal
verbs not only in the presence or absence of impersonal usage but also in a
number of other factors: causation, stativity, animacy of the Target of Emotion, relative duration of the emotion involved, and availability of Experiencersubject passive constructions and ‘conative alternation’. It thus seems feasible
to make reasonable generalizations, if not ‘watertight’ ones (Allen 1995: 129
n. 35), about when verbs of emotion occurred in impersonal constructions
during Middle English.
The results in the previous chapter have important methodological and
theoretical consequences not only for studies of impersonal verbs and constructions but also for other broader topics. Incorporating causation and
aspect as criteria for data analysis has successfully established a link between
impersonal verbs in the history of English and psych-verbs in modern languages, which, despite active research over decades, have been investigated
separately. The empirical data from Middle English have made it clear that
causation and aspect, the two crucial concepts in the psych-verb literature,
also play important roles in boundaries between impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of emotion. Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion thus provide further support not only for Levin’s (1993) hypothesis that a verb’s meaning is directly related to patterns of its behaviour but also for the common
argument that a verb’s aspectual class can determine its behaviour (Croft
2012). My finding that stativity is an important requirement agrees well with
Arad’s (1999) theory that stativity makes psych-verbs syntactically deviate
from ordinary transitive verbs.
This book has also demonstrated that the HTOED can provide a useful
framework for a syntactic and semantic study of early English verb classes.
The thesaurus is not particularly intended as a resource for diachronic grammatical research, as shown by the general insufficiency of grammatical information in its entries (see section 3.3). Nevertheless, this should not discourage
one from using the HTOED beyond the research purposes its editors assume
(Kay et al. 2009: xiii–xiv). The approach adopted in this book can be extended
for other groups of verbs, and such work may contribute significantly to the
theory of English verb classes specifically and linguistic categorization in
general.
Finally, this book has hopefully proven to be a crucial case study of how
much insight on syntax and semantics can be obtained from dictionary materials. By choosing dictionary quotations as the main source of information,
I do not intend to claim that they should always be prioritized over corpora in
studies of impersonal constructions or historical grammatical research in
general. However, a close examination of the MED data has led to identification of a number of impersonal verbs which have so far been undetected in
previous studies (e.g. adrēden, (a)dŏuten, fēren, hēvīen). The verbs which
became impersonal in late Middle English are usually restricted to nonce
expressions, but we can still maintain that the Middle English period does
not simply represent a decline in the category of impersonal verbs. Not many
of these new impersonal verbs in Middle English are explicitly labelled as
such in the MED, with relevant examples sometimes mixed among other
constructional patterns (e.g. drēden, hēvīen). Even when some labelling is
provided, it does not always say ‘impersonal’ (e.g. angren, arghen; see
section 3.1). Such instances will be of interest not only for scholars who are
interested in impersonal verbs and constructions but also for (historical) lexicographers, especially those who work on editorial principles and practices of
dictionaries.1
The first section in this chapter will revisit another parameter which is
closely related to some of the above-mentioned factors: transitivity of the verbs
concerned, which was first briefly discussed in section 2.4.2. The next section
will then synthesize all the relevant parameters and offer tentative proposals
on the conjunction of properties that licensed impersonal usage in Middle
English verbs of emotion. The impersonal/non-impersonal borderlines between the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories, which were established by purely linguistic measures, will be shown to meet support from definitions and classifications of ‘emotion’ in the psychology literature. The final section will
present several topics for future research.
6.1 Transitivity of Impersonal Verbs of Emotion Revisited
Chapter 5 concluded that stativity is crucial for most Middle English verbs of
emotion to be employable in impersonal constructions: impersonal verbs of
emotion in Middle English generally allow a non-habitual interpretation in the
simple present—the described situation holds true at the time of utterance—
and they do not co-occur with eventive adverbials, except for possible cases of
coercion, which are found only very rarely. This casts doubt on Möhlig-Falke’s
(2012: 86) claim that impersonal verbs of emotion denote inherently dynamic
events. Stativity or ‘non-action’ (Hopper & Thompson 1980: 252) is one of the
indications of low transitivity. The low transitivity of impersonal verbs and
concluding remarks | 233
constructions has occasionally been pointed out in the literature (see section
2.4.2). Apart from stativity, my data from the MED entries display two further
indications of low or reduced transitivity of impersonal verbs of emotion,
which have not always been discussed in previous studies.
One concerns apparent cases of the conative alternation. Chapter 5 showed
that this particular alternation is attested with all four impersonal verbs of
Hatred/enmity and some impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment but not
with hāten or lŏven, which allow only for the transitive variant. The systematic lack of the intransitive variant with lŏven and hāten contrasts with most
of the Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion, which allow either the alternation or at least the intransitive variant. To follow Hopper & Thompson’s
(1980: 262–3) argument, these impersonal verbs have the means to express
reduced transitivity while lŏven and hāten do not; it may be said that the
transitivity of most Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion is lower than
that of lŏven or hāten in terms of affectedness of object. It must be emphasized that the ‘conative alternation’ found with impersonal verbs of emotion is
not a prototypical case of the alternation: the verbs involved neither refer to any
actions nor contain any ‘notions of both contact and motion’ (Levin 1993: 42),
as is the case in Levin’s data. Nevertheless, the fact that some of the impersonal verbs allow for this alternation while near-synonymous non-impersonal
verbs do not suggests that there are subtle differences between the two sets of
verbs in terms of semantics or transitivity. The use of lŏven and hāten exclusively in the transitive variant is particularly striking, since none of the Middle
English impersonal verbs of emotion is favoured in the transitive variant as
strongly as they are.
Another signal of low transitivity is the apparent unavailability of
Experiencer-­subject passive constructions, namely the passive variant of the
causative use, which is commonly attested with Middle English impersonal
verbs of emotion. These particular passive constructions are not found with
many impersonal verbs of Mental pain/suffering or some frequent impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment (e.g. līken, listen), while they are recorded
with a number of near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs in the same categories. None of the impersonal verbs of Pity/compassion and Hatred/enmity is
found in Experiencer-subject passive constructions either, which could be because they are not always attested in active causative uses. By contrast, most of
the verbs of Courage, which are not impersonal, are employed in Experiencersubject passive constructions. The apparent restrictions on the passivization
of impersonal verbs of emotion parallel Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 193–7) observation that Old and Middle English impersonal verbs are rarely employed in
passive uses, despite their shared perspectival functions with impersonal constructions. Allen (1995: 335) briefly discussed this issue, with special reference
to like, queem, and please, under the framework of the lexical mapping
theory. As far as Middle English verbs of emotion in general are concerned,
reconsidering this problem from the viewpoint of transitivity may allow us to
better synthesize apparently isolated concepts.
234 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
Feasibility of passivization is often regarded as one of the criteria of transitivity (Osawa 2010: 332).2 Trousdale (2008: 314) notes that central transitives
allow for a passive variant. The verbs which do not are therefore considered to
be extensions (e.g. This tent sleeps six > * Six are slept by this tent). In a similar
vein, Croft (2012: 253) points out that the passive in many languages ‘is much
more restricted than the Active for verbal semantic reasons’. The apparent
lack of Experiencer-subject passive constructions with a number of impersonal verbs of emotion implies that their transitivity is lower than that of nearsynonymous non-impersonal verbs which occur in these constructions.
Hence, it can be argued that līken and reuen, for instance, are lower in transitivity than mirthen and sorwen respectively, even though they may look
near-synonymous. We may also conclude that verbs of Courage are higher in
transitivity than most impersonal verbs of emotion.
To summarize the evidence so far, it seems that Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion constitute a more or less coherent class with their own
features of transitivity, especially low transitivity. However, previous chapters
indicated that conditions for licensing impersonal usage in verbs of emotion
are not fixed diachronically. Impersonal verbs of Fear, for instance, were partly
eventive before the fourteenth century, whereas those which became impersonal from the fourteenth century onwards were generally stative. The transitivity of Middle English impersonal verbs of Fear was therefore reduced over
time. It may still be safe to say that impersonal verbs (of emotion) were characteristically low in transitivity (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 86, 195) or that the transitivity of impersonal constructions is lower than that of prototypical transitive
constructions (Trousdale 2008: 309), but the transitivity of impersonal verbs
and constructions did not remain constantly low, at least in Middle English.
Diachronic evolutions in the constellation of properties for impersonal usage
will be investigated in the next section.
6.2 Constellations of Properties in Diachrony
The five primary factors examined in Chapter 5 for their potential effects on
the realization of impersonal usage can now be condensed into three: causation, transitivity, and animacy of the Target of Emotion. Duration of the emotion expressed by the verb should also be added as another important factor.
Causation and transitivity may look contradictory when low transitivity is involved, since, according to Hopper & Thompson (1980: 264), causatives are
high in transitivity: at least two participants are involved, ‘one of which is an
initiator, and the other of which is totally affected and highly individuated’.
On the other hand, Hopper & Thompson (1980: 254) also note that many
two-participant sentences have very low transitivity. In addition, clauses with
participants which do not quite qualify as patients—in that they do not receive any action, for instance—are coded like intransitive constructions in
many languages. Thus, in the following example from Spanish, the oblique
concluding remarks | 235
pronoun me is an Experiencer and not a Patient, which would be a prototypical semantic role for the object in a transitive construction (Hopper & Thompson 1980: 254):
(6-1) Me
gusta la cerveza.
me-dat pleases [the beer]-nom
‘I like beer.’
The sentence literally means ‘The beer pleases me’, which is a causative construction recorded with most Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion,
namely ‘affective causation’ (Croft 1991: 166–7, 1993: 58; see section 2.4.1).
Causative use is therefore not necessarily incompatible with low transitivity.
This was also demonstrated by the Middle English data studied in this book.
My empirical findings thus offer cross-linguistic support to Pylkkänen’s
(2000) study of Finnish psych-verbs, which showed that stativity, which is one
of the features of low transitivity, and causation are compatible notions.
As mentioned at the end of the previous section, however, transitivity of
Middle English impersonal verbs and constructions is not consistently low,
even though it may have been generally low in Old English, as Möhlig-Falke
(2012) discusses. A turning point comes around the fourteenth century, and
this applies to all the four factors. The relevant transitions for each factor are
presented in Table 6.1.
Most Middle English impersonal verbs of emotion are found to be causative, including a number of those which existed in Old English but did not
become impersonal until Middle English (e.g. forthinken, grēmen, quēmen,
tēnen). By contrast, there are a few non-causative impersonal verbs already in
Old and early Middle English (e.g. listen and bilŏven respectively), and the
number increases in late Middle English (e.g. disdeinen, irken, mēnen,
ofdrēden). None of these latter verbs is frequent in impersonal constructions, and the fact that impersonal usage did not spread to lŏven and hāten,
which are non-causative and the two most prominent non-impersonal verbs of
emotion, indicates that the apparent weakening of causation as a parameter
for impersonalness during Middle English was restricted and only gradual.
The shift in transitivity is no less complicated than causation. In Table 6.1,
‘OE categories’ refers to the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories which have impersonal verbs from Old English (i.e. Pity/compassion, Humility, Hatred/enmity,
Pleasure/enjoyment, Mental pain/suffering), whereas ‘ME categories’ denotes
table 6.1 Diachronic changes in parameters of impersonal usage
before the 14th century from the 14th century
Causation
regular (exc. a few verbs)
OE categories: low
Transitivity
ME categories: partly high
Animacy of ToE
often inanimate
Duration of emotion often episodic
236 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
regular (exc. several verbs)
OE categories: low
ME categories: low or partly high
mixed but often inanimate
less often episodic
those which have impersonal verbs only from Middle English onwards (i.e.
Fear and Anger). The categories which have had impersonal verbs since Old
English generally have features of low or reduced transitivity throughout
Middle English, such as non-habitual interpretation in the simple present
(stativity), non-passivization, and participation in the ‘conative alternation’, especially the intransitive variant. The categories whose verbs became impersonal in Middle English initially show a feature of high transitivity in some
contexts, especially verbs of Fear, which denote shuddering with fear and are
thus eventive, involving a change of state (agrūwie, (a)grīsen, uggen). On
the other hand, new impersonal verbs from the fourteenth century onwards
are generally stative and thus low in transitivity (arghen, auen, (of)drēden,
maien), as if following the example of the majority of contemporary impersonal verbs of emotion, while pre-fourteenth-century impersonal verbs continue to be found in impersonal constructions with non-stative meanings.
Impersonal verbs of Fear thus illustrate a case of reduced transitivity. In addition, the pre-fourteenth-century impersonal verbs of Anger (grāmen, grēmen,
tēnen) sometimes expressed not just a state of anger (‘to be angry’) but also a
change of state (‘to become angry’) when used in impersonal constructions.
This is not clearly observable with late Middle English impersonal verbs of
Anger (angren, disdeinen, wratthen, wrēthen) in the same environment,
which may indicate another case of diachronically reduced transitivity.
We can also detect transitions in the animacy of the Target of Emotion
(ToE). A large number of verbs which were impersonal before the fourteenth
century prefer inanimate ToEs (e.g. līken, listen, lōthen, ofthinken,
smerten, wlāten), and only a few verbs favour animate ToEs (e.g. grēmen,
reuen [Pity/compassion]), while others do not have clear tendencies (e.g.
grīsen, shāmen). Inanimate ToEs are still the preferred choice for many verbs
which became impersonal in late Middle English (e.g. drēden, forthinken,
irken, (a)noien, paien), whereas a number of verbs are found more often
with animate ToEs (e.g. angren, plēsen, quēmen, wratthen, wrēthen) or
do not exhibit any preferences, mostly due to their limited evidence (e.g.
arghen, auen, disdeinen). The overall tendencies are thus more mixed than
before the fourteenth century. The transition is illustrated particularly well
among impersonal verbs of Pleasure/enjoyment: those which became impersonal in Old English (līken, listen) favour inanimate ToEs; those which
turned impersonal in early Middle English either also prefer inanimate ToEs
(gāmen, lusten) or do not demonstrate definite tendencies (bilŏven, glāden);
of those which appeared in impersonal constructions for the first time in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, some are attested more often with animate
ToEs (plēsen, quēmen), others with inanimate ToEs (joien, paien), and yet
others with no decided tendencies (rejoisen, tikelen). Preferences for inanimate ToEs among many impersonal verbs before or after the fourteenth century tie in with Allen’s (1995) finding that the impersonal verb līcian/līken
favoured inanimate ToEs, and with Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 109, 150) observation
that Old English impersonal verbs typically choose inanimate ToEs, but the
concluding remarks | 237
outcome of the present investigation shows that these preferences were not
stable diachronically among different verbs and ‘Emotion’ categories.
Finally, duration of the emotion expressed by impersonal verbs undergoes a
slight change as more verbs came to be used in impersonal constructions in
late Middle English. Throughout Middle English, the same verb of emotion can
often be used in impersonal constructions to express either a rather immediate
and uncontrollable feeling or a less immediate but more controlled feeling. Correlation between impersonal use and immediate or uncontrollable feelings, as
proposed in previous studies, is thus not always strong. Nevertheless, emphasis
may be placed on the fact that these impersonal verbs have the ability to describe immediate or episodic feelings, at least in some contexts, especially because some of the notable non-impersonal verbs such as love and hate seem
to lack this ability. In late Middle English, however, even love is used impersonally, if only as a nonce expression, while dread, which can denote life-long fear,
also makes its first occurrence in impersonal constructions, though only exceptionally. That their usage remained exceptional indicates that verbs which inherently express long-term feelings are usually incompatible with impersonal
usage even in late Middle English, but clearly, this principle was not absolute.
To summarize, the constellation of properties in Table 6.1 allows us to predict that a verb of emotion is likely to appear in impersonal constructions
during Middle English if it has causative uses, is low in transitivity, tends to
occur with inanimate ToEs, and have the potential to express episodic or immediate mental states. Conversely, verbs which lack causative uses, have high
transitivity, prefer animate ToEs, and generally express long-term feelings are
unlikely to be used in impersonal constructions. However, none of these parameters is rigid, and in some cases impersonal use may simply be ascribable
to the usage of the verb in the source language or syntax of the original text if
the instance is found in a translation, while the apparent lack of impersonal
use may be due to limited attestations of the verb or its relatively late occurrence in English. Multiple factors worked in complex ways for or against licensing impersonal usage in verbs of emotion in Middle English.
Thus far, semantic distinctions between impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs have been investigated by a combination of factors which were identified from different areas of linguistics. The complicated impersonal/nonimpersonal borderlines which have now emerged can actually gain support
from the definitions and classifications of emotions in the psychology literature, to which the next section is dedicated.
6.3 Correlation with Psychological Definitions and Classifications
of ‘Emotion’
Causation and duration of the emotion, which have been identified as two of
the key factors for impersonal usage with Middle English verbs of emotion, are
in fact closely connected with each other. Pylkkänen’s (2000: 429) observation
238 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
about causative psych-verbs in Finnish is a case in point: these verbs are episodic, while verbs meaning ‘love’ and ‘hate’ are not episodic and thus do not
causativize, just as they do not in English (see section 2.4.1). Croft (1991: 215,
1993: 57) pointed out that causative psych-verbs are cross-linguistically ‘quite
punctual’. Citing Ryle (1949), van Voorst (1992: 90) argues that psych-verbs
generally denote moods, which are ‘less permanent and can be considered
more of an event-like entity’.3 Moods are distinct from inclinations, which are
‘more permanent emotional dispositions or traits of character’ (van Voorst
1992: 89). From a purely psychological perspective, Diller (1994: 221) argues
that, unless the cause of the state can be identified, the state is ‘more likely to
be a disposition’ than an emotion, which is ‘a transitory/passing state of mind’.
These linguistic-psychological observations put together suggest that causation, emotion, and impersonalness are linked with each other by the notion of
episodicity. Clearly, psychologists’ findings are relevant to historical linguists
in this case (Diller 1994: 220, Tissari 2003: 140).
It is now worth reviewing definitions of ‘emotion’ in the psychology literature. Diller (2005b: 1578) offers ‘intensional definitions’ of emotions, which
distinguish emotions from related phenomena:
As understood by psychophysiologists, emotions are processes, like sensations.
Unlike sensations they are ‘about’ something: we are afraid of sth., fall in love
with sb., but are not hungry for sth. (Averill 1982, 10). As processes they differ
from moods and personality traits, which are of longer duration and generally
not caused by a specific antecedent (Davidson/Ekman 1994, 95). An emotion
thus involves an antecedent event (A) and an animate, usually human being
reacting to it, often called Experiencer (E).
Diller differentiates emotions from emotion-like phenomena by shorter duration and causation. Highly relevant in this context is Ekman’s distinction between ‘emotions’ and ‘affective commitments’ (Darwin 1998: 83), which is
introduced in Diller (2008: 136 n. 27):
Emotions are brief and episodic, lasting seconds or minutes. Parental love,
romantic love, hatred, envy or jealousy last for much longer periods—months,
years, a lifetime for love and hatred, and at least hours or days for envy or
jealousy.
In Chapter 5 I presented textual evidence that love and hate can indeed last
one’s lifetime, as argued by Ekman here. The idea that emotions are as brief
as seconds or minutes has met with some criticism (see Wierzbicka 1999:
20–1), and it is very challenging to present convincing supporting evidence for
it from my limited corpus of Middle English. Diller (2005b: 1578) notes that
the problem of distinguishing emotions from related phenomena ‘belongs to
text linguistics as much as to lexicology’, since emotion words ‘tend to extend
their meaning over moods, attitudes and even character traits’ (see also Diller
2005a: 113). It should also be added that psychologists do not have unanimous
agreement about definitions and classifications of emotions (see section 3.3).
concluding remarks | 239
Anna Wierzbicka, who has worked extensively on cross-linguistic and crosscultural aspects of emotions, argues that the concept of ‘emotion’ is not universal (Wierzbicka 1999: passim).
It is not my intention to put forward any crucial counter-argument to Wierz­
bicka’s view; nor do I mean to propose that the concept of emotion has remained exactly the same in the history of English. Nevertheless, for the purpose of drawing a line between Middle English impersonal and non-impersonal
verbs of emotion, Ekman’s distinction above is too thought-provoking to be
ignored. It coincides well enough with the intricate borderlines between
HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories which include impersonal verbs and those
which do not: verbs of the concepts which Ekman distinguishes from emotions, namely Love, Hatred/enmity, and Jealousy/envy, lack impersonal
usage. 4 Some of the verbs of Hatred/enmity have impersonal usage, but they
were found to behave differently from hate, the most representative verb in
this category, in several respects (see section 5.7.2). Diller (2008: 136) gives
additional significance to Ekman’s distinction when he notes that Pride,
whose verbs are all non-impersonal, forms one of the four main ‘indirect passions’ in David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature. The other three passions
are Humility, Love, and Hatred, which overlap partly with the above ‘affective
commitments’. Incidentally, Fehr’s (1988) prototype analysis of lay conceptions of love and commitment concludes that these two are partially overlapping concepts.
The opinion that love (and hate) does not quite qualify as an emotion has
been current among psychologists for some time. Johnson-Laird & Oatley
(1989: 98–9) describe love and hate as ‘emotional relations’, which can often
be experienced for no known reason. Ekman (1992: 194) considers love and
hate as ‘emotional attitudes’, which are ‘more sustained, and typically involve
more than one emotion’. Meanwhile, Frijda (1994) introduces the term ‘sentiments’, which, unlike emotions, do not refer to ‘momentary responses’:
Human beings possess dispositions to respond affectively to particular objects
or kinds of event. More precisely, we attribute affective dispositions to individuals to account for their propensities to respond affectively, and to account for individual differences in this regard. Such dispositions are called sentiments or
emotional attitudes. They are usually referred to as ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes’, or else by
emotion words followed by an object name or generic expression (‘I hate pitbull
terriers’). [. . .] Certain common emotion words tend to refer to sentiments rather
than to emotions—‘love’ and ‘hate’ are the most prominent. Both words usually
refer to ways of seeing and treating a given object rather than to momentary responses. (Frijda 1994: 64)
Frijda also distinguishes sentiments from emotions (and moods) in that
the latter describe actual, occurrent phenomena, while sentiments express
‘the individual’s cognitions that such occurring phenomena may be evoked,
or else it is a construct devised to account for the fact that such occurrent phenomena are in fact evoked by particular objects or events that do not, at that
240 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
moment, appear to justify the appearance of those responses’ (1994: 65). It is
unfortunately not feasible to find textual evidence for such subtle distinctions
in my database, especially given the restricted context. Moreover, Frijda (ibid.)
warns against saying that love and hate ‘are not emotions but sentiments’ (emphasis in original), since the two concepts ‘stand in a close and reciprocal relationship’. Disregarding love and hate as emotions is indeed at variance with
intuitions of ordinary language users, who, when asked to think of emotions,
name love and hate among the top six (see Fehr & Russell 1984: 469, 470).
More recently, Tissari presented a helpful review of the question of whether
love is an emotion or not. She observes that ‘it seems that while love is saliently categorised as an emotion, it is not as good a representative of the concept of emotion in general’ (2003: 162). See also her explanation below:
[O]ne need not specialise in psychology or neurology to see love as more or other
than an emotion. Historically, love has been considered a social duty. [. . .] OED
suggests that it can be a disposition. [. . .] From a moral or religious point of view,
it may be crucial not to rely on thinking of love as an emotion. It is difficult to
hold anyone responsible for their ‘loving behaviour’ if emotion is defined as
something which one cannot control, and love is considered an emotion. Of
course one major way out is to say that emotions can and should be controlled.
(Tissari 2003: 163)
Tissari does not answer whether love is an emotion or not, ending her review
with the statement ‘[l]ove may or may not be an emotion’ (2003: 163). However,
her discussion clearly suggests that it is not unproblematic to regard love as an
emotion.
We can now revisit the apparently intricate boundaries between HTOED
‘Emotion’ categories regarding the presence or absence of impersonal usage,
which was first discussed briefly in section 4.1 before the actual data analysis.
The seven categories which include impersonal verbs—Mental pain/
suffering, Pleasure/enjoyment, Fear, Anger, Hatred/enmity, Humility, and
Pity/compassion—may do so not just because their impersonal verbs have
causative use but also because they pertain to emotion concepts, as understood by many psychologists. The first four of these categories match precisely
the four most frequently named basic emotions cited in Diller (2005b: 1579):
anger, fear, sadness, and joy.5 When Hatred/enmity is taken into account, the
first five categories mirror the five basic families of emotion modes presented
in Johnson-Laird & Oatley (1989): happiness, sadness, fear, anger, and disgust
(similarly in Ekman 1992; but see Ortony & Clore 1989).6 Diller (2007a: 588)
acknowledges that Pity is an emotion, if not an independent one. He also observes that Humility is not usually regarded as an emotion, but the most representative verb in this category, (ge)sceamian/shāmen, denotes shame rather
than humility, which is a more specific kind of shame. In addition, shame
often ranks high among emotion concepts: for example, Ekman (1992) treats
it as one of the possible basic emotions, while it is included among the basiclevel emotions in Shaver, Wu & Schwartz (1992: 206). This might provide
concluding remarks | 241
another explanation as to why shēnden, an apparent near-synonym of
shāmen, is not an impersonal verb: its primary senses of humility, namely
disgrace or dishonour, do not make up the core part of the feeling of shame.
By contrast, most of the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories which do not include
any impersonal verbs are either generic emotion concepts (Emotion to Excitement,7 Composure/calmness)—as opposed to categories constituted by individual emotions like Anger and Fear—or not regarded as part of emotion concepts (e.g. Gratitude, Indifference). Among those which do not fit either of
these two explanations, Love, Jealousy/envy, and Pride are not indisputably
characterized as emotions, as mentioned above. This has repercussions on the
verbs in these three categories: causative use, which is recorded with Middle
English impersonal verbs of all the seven categories which include impersonal
verbs, is either apparently absent or marginal (see sections 5.8.2, 5.10.1, and
5.10.2). This also casts some doubt on Diller’s (2007a: 588) claim that Envy
and Pride (as well as Hate and Pity) are specialized emotions or subtypes of
broader emotions and on Diller’s (2008: 125) remark that ‘[m]ost psychologists
would probably subsume Contempt, Envy, and Hate under Anger’ (see sections 3.3 and 4.1).8 Categorizations of Jealousy/envy and Pride may need reconsideration from linguistic perspectives, especially in contrast with other emotion categories.
The last category that remains unexplained now is Courage. Diller (2008:
125) points out that it constitutes an emotion concept, but no verb of Courage
is known to have occurred in impersonal constructions in the history of English. Several subtle distinctions were found between Middle English verbs of
Courage and impersonal verbs of emotion, such as the formation of passive
and reflexive constructions, aspect, and animacy of the Target of Emotion, but
bōlden, one of the verbs of Courage, is attested in an impersonal construction
with formal it in the middle of the fifteenth century, if only exceptionally.
The place of Courage in the classification or hierarchy of emotion concepts
yields a vital clue for the systematic lack of impersonal usage with verbs of
Courage. Courage is missing from Davitz’s (1969) list of fifty core English
emotion terms which were selected by forty native informants. Fehr & Russell
(1984: 467) consider pride, envy, courage, and lust as ‘less prototypical emotions’ compared to such prototypical members as anger, fear, love, happiness,
and sadness. Courage is in fact absent from Fehr & Russell’s (1984: 469) ‘free
listing of exemplars of emotions’, where subjects were asked to name as many
emotion categories as they could think of, either within a minute or up to
twenty categories.9 It is also missing from Storm & Storm’s (1987: 807) selection of seventy-two terms of the emotion lexicon, which include the majority
of the HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories (anger, fear, grief, hatred, jealousy, love,
pity, pleasure, pride, shame), including apathy (i.e. indifference), whose status
as an emotion concept is questionable (see section 4.1). The same applies to
Wierzbicka’s (1999: 49–122) detailed analysis of approximately fifty English
emotion words which comprise the core of the field: courage is not discussed,
whereas pleasure, excitement, grief, fear, anger, envy, pity, gratitude, shame,
242 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
and pride are.10 Johnson-Laird & Oatley (1989: 99) observe that courage or
bravery is ‘a lack of an emotion rather than the positive presence of one’: it has
neither a phenomenology nor a physiology in particular. We can therefore hypothesize that the peripheral status of courage as an emotion concept prevented its verbs from being used in impersonal constructions.
The definitions and classifications of emotion concepts which have been
presented by multiple psychologists thus help to explain the borderlines between HTOED ‘Emotion’ categories which include impersonal verbs and
those which do not. Linguistic boundaries meet psychological support.
6.4 Topics for Further Research
The data and discussions presented in this book lead to a number of topics for
future research. First, we can go back in time and examine whether impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of emotion in the Old English period can be
distinguished by the same factors as those for their Middle English counterparts. If the same factors turn out to have an effect, it will provide further
support for the findings of the present study. If different factors are found to
be at work, it suggests that the relationship between impersonal usage and
verbs of emotion underwent changes from Old to Middle English, which will
be an interesting subject to pursue.
Since verbs of emotion are used in impersonal constructions not only in
English but also in a number of Indo-European languages,11 a cross-linguistic
comparative study of impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of emotion would
also be interesting. Although a daunting project if a number of languages
were to be researched, this would reveal which factors are universal and which
are language-specific.
Another direction is to look into phrasal impersonals as a comparative case
study. Denison (1990: 125) notes that in Old English lāð/leof bēon/wesan ‘to
be hateful/pleasing’ are ‘actually more common than their simple cognates’,
namely lāðian and leofian respectively. While lāð/leof bēon/wesan and
lāðian behaved impersonally in Old and Middle English, leofian did not do
so (see Möhlig-Falke 2012: 80), dying out before Middle English. It would be
worthwhile to explore how similar phrasal impersonals are to simple impersonal verbs and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs in terms of the occurrence properties discussed in this book.
One may also want to compare impersonal and non-impersonal verbs of
emotion on the level of discourse rather than clause or sentence. Section
5.4.2.1 pointed to subtle semantic differences between the impersonal verb
tēnen and the not-yet-impersonal verb wratthen in the examples from
St Juliana in the early thirteenth century. We could select some relatively frequent pairs of impersonal and non-impersonal verbs (e.g. līken and lŏven,
lōthen and hāten, reuen and sorwen) and examine how/whether the Experiencer’s actions differ after the experience. This should be conducted in a
concluding remarks | 243
large-scale corpus-based study, but we might also benefit from a close study of
specific authors or works.
Emotion represents only one of the semantic fields which allowed impersonal usage in the history of English, so we can investigate how impersonal
and near-synonymous non-impersonal verbs of other domains can be distinguished from each other and how these differences compare to the results
obtained in this book. The availability of suitable non-impersonal verbs will be
an issue: hunger and thirst, which behaved impersonally in Old and Middle
English, are practically the only verbs respectively denoting ‘to be hungry’ and
‘to be thirsty’ in the history of English (see HTOED 01.02.08.01.27.02.01 and
01.02.08.02.22), and Loureiro-Porto (2009) shows that all five verbs meaning
‘to need’ that she studied appeared in impersonal constructions at some point
in their history (behove, mister, need, (be)tharf; see section 2.2.2). One
promising area is the lexical domain of desire, which is related to, but set apart
from, psych-verbs in Levin (1993). Levin’s list of Present-day English verbs of
desire (1993: 194–5) consists not only of verbs which were once impersonal
(e.g. long, lust, thirst, yearn)12 but also of verbs which are not known to
have been used in impersonal constructions (e.g. crave, hope, pray, wish).13
As far as I can judge from the MED entries for these verbs, none of them is
sparsely recorded, so we will presumably not encounter the problem of scarce
data in standard corpora.
Finally, I should stress that the usability of the MED as a corpus for linguistic investigations must not be underestimated (see Miura 2012b, 2012c). Analysing its illustrative quotations not only brought to light a number of verbs
which were not previously known to have been impersonal but also allowed
me to build generalizations about the presence, absence, and spread of impersonal usage with Middle English verbs of emotion. One may certainly test the
findings against standard corpora in pursuit of further context, statistical support, and more refined search options such as analyses by subperiods and text
types. Nevertheless, the results of the present investigation have convinced
me that, if the MED quotations database is approached systematically, existing
knowledge of Middle English lexis and grammar will expand, perhaps significantly. Over the years various linguistic corpora of Middle English have been
compiled, and scholarly attention tends to focus on these new resources, but
the MED, apparently a tool of the past, should not be neglected.14 Even after
more than a decade since its completion, it is ‘a continuing project’ (Adams
2009: 345) and has further research potential. Although the lack of tagging
and lemmatization remains a major obstacle, I hope to have sufficiently demonstrated that, with appropriate care, there are considerable riches to be unearthed from this unconventional dictionary corpus.
244 | Middle English Verbs of Emotion
NOTES
Chapter 01
1. This monograph is unfortunately out of print. I am grateful to Dr Gabriela
Alboiu for sending me not only her review of the book but also a complete copy of the
book, which I could not obtain on my own.
2. See Denison (2008) for a review of Trousdale (2008).
3. See also ongoing research presented by Middeke (2012) and Yanagi (2012).
4. See example (3-4) in section 3.1 and its note, however.
5. The popularity of the topic is not restricted to English. See e.g. Richter & van
Hout (2010), who discuss argument linking of modern German verbs.
6. The term should be kept distinct from its use in pragmatic studies, as rightly
noted in Möhlig-Falke (2012: 6). In Seoane Posse (2000), for instance, ‘impersonal
constructions’ is used in reference to active constructions whose subject is an indefinite human agent such as everyone, people, one, we, you, and they. These constructions are also included in Malchukov & Siewierska’s (2011) definition of ‘impersonal
constructions’ in various modern and historical languages, which are viewed
broadly as constructions without a referential subject.
7. The history of methinks has attracted some scholarly interest in the last decade
or so. Most notably, Palander-Collin (1999) studied it as an instance of grammaticalization and analysed the role of the social factors in its use in late Middle and early
Modern English. Other studies along this line of argument are López-Couso (1996)
and Wischer (2000); see also Malak (2008: 274–8). Despite being considered archaic, methinks still has some productivity today, as can be seen from the analogical
use of mehopes. Hope is not known to have been attested in impersonal constructions in the history of English, but mehopes gives about 422,200 results on Google
(as of June 2013).
8. The copular verbs bēon/wesan ‘to be’ and weorðan ‘to become’ combine
with nominals, adjectives, past participles, and dative infinitives to yield structures
that share these four properties, namely so-called phrasal impersonals (e.g. me-obj
is wo ‘I am unhappy’; me-obj is betere to . . . ‘it is better for me to . . . ’), impersonal
passives (e.g. him-dat wæs holpen-ppl ‘he was helped’), and what Möhlig-Falke terms
‘infinitive of obligation’ (2012: 10–11; e.g. is to wundrigenne ‘it is to be marvelled’).
245
These have seldom been examined in previous studies (but see van der Gaaf 1904,
Visser 1963, Ogura 1986a, van der Wurff 1992) and will also be excluded from the
present work, which focuses on lexical verbs. According to Möhlig-Falke (2012: 14),
in Old English, approximately thirty-two nouns and adjectives occurred in phrasal
impersonals, while impersonal passives were found with about seventeen verbs.
9. I have adopted her modern English translations but not her grammatical
markers, and I have in places amended her glossing.
10. Denison (1993: 93) cites the following instance to show that rignan can take
a lexical subject and a dative Recipient in glosses at least:
&
he
rinde
heom
þane heofonlican mete to etanne
and he-nom rained-3sg them-dat the heavenly
food to eat
Latin: et pluit
illis
manna
ad manducandum
and rained-3sg them-dat heavenly food for eating
‘and he rained them for eating heavenly food’
[PsGlI (Lindelöf) [1186 (77.24)]]
11. She also observes that the source text of (1-3), The Seafarer, often involves archaic syntax possibly influenced by metre. However, metre may not have had a crucial effect on the absence of hit here, since norþan hit sniwde is a perfectly metrical
verse and belongs to the so-called Type A (lift, dip | lift, dip), which is the most
common type attested in Old English poetry (see Terasawa 2011: 34–5).
12. See section 2.3 on the validity of the term ‘Experiencer’ for the first (pro)nominal argument of person in impersonal constructions.
13. Moessner (1984) put forward a unique hypothesis that impersonal is not a
syntactic property of verbs but a semantic property (reference property) of pronouns.
Her hypothesis, however, has unfortunately not been followed up by subsequent
researchers.
14. Caution is needed for this statistic, since in her list of these forty-seven verbs
(2012: 83–4), Möhlig-Falke does not consider prefixed derivatives as distinct lemmata when they have the same meaning as the simplex. Hence, hrēowan,
gehrēowan, and ofhrēowan are treated as a single verb (ge/of)hrēowan ‘to feel
sorrow/pity; rue, repent’. A few derivatives which have the opposite meaning are
also counted as a single lexeme: for instance, (ge)līcian ‘to please; be pleased’ and
of/mislīcian ‘to displease, be displeased’ are treated as one verb.
15. One of these verbs, recchen ‘to care for’, is actually used once in impersonal
constructions in Old English, as acknowledged in Bosworth & Toller’s An AngloSaxon Dictionary (s.v. recan: ‘(1 a) used impersonally with acc. of person’):
hi
þæsmetes
ne recð
they-acc [the food]-gen not cares-3sg
‘they do not care about the food’
[Met 0178 (13.44)]
Möhlig-Falke excludes reccan from her investigation because this example is
from a poetic text that translates Latin and is thus unlikely to reflect genuine Old
English syntax (2012: 110 n. 2). Allen (1995: 73) does not find any other example of
246 | Notes
the impersonal use of reccan either. It may also be worth pointing out that MöhligFalke counts mēnen ‘to remember; to complain, grieve’ as two different verbs, in
accordance with its treatment in the OED and MED, which however note that they
stem from the same Old English verb mǢ nan.
16. The etymology of irken is in fact not straightforwardly Scandinavian. The
OED does cite the Old Norse verb yrkja ‘to work, to take effect upon’ and Swedish
yrka ‘to urge, press, enforce’ but observes that affinities with these are ‘uncertain’.
17. As far as I am aware of, connection between the choice of impersonal constructions and the person of the Experiencer has not been comprehensively examined, but Tani’s (1997) case study of like and list in late Middle and early Modern
English drama texts led to an interesting finding: the first-person Experiencer correlates most closely with the use of like in impersonal constructions, whereas the
third-person Experiencer tends to prefer personal constructions. On the other hand,
van Gelderen (2001) found that in Beowulf and Laȝamon’s Brut the first person is
used less frequently in impersonal constructions than the third person, while such
a split is not observable in Chaucer, Gower, and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
18. The first example is quoted from Tani (1997: 45), while the second instance
comes from my own readings for my MA thesis (Miura 2005). The base text for both
instances is Benson (1988), and modern English translations are mine.
19. Differences may lie in the level which is not directly relevant to semantics.
In (1-14), for instance, an impersonal construction may be selected in the reply because the Experiencer is the first person, which is said to favour impersonal use (see
e.g. McCawley 1976, Tani 1997).
20. At least the first example that he provides from modern Spanish may be
problematic:
Me-obj gusta María ‘I like Maria’ (Experiencer-object)
Gusto de María ‘I like Maria’ (Experiencer-subject)
Some of my colleagues, who are all Galician speakers, tell me that they would not
use the Experiencer-subject variant, which sounds either Latin-American Spanish
or even Portuguese. One of them, Dr Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, finds it especially
odd that gusto de is paired with a human complement (personal communication,
October 2012). Croft does not mention who gave him this pair of instances and interpretations.
21. Note, however, that friclan is attested only three times in the surviving
texts (DOE s.v. friclan), so the lack of evidence for impersonal use may simply be accidental. Gitsian is attested about forty times (DOE s.v. gītsian), and according to
Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 115) survey, (ge)lystan is employed in impersonal constructions 172 times out of its 195 occurrences in the DOE Corpus. Allen (1995: 73) cites
giernan ‘to yearn’ and wilnian ‘to desire’ as other non-impersonal verbs nearsynonymous with lystan. Both verbs, however, are found in impersonal constructions in late Middle English, though most probably as a nonce expression.
(a) Of this thyng To wytt the sothe full sore me
yarnes Of this new kyng.
of this thing to know the truth very sorely me-obj yearns of this new king
‘I wish very strongly to know the truth of this thing, of this new king.’
[a1500(a1460) Towneley Pl.(Hnt HM 1) 150/305; MED]
Notes | 247
(b) Apples þat þere groweþ semeþ so faire . . . þat who þat hem seeþ,
apples that there grow
seem so beautiful that who that them sees
hym wilneþ for to ete.
him-obj wishes for to eat
‘Apples which grow there seem so beautiful . . . that whoever sees them wishes
to eat them.’
[(a1387) Trev. Higd.(StJ-C H.1) 1.119; MED]
Example (b) with wilnen is attested in a translation of a Latin text, but the impersonal use is independent from the Latin original (desiderium edendi gignant ‘they
produce desire to eat’), which does not involve an impersonal construction. The verb
gignant is a third person plural form, and the sense of desire is expressed by the
noun desiderium, not by a verb.
22. It is important to note here that verbs of nearly identical concepts have different mapping across languages (Landau 2010: 56). For instance, the Icelandic
idiom meaning ‘forget’ (líða úr minni) can take a dative subject (Barðdal 2004: 115).
The Spanish verb olvidar ‘to forget’ can also appear in an impersonal pattern (Croft
1991: 220–1, 1993: 65–6, 2012: 235):
Se me
olvidó
hacerlo
self me-dat forgot-3sg do
‘I forgot to do it.’
Warmness can also be expressed in phrasal impersonals in Icelandic and German
(vera/verða heitt and warm sein/werden, respectively, both ‘to feel/become warm’;
Barðdal 2004: 116).
Chapter 02
1. The Old French loanword remember is a case in point: its impersonal usage
is practically limited to Chaucer. See Miura (2007) for details.
2. This is a ‘more or less arbitrary’ working definition of a rare word in MöhligFalke (2012: 151 n. 2).
3. See example (3-4) in section 3.1 and its note, however.
4. The past decade has seen a series of publications from a group of researchers
working on the interrelationship between syntax, semantics, and lexis of Old English verbal classes (e.g. Cortés Rodríguez & Pérez Quintero 2001, Cortés Rodríguez
& Mairal Usón 2002, Díaz Vera 2002, Faber & Vázquez González 2002, González
Orta 2002, 2003–4, 2006, Cortés Rodríguez & Torres Medina 2003, Martín Díaz &
Cortés Rodríguez 2003, Cortés Rodríguez & González Orta 2006, Sosa Acevedo
2007). Their common methodology is in a lexicographical framework termed the
Functional-Lexematic Model, which is designed as a formalized grammatical lexicon. They typically combine the semantic information from standard dictionaries of
Old English with morphological data and attempt to reconstruct the paradigmatic,
syntagmatic, cognitive, and pragmatic dimension of a particular Old English lexical
field. They establish a set of lexical rules in the end.
5. Note, however, that sēmen and thinken are not entirely synonymous. Most
importantly, sēmen is exemplified in impersonal constructions not only in the sense
248 | Notes
‘to appear to’ but also ‘to be fitting’ (its meaning in the source language), which is
not found with thinken (MED s.v. sēmen v.(2) 10–12):
Many hundretthis . . . skyrmysshed wyth oure foreryders as hem
beste semed.
many hundreds
skirmished with our outriders as them-obj best fitted
‘Many hundreds . . . skirmished with our outriders as it was most fitting for them.’
[(a1470) Malory Wks.(Win-C) 243/2]
6. Modern English translations of Elmer’s examples are all mine.
7. See de Haan (2007) for an analysis of the raising construction with Germanic seem verbs from the perspective of grammaticalization, more specifically
subjectification.
8. The only exception that I am aware of is Kletzmayr (1996), an unpublished
MA thesis supervised by Schendl.
9. Modern English translations of examples from Loureiro-Porto (2005, 2009)
are all hers. So are the abbreviations for textual sources.
10. For these subperiods of the Helsinki Corpus, see the online manual available at <http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/manuals/HC/INDEX.HTM> (last accessed
June 2013). Loureiro-Porto attributes the decided preference for bare infinitives with
behove in M2 to the highly frequent use of the verb in Dan Michel’s Ayenbite of
Inwit. The text contains no examples of any other verb of need and thus expresses all
kinds of necessity with behove alone.
11. All the five examples here are quoted from the MED entry for shāmen ‘to feel
shame, be ashamed’.
12. Tissari’s (2004) study of like in late Middle, early Modern, and Present-day
English also shows that the cause(r) is usually non-human.
13. Modern English translations are Allen’s for (2-17) to (2-19) and mine for
(2-20).
14. Note, however, that from about the first quarter of the fifteenth century
please developed a subject Experiencer in the construction with an unexpressed
proposition (e.g. as you please; ‘NO PROP construction’ in Allen’s terminology).
See Allen (1995: 297–301, 338–46) for a detailed discussion of this particular
construction.
15. Modern English translations of Carroll’s examples are all hers. I am grateful
to her for allowing me to reproduce examples from her unpublished thesis.
16. In addition to these, the With/In Alternation (e.g. Boil it with wine vs Boil it
in wine) and the use of the present participle of the verb as a modifier of hot (e.g.
boiling hot) are cited as the alternations in which verbs of change of state do not participate (Carroll 1997: 227). However, the former is possible with drīen, if only with
a different kind of object, and the latter is found with melten (1997: 183–4, 199).
Furthermore, Carroll (1997: 148) finds no examples of rōsten and frīen, two of the
four basic cooking verbs, modifying hot, at least in her corpus.
17. The full Together Reciprocal Alternation is in fact not found with rōsten,
although the verb is attested in the Together construction (i.e. (2-24b); Carroll 1997:
141 n. 38).
18. Some verbs of change of state (e.g. brennen ‘to burn’, scorchen ‘to singe’,
tōsten ‘to toast’) denote irreversible processes, even though they tend to pattern
Notes | 249
syntactically with drīen, hēten, and melten (Carroll 1997: 227–8). Carroll leaves
the question of the syntactic significance of irreversibility of the action to a future
study.
19. States, Activities/Processes, Achievement, and Accomplishment are the
four aspectual event classes which have traditionally been distinguished (see Kearns
2000: 200–18). See also section 2.4.2.
20. Role labels such as ÆFFECTED, AGENT, and BEN/REC are used in the
dictionary only in order to contrast two complements which are formally identical. Their ranges of application are wider than those found in case-grammar
approaches.
21. Eventualities are a cover term for ‘different kinds of events, actions and
states of affairs’ (Kearns 2000: 150).
22. As should be clear from the sample example in Present-day English, ‘accusative’ here refers to an abstract Case category rather than morphological accusative
case, unlike my use of ‘accusative’ regarding the Old English data in Chapter 1. The
same applies to ‘dative’ at the end of the paragraph. See Crystal (2008) for a useful
summary of the different ways in which linguists use terms for cases. In this book
I avoid using ‘accusative’ or ‘dative’ for discussions of Middle English and beyond,
when morphological distinctions between them are lost. The cover term ‘objective’
is used throughout to refer to what would have been accusative or dative in Old
­English.
23. See also an experimental survey in Matsuzaki (2008).
24. A prototypical instance of a transitive construction given by Trousdale (his
‘Type T’) is as follows, where he functions as Agent, þone dracan as Patient, and the
verb ‘denotes an action involving the transfer of physical energy’ (2008: 307):
he
acwealde þone dracan
he-nom killed[the dragon]-acc
‘he killed the dragon’
[ÆHom 22 [0125 (451)]]
Chapter 03
1. The editions consulted are Beadle (2009) for the York Plays, Benson (1988) for
Chaucer’s works, Schmidt (1995) for Piers Plowman, and Stevens & Cawley (1994) for
Towneley Plays.
2. Van der Gaaf (1904: 143) quotes two other instances of the impersonal use of
drēden as ‘mistakes’ due to confusion between impersonal and personal constructions in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. However, unlike (3-2), neither of
them is actually an unambiguous example of impersonal constructions; see Miura
(2008: 187–9) for details.
3. This is the only example that I am aware of where the verb love is used impersonally, though it is presumably influenced by the coordination with list, which
is commonly employed in impersonal constructions in the history of English (see
Pantaleo 2002: 152–3). Compare the following instance, also from Piers Plowman
B-Text, where there is a coordinate subject deletion before love, which is immediately preceded by an impersonal construction:
250 | Notes
Patriarkes and prophetes and apostles were the children,
patriarchs and prophets and apostles were the children
And Crist and Cristendom and alle Cristene Holy Chirche
and Christ and Christianity and all Christian Holy Church
In menynge that man moste on o God bileve,
in meaning that man must in one God believe
And there hym
likede and [Ø] lovede, in thre [leodes] hym shewede.
and there him-obj pleased and loved in three persons him showed
‘Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles were those children, and Christ, Christianity,
and all Christians are Holy Church, in the sense that man must believe in one God,
and as it pleased him, showed himself in three persons.’
[XVI 198–201]
4. The unique surviving manuscript of Towneley Plays in fact has my instead of
me. The objective Experiencer is thus an editorial product, though we cannot completely reject the possibility that my may be a scribal error for me. Some editors
insert hart ‘heart’ after my in order to compensate for the lack of a noun (e.g. Happé
1975, Walker 2000).
5. See her comment on this (2012: 227 n. 4). Other verbs which also have the
label ‘impersonal’ in their MED entries and which should but do not appear in
Möhlig-Falke’s list include availen ‘to help (sb.), assist; do good to (sb.), benefit, be
profitable to’ (s.v. 1a. (c), (c1395) Chaucer CT.Fri.(Manly-Rickert) D.1324), failen ‘to
be lacking (in anything)’ (s.v. 8. (c), a1425(?c1384) Wycl.Church (Bod 788) 356), misfallen ‘to befall (sb.) unfortunately or with evil consequences’ (s.v. (b), (c1385) Chaucer CT.Kn.(Manly-Rickert) A.2388), and stōnden ‘to fare’ (s.v. 31b. (c), c1230(?a1200)
Ancr.(Corp-C 402) 43/7; (c1300) Havelok (LdMisc 108) 2983). It might also be mentioned here that her list of Old English impersonal verbs which have survived into
Middle and early Modern English (Möhlig-Falke 2012: 206–7) should include
alomp ‘happened’, mistīden ‘to fare badly’, and mistīmen ‘to suffer misfortune’, all
of which bear the label ‘impersonal’ in their MED entries and are recorded in unambiguous impersonal constructions in thirteenth-century works.
6. One may note that the four verbs mentioned here all start with the letter A,
but the absence of the label ‘impersonal’ in the MED where it is expected is not limited to the volumes for this particular letter, as can be seen with chēven (see also the
entry for birīsen ‘to be fitting or becoming’). A few impersonal verbs starting with
the letter A have the label ‘impersonal’ in the definitions (e.g. agrīsen ‘to shudder
with fear, awe, or dread’, agrūwie ‘feel horror (of sth.)’). However, as far as verbs of
emotion are concerned, the label does tend to be missing in the earlier part of the
alphabet, so we may say that the MED editors became more consistent with the use
of this particular grammatical label as the compilation of the dictionary made progress. In this respect it is interesting to see that the specification ‘with personal obj.’
is restricted to the entries for letters A to F.
7. See Samuels (1965: 38–40, 1972: 180) for the theoretical orientation of the
HTOED project.
8. These exclude certain closed class words, nonce-words, transparent
compounds of limited attestation, words restricted to later dialect use, and
Notes | 251
highly-specialized technical and scientific vocabulary (Kay & Wotherspoon 1997:
48; see also Collier & Kay 1980–1: 81–3). The draft revisions incorporated in the ongoing third edition of the OED are not reflected in the corpus either.
9. Old English entries are simply designated ‘OE’.
10. Available
at
<http://historicalthesaurus.arts.gla.ac.uk/webtheshtml/
structureclassif.html> (last accessed June 2013).
11. The issue of the definitions and classifications of emotion will be revisited in
Chapter 6.
12. This decision, however, is strongly criticized in Rothwell (2001), who proposes that a programme of new reading for Middle English should be initiated in
order to incorporate new printed evidence and unpublished evidence in manuscript
and typescript and to verify and update the existing entries.
13. The TME was expected to be preceded by the provisionally titled book
Middle English semantic field studies, which is the Middle English equivalent of the
work undertaken by Vic Strite for Old English (1989). Along with Sylvester & Roberts’s Middle English word studies (2000), which was inspired by Cameron,
Kingsmill & Amos’s Old English word studies (1983), this volume of semantic studies was meant to be one of the two preliminary research tools for the TME. However, it is still uncertain whether this volume or the TME itself will be published
after all.
14. As we will see in section 5.1, the MED normally gives the date of the preferred manuscript as the governing date, followed by the presumed composition
date in parenthesis (Lewis 1997, 2002a, 2002b, Lewis & Williams 2007), whereas
the OED generally only provides the presumed date of composition. Because the
same work is given different dates in the OED and MED, Burchfield (1977: 215) suggests that the conventional dates assigned to Middle English works in the MED need
reconsideration (see also Carroll 1997: 36 n. 9). The ongoing third edition of the
OED will normally follow the double-dating system in the MED; see ‘Documentation’ under ‘Preface to the Third Edition of the OED’ on the OED Online <http://
public.oed.com/the-oed-today/preface-to-the-third-edition-of-the-oed/> (last accessed June 2013).
15. This was double-checked with the spreadsheet showing all the ‘impersonal
verbs’ in the HTOED, which was kindly sent to me by Professor Kay in April 2009.
It shows that these verbs only appear in the sections ‘Life’ (01.02), ‘Physical sensibility’ (01.03), and ‘Mental capacity’ (02.01).
Chapter 04
1. 02.02.09 and 02.02.14 do not include any Old and Middle English verbs.
Note also that 02.02.01, 02.02.11, and 02.02.13 lack verb headings, as mentioned in
section 3.2.
2. The impersonal use of dare is not recognized in the OED entry, presumably
because the verb is sometimes very difficult to distinguish from the impersonal verb
tharf (OE þurfan) in both form and meaning, as acknowledged in the MED entry
for durren (PDE dare). See section 2.2.2 on the impersonal use of tharf.
3. The names of these files are: Joy, Love, Suffer, Hate, Excite, Emotion, Anger,
Pity, Envy, Repute, Contempt, Pride, Humility, Disrepute, Esteem, Gratitude, Courage,
252 | Notes
and Fear. The majority of them have survived into the final version, occasionally with
minor changes to the names.
4. The names of these files are much closer to those of the final HTOED categories: Emotion/feeling, Excitement, Pleasure/enjoyment, Mental pain/suffering,
Anger, Love, Hate, Esteem/regard, Reputation, Disesteem/contempt, Disrepute,
Pity/compassion, Jealous/envious feelings, Gratitude, Pride, Humility.
5. Diacritics in BT(S) headwords are not always retained.
6. In Möhlig-Falke’s (2012: 115) survey, seventy-three out of the total seventy-five
occurrences of an/on/ge-hagian are impersonal. The verb gehagian ‘to be convenient or suitable for a person; to be within the means or power of a person’ is not included here because it is absent from the HTOED category.
7. Note that modern German belieben and Dutch believen are ‘both usually
impersonal’ (OED s.v. belove, etymology).
8. One may think that It in this example is referential, but a non-referential interpretation seems plausible enough, since it parallels it remembreth me in the preceding clause, where it is clearly non-referential.
9. I am grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for drawing my attention to
this example, which I overlooked in my initial analysis.
10. Forþencan is defined ‘to misthink, disdain, despise, distrust, despair’ in
BT (DOE ‘to despair’), but this meaning did not survive into Middle English; see
OED s.v. †forthink II. 3. a. trans. ‘To despise or neglect. Old English only.’
11. Another verb of repentance, repenten (OF repentir), is first attested in impersonal constructions in the fourteenth century. It is not included in the above
discussion because all of its entries in the HTOED category ‘Mental pain/suffering’
are dated later than 1500. Pre-1500 uses are subsumed under the sections ‘Morality’
(03.05) and ‘Faith’ (03.07), both under the third major division ‘The social world’
(see section 3.2).
12. I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for suggesting this
possibility.
13. See note 16 for Chapter 1 on the etymology of irken.
14. See Diller’s (2008: 125) suggestion that Hate should be treated as a subtype
of Anger.
15. The OED entry for loathe records impersonal constructions with formal it
until the end of the sixteenth century (s.v. †1. †b.).
16. The HTOED category ‘Pity/compassion’ also subsumes ofearmian ‘to have
pity or compassion’, a variant of which, ofhearmian, is employed in an impersonal
construction as a verb of Mental pain/suffering (see (4-26) in section 4.3). Ofearmian, on the other hand, is not impersonal.
17. ‘There abashed, o’erwhelmed with shame, they shall wander giddily, and
bear their wicked works, the burden of their sins, and the folk shall gaze thereon.’
18. Some overlap of quotations between the DOE and MED is due to the fact that
the DOE encompasses late twelfth- and thirteenth-century texts in order not to overlook the materials of the transitional period between Old and Middle English
(Healey 1997: 57).
19. The OED traces the etymology of the verb dread to early Middle English
drēden or drǢ den, noting that the verb is ‘not found in Old English’. However, the
Notes | 253
DOE records approximately thirty occurrences of drǢ dan (‘mainly in psalter
glosses, esp. PsGlK’).
20. Note that in modern German schaudern, a cognate of shudder, can be
used in impersonal constructions. The English verb shudder is first attested in the
early fourteenth century (OED s.v. shudder), but it is not known to have behaved impersonally.
Chapter 05
1. See, however, Hundt & Leech (2012), who argue that small corpora or even
their subsections have advantages over mega-size corpora in that they allow for careful and precise sampling, close comparability of the data, manual tagging of all the
hits, and exhaustive analysis of (a particular set of) examples.
2. Wakayama (1999) also briefly examines impersonal constructions found in
the Helsinki Corpus, although he does not incorporate any of the important discussions or findings of previous studies on these constructions.
3. For more information about these corpora, see <http://www.ling.upenn.edu/
hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-3/> (PPCME2) and <http://www.uibk.ac.at/anglistik/
projects/icamet/> (ICAMET; both last accessed June 2013).
4. Alliterative poetry forms the majority of extant Old English poems, but quite
a few verbs are known to have been used in impersonal constructions in Old English
poetry (Ogura 1986a: 18).
5. For more details about these three corpora, see <http://www.uibk.ac.at/­
anglistik/projects/icamet/> (the letter corpus of ICAMET), <http://www.helsinki.fi/
varieng/CoRD/corpora/CEEM/MEMTindex.html> (MEMT), and <http://www.­
helsinki.fi/varieng/domains/CEEC.html> (CEEC family), respectively (all last
­accessed June 2013).
6. The corpus is promised to eventually extend its coverage to earlier texts. See
the project website <http://www.uis.no/meg-c/> for the latest update (last accessed
June 2013).
7. MLibrary Digital Collections at University of Michigan cite 18,402,897 as the
number of words for this corpus <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/c/collsize/
collsize?detail=cme> (last accessed June 2013), but the figure actually represents all
the words in the file, including metadata and markup (Kossmann 2007: 43 n. 53, 44
n. 54). There is unfortunately no tagging to extract the Middle English data alone
(personal communication, Christina Powell, September 2009).
8. See also Brinton, Dollinger & Fee (2012), who demonstrate with two case
studies the utility of a dictionary-based database (Bank of Canadian English; BCE)
for historical linguistic research. This database comprises citations from the first
edition of A Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (DCHP) and updated
citations for the second edition and is thus structurally very similar to the OED on
CD-ROM. However, in contrast to the OED quotations database, the BCE was from
the beginning intended to be used as a research tool for historical linguistics and
dialectology. Its citations, specifically the updated citations for the second edition of
the DCHP, are therefore longer than the quotations in the OED and have a wider
regional and temporal coverage. See the project website <http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/
sdollinger/dchp2.htm> for the latest information about the DCHP and BCE (last accessed June 2013).
254 | Notes
9. The word count provided by the MLibrary Digital Collections is 22,347,978,
but this again includes metadata and markup <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/c/
collsize/collsize?detail=med> (last accessed June 2013). According to Christina
Powell (personal communication, December 2010), the number of words for the
quotations appears to be between twelve and twelve and a half million.
10. This is the practice recommended in Rissanen (1989: 16–17, 2008: 65–6),
Curzan & Palmer (2006: 26–8), and Kohnen (2006: 87); see also Kossmann
(2007: 48).
11. See note 14 for Chapter 3; see also Cannon (2001) for a criticism of the doubledating system in the MED.
12. The context is expanded with the help of the Corpus of Middle English Prose
and Verse for (5-20) and Benson (1988) for (5-21).
13. Sosa Acevedo (2009) argues that ‘contact’ is not necessarily provided by the
inherent semantics of these verbs but that the conative construction in Old English
as well as Present-day English is licensed by the presence of telicity (i.e. an endpoint
for the action) via location/contact (destination).
14. Hereafter quotes are used to differentiate examples like (5-29a) and (5-29b)
from prototypical cases of the alternation like (5-30a) and (5-30b).
15. Auen, which became impersonal in late Middle English, has one example of
the ToE-subject transitive construction in the early Middle English data
(c1225(?c1200) St.Kath.(1) (Einenkel) 1249), but this is excluded from the table since
the OED dates the earliest use of the verb to 1303.
16. Another instance which suggests an eventive reading for quāken (and
chiveren) is as follows, where faste could be interpreted as a rate adverb meaning
‘rapidly’. However, we cannot deny the possibility that it is an intensifier meaning
‘hard’ (see MED s.v. fast(e 9–11), which then does not necessarily imply that the verb
modified is eventive:
A-ȝein þe winde heom wende, heo quakeden and chyuereden faste
against the wind them turned they quaked
and shivered
rapidly/strongly
in grete pine.
in great pain
‘The wind turned against them; they quaked and shivered rapidly/strongly in great
pain.’
[c1300 SLeg.Patr.(LdMisc 108) 335]
17. Note that the modern German equivalent grauen can be used impersonally.
18. Illustrative quotations for dŏuten and idŏuten, which appear as two separate entries in the MED, are integrated into a single line.
19. The edition by Conlee (1998) has thought ‘seemed’ instead of dought, although it uses the same manuscript as the base text. Clearly, the impersonal use of
dŏuten looked unusual enough for the editor to modify it. Compare the exceptional
impersonal use of quāken in (3-5), which is also modified by some editors.
20. As far as I examined, this collocation is not attested in the Corpus of Middle
English Prose and Verse either.
21. The original quotation is expanded by consulting the Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse.
Notes | 255
22. Illustrative quotations for wrēthen and iwrēthen are integrated into a
single line, though they appear as two separate entries in the MED. The same applies to (i)wratthen.
23. The difference of rank or power between the Experiencer and the Target of
Emotion is also observed with the word wrath in Chaucer (Diller 1994: 223–5): its
Experiencer is often a god, both Christian and pagan.
24. Wrōthen had been existent since Old English, but the relevant examples in
the MED entry are all dated later than the middle of the fifteenth century. In the
OED entry (s.v. †wroth, v.), there is only one citation from before late Middle English
(c975 Rushw. Gosp. Mark x. 41).
25. The original quotation is expanded by consulting the Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse.
26. This may parallel Diller’s (2012: 120) finding about the noun tēne and its
derivatives: the anger expressed by tēne is similar to wounding or hurting in that it
is usually caused directly and intentionally.
27. The original quotation in the MED entry is expanded with the text in Ginsberg (1992).
28. The original quotation in the MED entry is expanded with the text provided
in the Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse.
29. Incidentally, the words ‘anger’ and ‘irritable’ are respectively labelled as
emotion and mood in Ekman (1984: 330). See section 6.3 on the definitions and classifications of emotions in the psychology literature.
30. There is another example which the MED editors seem to regard as an impersonal construction (with the label ‘with personal obj.’), but it can also be interpreted as a ToE-subject transitive construction:
Me
areoweð þi sar.
me-obj pities
[your pain]-obj/nom
‘I feel pity for your pain. / Your pain causes me pity.’
[c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana (Bod 34) 31/317]
As in Tables 5.1 and 5.9, only unquestionable instances of impersonal constructions
are charted in Table 5.17.
31. The original quotation in the MED is expanded by consulting Benson (1988).
32. There is an error in the classification of examples in the MED. The only quotation for the sense ‘to pity (sb.)’ in the entry for bireusen actually illustrates bireuen:
Þe gode and þe clene . . . Nulle hoe neuer ene Birewen ne bimene.
the good and the clean
will not they never once pity
nor sympathize
‘The good and the pure . . . they will never pity or sympathize.’
[?a1300 Sayings St.Bede (Dgb 86) 353]
This must be replaced with the instance quoted in the OED entry (s.v. †bireusy 2):
Þe milde and þe clene . . . Nulleþ heo neuer ene By-reusy ne bimene.
the mild and the clean
will not they never once pity
nor sympathize
‘The mild and the pure . . . they will never pity or sympathize.’
[c1275 Sinners Beware 341 in Old Eng. Misc. 83]
256 | Notes
33. (Bi)mēnen, however, is found in passive constructions where the Target of
Emotion is the subject:
Whan hit was wist . . . þat william was sek, mochel was he
mened of
when it was known that William was sick much was he-nom pitied-ppl by
more & of lasse.
more and by less
‘When it was found out . . . that William was sick, he was greatly pitied by everyone.’
[a1375 WPal.(KC 13) 1490]
34. The table excludes the following instance, whose impersonal use may be
ascribable to the impersonal verb thurven ‘to need’ (see section 2.2.2):
Þenche we ure giltes er
þe dom cume, and forleten ure synnes . . . þat god
think we our guilt before the doom come and abandon our sins
that God
ne finde þanne on us no gilt unpined; þanne ne þarf us
noðer gramien
not find then on us no guilt unpunished then not needs us-obj neither anger
ne shamien.
nor shame
‘Let us think about our guilt before the doom arrives and abandon our sins . . . so
that God will then find no guilt unpunished on us; then we need to be neither
angry nor ashamed.’
[a1225(?a1200) Trin.Hom.(Trin-C B.14.52) 69]
There is another example where shāmen is governed by an auxiliary verb which
can be used impersonally:
Wrecche . . . ssamie þe
aȝte sore To beode me so lite pine.
wretch
shame you-obj ought sorely to offer me so little pain
‘Wretch . . . you ought to be greatly ashamed to offer me so little pain.’
[a1325 SLeg.(Corp-C 145) 322/223]
The impersonal use of ouen in the past form with present meaning ‘ought, should’
is dated from the late fourteenth century in the OED (s.v. ought, v. II. 8. †b.) and MED
(s.v. ouen 5. (g), (h), (i)). This instance from the early fourteenth century is thus more
likely to be impersonal due to the impersonal use of shāmen, which has been recorded since Old English. This example is thus not excluded from the table.
35. See section 4.7 for my reason for not regarding this verb as impersonal.
36. In tables within this section, illustrative quotations for shēnden and
ishēnden, which appear as two separate entries in the MED, are incorporated into a
single column.
37. I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for this input. A similar
variation is found in the manuscripts of Chaucer’s works, where the scribes very
often replace an impersonal construction in the exemplar with a personal construction (see Tani 1995 and Ohno 2001).
38. Shāmen as well as bishēnden and ishēnden is found in what looks like
transitive-reflexive uses (with the self-strategy; see section 2.2.2), but these
Notes | 257
e­ xamples are excluded from Table 5.21 since the subject is not the Experiencer and
the whole construction is causative:
For who that thenkth his love spiede With moerdre, he schal with worldes
for who that thinks his love expedite with murder he shall with world’s
schame Himself . . . schame.
shame himself
shame
‘One who intends to expedite his love with murder shall . . . put himself to shame
with public disgrace.’
[(a1393) Gower CA (Frf 3) 3.2200]
39. As is practice with preceding tables (Tables 5.1, 5.9, 5.17, 5.20), only unquestionable instances of impersonal constructions are tabulated here. Examples that can
be interpreted as another syntactic construction, such as the following, are excluded.
Derfely for dole why ne were I dede? Me
lathis my liff.
miserably for sorrow why not were I dead me-obj loathes [my life]-obj/nom
‘Why would I not be dead miserably for sorrow? I am disgusted with my life / My
life is hateful to me.’
[a1450 Yk.Pl.(Add 35290) 107/149]
40. Cruse (1986: 268–9) argues that hate and loathe in Present-day English
are not absolutely synonymous, on the grounds that (a) is ‘more natural’ than (b):
(a) I don’t just hate him, I loathe him.
(b) I don’t just loathe him, I hate him.
41. The MED assigns the definitions ‘to show hatred towards (sb.); assail,
punish, persecute; speak out against, revile’ and ‘to injure or destroy (sth.)’ for (5163) and (5-164) respectively. When I referred to (5-164) during my presentation at
ICEHL-17 (Miura 2012a), Professor Teresa Fanego mentioned the possibility that
hateþ might actually be the verb haste. The sense ‘hasten’ may be contextually more
suitable than ‘hate’, and haste has been in use since the beginning of the fourteenth century (i.e. before the date of this example), but the absence of <s> is tricky.
The modern French verb lacks <s> (hâter), and the Old French equivalent is sometimes recorded without <s> (AND s.v. haster), but all the forms provided in spelling
variants and illustrative quotations in the OED and MED entries for haste have <s>.
The same applies to the entries for the noun haste.
42. The MED has separate entries for līken and ilīken, with only two citations
(both impersonal constructions) for the latter. Their examples are put together in a
single line in this and subsequent tables of this section.
43. The Experiencer is sometimes governed by a preposition as in the following
instance, but the presence or absence of a preposition is not differentiated in the
table since the distinction is not important for the argument of this book.
Misoysiþ hem as it
schall lyke to ȝou.
misuse them as it-nom shall please to you-obj
‘Misuse them as it shall please you.’
[(a1382) WBible(1) (Bod 959) Gen.19.8]
258 | Notes
44. The MED has separate entries for quēmen and iquēmen. Their examples
are put together in Table 5.33 and subsequent tables.
45. The original quotation is expanded by consulting the Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse.
46. Joien and tikelen are kept separate from the other impersonal verbs since
their ‘impersonal’ uses are exclusive to impersonal constructions with formal it.
Emplēsen does not form an entry in the OED; the single quotation in the MED entry
is dated c1450.
47. Lŏven is sometimes used in constructions like the following, which look
like middle-reflexive constructions since a simple form of the pronoun is used, but
hem here is reciprocal rather than reflexive (see MED s.v. hem 2. (b)):
Þese ladyes
loued hem so welle, Eiþer to oþer her wille dud telle.
[these ladies]-nom loved them so well either to other their will did tell
‘These ladies loved each other so well that they told their wish to each other.’
[a1400 Cursor (Trin-C R.3.8) 11051]
48. One of the anonymous reviewers of this book writes that Tissari’s statement
does not hold for Old English, when God is often the Experiencer of līcian.
49. The original quotation in the MED entry is expanded by consulting the
Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse.
50. This verb is also subsumed under the category ‘Anger’ and its definition
contains ‘irritate’, but I judged that it would be better to treat it in this section along
with another derivative unpaien and near-synonyms displēsen, misplēsen, and
unlīken.
51. Wērīen is kept separate from the other impersonal verbs since its ‘impersonal’ uses are exclusive to impersonal constructions with formal it. The same applies to subsequent tables in this section.
52. The added beginning of this quotation comes from the Corpus of Middle
English Prose and Verse.
53. Compleinen has a single instance which looks like a transitive-reflexive
construction, with the reflexive pronoun in the self-form (see section 2.2.2), but it is
also found in unambiguously middle-reflexive uses with the simple form of the
­pronoun:
I
gan my sylff
compleyne, Dysconsolaat off al vertu.
I-nom did myself-refl complain disconsolate of all virtue
‘I mourned (about myself), despairing of all virtue.’
[a1475(?a1430) Lydg. Pilgr.(Vit C.13) 19678]
Yit he . . . On me ne wolde have pite . . . Though I
wepe alwey and me
yet he
on me not would have pity
though I-nom weep always and me-refl
compleyne.
complain
‘Yet he . . . would not have pity on me . . . though I always weep and mourn.’
[a1425(?a1400) RRose (Htrn 409) 3498]
Notes | 259
54. It is however recorded in passive constructions where the Target of Emotion
is the subject:
Every worschipe
is envied.
[every worship]-nom is envied-ppl
‘Every worship is envied.’
[(a1393) Gower CA (Frf 3) 2.2828]
55. I owe to one of the anonymous reviewers for kindly pointing this out to me.
56. See <http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=7&c=10> (last accessed June 2013).
57. The transitive-reflexive use of glōrīen and glōrifīen may partly owe to
the foreign interference, since each verb has one example which translates a Latin
reflexive construction. Compare the following pair of instances, where the ‘selfstrategy’ is employed to translate a reflexive construction (se gloriatur ‘he prides
himself’), while the simple pronoun is used to translate a passive construction
(gloriati sunt ‘they are proud’):
(a) Paul þe apostle . . . gloryiþ hymself [L se gloriatur] to han lerned þe law of
Paul the apostle
prides himself-refl
to have learned the law of
moyses.
Moses
‘The Apostle Paul . . . prides himself of having learned the law of Moses.’
[(a1382) WBible(1) Pref.Jer.(Bod 959) 3.8]
(b) Hij þat hated þe, gloried hem [L gloriati sunt] in-myddes of þy passion.
they that hated you exalted them-refl
inside
of your passion
‘Those who hated you exalted inside of your passion.’
[c1350 MPPsalter (Add 17376) 73.5]
Chapter 06
1. Professor Michael Adams is currently working on a monograph about this
topic, if not much on grammatical issues, with special reference to the MED. See his
web profile for more information about this (<http://www.iub.edu/~engweb/faculty/­
profile_mAdams.shtml>; last accessed June 2013).
2. See Shibasaki (2010) on the historical transition of transitivity in English but
with special emphasis on referential forms of Object.
3. Moods in psychology usually refer to longer time spans than emotions,
though duration is not the sole distinctive feature (see Ekman 1984, 1992, Davidson
& Ekman 1994).
4. Ekman (1984: 329 n. 1) treats jealousy as an example of ‘emotional plots’,
which are distinct from emotions and specify ‘the particular context within which
specific emotions will be felt by specific persons, casting the actors and what has or
is about to transpire’. Other examples of emotional plots mentioned are mourning
and infatuation (see also Ekman 1992: 194).
5. This again raises the question of why verbs of Fear and Anger did not occur
in impersonal constructions until the early Middle English period, despite the fact
260 | Notes
that they are commonly considered to belong to the centre of the emotion concepts.
As mentioned in section 4.9, the question cannot be sufficiently answered until Old
English verbs of Fear and Anger are fully studied.
6. Interestingly, these five emotion concepts match precisely Damasio’s (1995:
149) list of the most universal emotions from a neurological point of view.
7. Ekman (1992: 192) indeed suspects that excitement is a separate emotion,
though he admits that it has hardly been researched.
8. Contempt, or more precisely Disesteem/contempt, used to comprise an
‘Emotion’ category in the HTOED (see the headings reproduced in Diller 2007a:
577–8, 2007b: 15, 2008: 125). In the final classification it is subsumed under ‘Mental
capacity’ (02.01.18 Contempt).
9. The list shows the categories which were named by more than one subject.
10. Love and hate are omitted for reasons of space (Wierzbicka 1999: 121).
11. For pioneering and recent cross-linguistic works on impersonal constructions, see e.g. von Seefranz-Montag (1983, 1984), Barðdal (2002, 2004), Barðdal &
Eythórsson (2003, 2009), Eythórsson & Barðdal (2005), Malchukov & Siewierska
(2011), and Barðdal et al. (2012).
12. In contrast to long, lust, and thirst, which occurred in impersonal constructions in Old and Middle English, yearn is found in an impersonal construction only exceptionally at the end of the Middle English period (see note 21 for
Chapter 1).
13. Note, however, recent uses of mehopes by apparent analogy with methinks (see
note 7 for Chapter 1).
14. The high usefulness of the online MED for a linguistic study of Middle English even today is indicated by the compilation of the ‘Corpus of MED quotations’,
which contains all the quotations in the dictionary in a single file. This corpus is
freely downloadable from <https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0050685/Corpus_of_
MED_quotations.htm> (last accessed June 2013).
Notes | 261
REFERENCES
Dictionaries, Thesauri, and Corpora
AND = Stone, Louise W. & William Rothwell (eds.). 1977–92. Anglo-Norman Dictionary. London: Modern Humanities Research Association. Electronic edition available at <http://www.anglo-norman.net/>; last accessed June 2013.
BT(S) = Bosworth, Joseph & T. Northcote Toller (eds.). 1882–98. With supplements
by Toller 1908–21 & A. Campbell 1972. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. Electronic edition available at <http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/
texts/oe_bosworthtoller_about.html>; last accessed June 2013.
Clark Hall, John R. (ed.) with supplement by H. D. Merritt. 1960. A concise AngloSaxon dictionary, 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse: <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/>; last
accessed June 2013.
DOE = Cameron, Angus, Ashley Crandell Amos & Antonette diPaolo Healey (eds.).
2008. Dictionary of Old English: A–G on CD-ROM. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of
Medieval Studies for the Dictionary of Old English Project.
DOE Web Corpus: <http://www.doe.utoronto.ca/pages/pub/web-corpus.html>; last
accessed March 2013.
HTOED = Kay, Christian, Jane Roberts, Michael Samuels & Irené Wotherspoon
(eds.). 2009. Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary: With additional
materials from A Thesaurus of Old English, 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MED = Kurath, Hans, Sherman M. Kuhn & Robert E. Lewis (eds.). 1952–2001. The
Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Electronic edition available at <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/>; last accessed
June 2013.
OED = Simpson, John A. (ed.). 2000–. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. <http://www.oed.com>; last accessed June 2013.
TOE = Roberts, Jane & Christian Kay (eds.) with Lynne Grundy. 2000 [1995]. A Thesaurus of Old English, 2nd edn, 2 vols. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Secondary Sources
Adams, Michael. 2009. The period dictionaries. In A. P. Cowie (ed.), The Oxford history of English lexicography, 2 vols, vol. 1, 326–52. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Akimoto, Minoji. 2008. On rivalry in the history of English. In Marianne Thormählen (ed.), English now: Selected papers from the 20th IAUPE Conference in Lund
2007 (Lund Studies in English 112), 226–47. Lund: Lund University.
Allen, Cynthia L. 1986. Reconsidering the history of like. Journal of Linguistics 22(2),
375–409.
Allen, Cynthia L. 1995. Case marking and reanalysis: Grammatical relations from Old
English to Early Modern English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Allen, Cynthia L. 1997. The development of an ‘impersonal’ verb in Middle English:
The case of behoove. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Studies in Middle English linguistics
(Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 103), 1–21. Berlin & New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Anderson, John. 1986. A note on Old English impersonals. Journal of Linguistics
22(1), 167–77.
Anderson, John. 1988. The type of Old English impersonals. In John M. Anderson &
Norman Macleod (eds.), Edinburgh studies in the English language, 1–32. Edinburgh: John Donald.
Anderson, John. 1997. Subjecthood and the English impersonal. In Raymond Hickey
& Stanisław Puppel (eds.), Language history and linguistic modelling: A festschrift
for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday, vol. 1: Language and history (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 101), 251–63. Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Arad, Maya. 1999. What counts as a class? The case of psych verbs. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 35, 1–23.
Atkins, B. T. S. & Beth Levin. 1995. Building on a corpus: A linguistic and lexicographical look at some near-synonyms. International Journal of Lexicography 8(2),
85–114.
Averill, James R. 1982. Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion (Springer Series in
Social Psychology). New York: Springer.
Ballweg-Schramm, Angelika. 1981. Some comments on lexical fields and their use in
lexicography. In Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds,
and contexts: New approaches in word semantics (Research in Text Theory 6), 462–
8. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Băncilă, Florica. 1991. The historical evolution of the impersonal sentence structure in
English—A special course—. Bucharest: Bucharest University Press.
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2002. ‘Oblique subjects’ in Icelandic and German. Working Papers
in Scandinavian Syntax 70, 61–99.
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2004. The semantics of the impersonal construction in Icelandic,
German and Faroese: Beyond thematic roles. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on
Germanic typology (Studia Typologica 6), 105–37. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. Icelandic vs. German: Oblique
subjects, agreement and expletives. Chicago Linguistic Society 39(1), 755–73.
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2009. The origin of the oblique subject
construction: An Indo-European comparison. In Vit Bubenik, John Hewson &
Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical change in Indo-European languages: Papers presented at the workshop on Indo-European linguistics at the XVIIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 2007 (Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory 305), 179–93. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
264 | References
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Thomas Smitherman, Valgerður Bjarnadóttir, Serena Danesi,
Gard B. Jenset & Barbara McGillivray. 2012. Reconstructing constructional semantics: The dative subject construction in Old Norse-Icelandic, Latin, Ancient
Greek, Old Russian and Old Lithuanian. Studies in Language 36(3), 511–47.
Beadle, Richard (ed.). 2009. The York Plays: A critical edition of the York Corpus Christi
Play as recorded in British Library Additional MS 35290, 2 vols, vol. 1 (Early English
Text Society: Supplementary Series 23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belletti, Adriana & Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language &
Linguistic Theory 6(3), 291–352.
Benson, Larry D. (ed.). 1988. The Riverside Chaucer, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Randi Reppen. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating
language structure and use (Cambridge Approaches to Linguistics). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers
and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, Laurel J., Stefan Dollinger & Margery Fee. 2012. Balanced corpora and
quotation databases: Taking shortcuts or expanding methodological scope?
Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 10. Available at <http://www.
helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/10/brinton_dollinger_fee/>; last accessed
June 2013.
Brody, Michael. 1989. Old English impersonals and the theory of grammar. UCL
Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 262–94.
Burchfield, Robert W. 1977. Some thoughts on the revision of the O.E.D. In Brian S.
Lee (ed.), An English miscellany presented to W. S. Mackie, 208–18. Cape Town:
Oxford University Press.
Burnley, David. 1992. Lexis and semantics. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge
history of the English language, vol. 2: 1066–1476, 409–99. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Burrow, J. A. & Thorlac Turville-Petre (eds.). 2005. A book of Middle English, 3rd edn.
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Butler, Milton Chadwick. 1977. Reanalysis of object as subject in Middle English impersonal constructions. Glossa 11(2), 155–70.
Cameron, Angus, Allison Kingsmill & Ashley Crandell Amos (eds.). 1983. Old English
word studies: A preliminary author and word index (Toronto Old English Studies 8).
Toronto: The Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto.
Cannon, Christopher. 2001. The unchangeable word: The dating of manuscripts and
the history of English. In A. J. Minnis (ed.), Middle English poetry: Texts and traditions, 1–15. Woodbridge: York Medieval Press.
Carroll, Ruth. 1997. Cooking verbs in fourteenth-century English: A semantic class and its
syntactic behaviour. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford.
Carroll, Ruth. 2000. The ‘Total Transformation Alternation’ in the light of some
Middle English data. English Language and Linguistics 4(1), 1–12.
Coleman, Julie. 2012. Using dictionaries and thesauruses as evidence. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of
English (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics), 98–110. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
References | 265
Collier, L. W. & C. J. Kay. 1980–1. The Historical Thesaurus of English. Dictionaries 3,
80–9.
Conlee, John (ed.). 1998. Prose Merlin. Kalamazoo, MI: Published for TEAMS in Association with the University of Rochester by Medieval Institute Publications,
Western Michigan University. Available online at <http://www.lib.rochester.edu/
camelot/teams/confront.htm>; last accessed June 2013.
Cortés Rodríguez, Francisco J. & Marta González Orta. 2006. Anglo-Saxon verbs of
sound: Semantic architecture, lexical representation and constructions. Studia
Anglica Posnaniensia 42, 249–84.
Cortés Rodríguez, Francisco J. & Ricardo Mairal Usón. 2002. A preliminary design for
a syntactic dictionary of Old English on semantic principles. In Javier E. Díaz Vera
(ed.), A changing world of words: Studies in English historical lexicography, lexicology
and semantics (Costerus New Series 141), 3–46. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
Cortés Rodríguez, Francisco J. & María Jesús Pérez Quintero. 2001. Finding relief for
FG lexical representations: A syntactic-semantic description of Old English verbs
of ‘healing’. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 42, 79–101.
Cortés Rodríguez, Francisco José & Dolores Torres Medina. 2003. Old English verbsof-running: Linking semantic representation and morphosyntactic structure.
Folia Linguistica Historica 24(1–2), 153–74.
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Croft, William. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. In James
Pustejovsky (ed.), Semantics and the lexicon (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 49), 55–72. Dordrecht & Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Croft, William. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, David. 2008. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics, 6th edn (The Language
Library). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Curzan, Anne. 2008a. Corpus-based linguistic approaches to the history of English.
In Haruko Momma & Michael Matto (eds.), A companion to the history of the English language (Blackwell Companions to Literature and Culture 54), 596–607.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Curzan, Anne. 2008b. Historical corpus linguistics and evidence of language change.
In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, 2 vols, vol. 2 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 29),
1091–109. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Curzan, Anne & Chris C. Palmer. 2006. The importance of historical corpora, reliability, and reading. In Roberta Facchinetti & Matti Rissanen (eds.), Corpus-based
studies of diachronic English (Linguistic Insights: Studies in Language and Communication 31), 17–34. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Damasio, Antonio R. 1995. Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain.
London: Picador.
Darwin, Charles. 1998 [1872]. The expression of the emotions in man and animals. With
an introduction, afterword and commentaries by Paul Ekman, 3rd edn. London:
HarperCollins.
266 | References
Davidson, Richard J. & Paul Ekman. 1994. Afterword: How are emotions distinguished from moods, temperament, and other related affective constructs? In
Paul Ekman & Richard J. Davidson (eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental
questions (Series in Affective Science), 94–6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davitz, Joel R. 1969. The language of emotion (Personality and Psychopathology 6).
New York: Academic Press.
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2007. Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic
seem-verbs. Rivista di Linguistica 19(1), 129–50.
Dekeyser, Xavier. 1990. The prepositions with, mid and again(st) in Old and Middle
English: A case-study of historical lexical semantics. Belgian Journal of Linguistics
5, 35–48.
de la Cruz, Juan. 1994. Psych-verbs in Old English: From their origin in the lexicon
to final syntactic structure. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 28, 37–48.
Denison, David. 1989. Auxiliary + impersonal in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica 9(1), 139–66.
Denison, David. 1990. The Old English impersonals revived. In Sylvia M. Adamson,
Vivien A. Law, Nigel Vincent & Susan Wright (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Cambridge, 6–9 April 1987 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 65), 111–40. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions (Longman Linguistics Library). London & New York: Longman.
Denison, David. 2008. Patterns and productivity. In Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Donka
Minkova (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language IV: Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change (Topics in English Linguistics 61), 207–30. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Díaz Vera, Javier E. 2000a. The maintenance of meaning in syntactic change: Towards a diachronic semantic syntax. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 40,
325–38.
Díaz Vera, Javier E. 2000b. The development of causation in Old English and its
interaction with lexical and syntactic diachronic processes. Cuadernos de Investi­
gación Filológica 26, 17–38.
Díaz Vera, Javier E. 2002. The semantic architecture of the Old English verbal lexicon: A historical-lexicographical proposal. In Javier E. Díaz Vera (ed.), A changing
world of words: Studies in English historical lexicography, lexicology and semantics
(Costerus New Series 141), 47–77. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
Diller, Hans-Jürgen. 1994. Emotions in the English lexicon: A historical study of a
lexical field. In Francisco Fernández, Miguel Fuster & Juan José Calvo (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992: Papers from the 7th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Valencia, 22–26 September 1992 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 113), 219–34. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Diller, Hans-Jürgen. 2005a. Chaucer’s emotion lexicon: passioun and affeccioun. In
Nikolaus Ritt & Herbert Schendl (eds.), Rethinking Middle English: Linguistic and
literary approaches (Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 10),
110–24. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Diller, Hans-Jürgen. 2005b. Emotion words. In D. Alan Cruse (ed.), Lexicology: An
international handbook on the nature and structure of words and vocabularies, 2 vols,
References | 267
vol. 2 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 21), 1578–84.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Diller, Hans-Jürgen. 2007a. Measuring the growth of semantic fields: The case of the
English emotion lexicon. In Władysław Chłopicki, Andrzej Pawelec & Agnieszka
Pokojska (eds.), Cognition in language: Volume in honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska, 574–96. Kraków: Tertium.
Diller, Hans-Jürgen. 2007b. From mōd to emotion (or almost): The medieval gestation
of a modern concept. In Gabriella Mazzon (ed.), Studies in Middle English forms
and meanings (Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 19), 13–39.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Diller, Hans-Jürgen. 2008. A lexical field takes shape: The use of corpora and thesauri in historical semantics. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies
19(1), 123–40.
Diller, Hans-Jürgen. 2012. ANGER and TĒNE in Middle English. In Manfred Markus,
Yoko Iyeiri, Reinhard Heuberger & Emil Chamson (eds.), Middle and Modern
English corpus linguistics: A multi-dimensional approach (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 50), 109–24. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ekman, Paul. 1984. Expression and the nature of emotion. In Klaus R. Scherer &
Paul Ekman (eds.), Approaches to emotion, 319–43. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
­Erlbaum.
Ekman, Paul. 1992. An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion 6(3–4),
169–200.
Elmer, Willy. 1981. Diachronic grammar: The history of Old and Middle English subjectless constructions (Linguistische Arbeiten 97). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Elmer, Willy. 1983. Semantic-syntactic patterning: The lexical valency of seem in
Middle English. English Studies 64(2), 160–8.
Eythórsson, Thórhallur & Jóhanna Barðdal. 2005. Oblique subjects: A common Germanic inheritance. Language 81(4), 824–81.
Faber, Pamela & Juan Gabriel Vázquez González. 2002. Adapting functional-­
lexematic methodology to the structuring of Old English verbs: A programmatic
proposal. In Javier E. Díaz Vera (ed.), A changing world of words: Studies in English
historical lexicography, lexicology and semantics (Costerus New Series 141), 78–108.
Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
Fay, Edwin W. 1917. Syntax and etymology: The impersonals of emotion. The Classical
Quarterly 11(2), 88–93.
Fehr, Beverley. 1988. Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(4), 557–79.
Fehr, Beverley & James A. Russell. 1984. Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(3), 464–86.
Fenton, Alexander. 1974. Lexicography and historical interpretation. In G. W. S.
Barrow (ed.), The Scottish tradition: Essays in honour of Ronald Gordon Cant (St.
Andrews University Publications 60), 243–58. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic
Press.
Filip, Hana. 1996. Psychological predicates and the syntax-semantics interface. In
Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 131–47. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
268 | References
Fischer, Andreas. 1989. Aspects of historical lexicology. In Udo Fries & Martin Heusser
(eds.), Meaning and beyond: Ernst Leisi zum 70. Geburtstag, 71–91. Tübingen: Gunter
Narr.
Fischer, Andreas. 1992. Laughing and smiling in the history of English. In Wilhelm
G. Busse (ed.), Anglistentag 1991 Düsseldorf: Proceedings, 51–62. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Fischer, Andreas. 1997a. ‘With this ring I thee wed’: The verbs to wed and to marry in
the history of English. In Raymond Hickey & Stanisław Puppel (eds.), Language
history and linguistic modelling: A festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th birthday, vol.
1: Language and history (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 101),
467–81. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fischer, Andreas. 1997b. The Oxford English Dictionary on CD-ROM as a historical
corpus: To wed and to marry revisited. In Udo Fries, Viviane Müller & Peter
Schneider (eds.), From Ælfric to The New York Times: Studies in English corpus linguistics (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 19), 161–72.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 2: 1066–1476, 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fischer, Olga C. M. & Frederike C. van der Leek. 1983. The demise of the Old English
impersonal construction. Journal of Linguistics 19(2), 337–68.
Fischer, Olga & Frederike van der Leek. 1987. A ‘case’ for the Old English impersonal.
In Willem F. Koopman, Frederike van der Leek, Olga Fischer & Roger Eaton
(eds.), Explanation and linguistic change (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 45),
79–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fischer, Olga, Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wurff. 2000.
The syntax of early English (Cambridge Syntax Guides). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Fisiak, Jacek. 1976. Subjectless sentences in Middle English. Kwartalnik ­Neofilologiczny
23(3), 263–70.
Forshall, Josiah & Frederic Madden (eds.). 1879. The New Testament in English according to the version by John Wycliffe about A.D. 1380 and revised by John Purvey. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Frijda, Nico H. 1994. Varieties of affect: Emotions and episodes, moods, and sentiments. In Paul Ekman & Richard J. Davidson (eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (Series in Affective Science), 59–67. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gevaert, Caroline. 2007. The history of ANGER: The lexical field of ANGER
from Old to Early Modern English. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Available for download from <https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/1979/893/2/­
thesisgedrukt.pdf>; last accessed June 2013.
Ginsberg, Warren (ed.). 1992. Wynnere and Wastoure and The Parlement of the Thre
Ages. Kalamazoo, MI: Published for TEAMS in Association with the University of
Rochester by Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University. Available online at <http://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/publication/ginsberg-­
wynnereand-wastoure-and-the-parlement-of-the-thre-ages>; last accessed May 2014.
References | 269
Gollancz, Israel (ed.). 1958 [1895]. The Exeter Book, Part I: Poems I–VIII (Early English
Text Society: Original Series 104). Reprint. London: Oxford University Press.
González Orta, Marta María. 2002. Lexical templates and syntactic variation: The
syntax-semantics interface of the Old English speech verb secgan. In Ricardo
Mairal Usón & María Jesús Pérez Quintero (eds.), New perspectives on argument
structure in functional grammar (Functional Grammar Series 25), 281–302. Berlin
& New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
González Orta, Marta. 2003–4. The Old English verbs of smell perception and emission:
Analysis of the interface of their semantic and syntactic representation. SELIM
12, 33–48.
González Orta, Marta. 2006. The resultative construction in Old English: Towards a
semantic network of verb classes. Studia Neophilologica 78(2), 123–37.
Goossens, Louis. 1985. Framing the linguistic action scene in Old and Present-day
English: OE cweþan, secgan, sp(r)ecan and Present-day English speak, talk, say and
tell compared. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Papers from the VIth International Conference
on Historical Linguistics, Poznań, 22–26 August 1983 (Current Issues in Linguistic
Theory 34), 149–70. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Guidi, Luiz Guilherme. 2011. Old English psych verbs and quirky Experiencers. York
Papers in Linguistics 11, 29–48.
Happé, Peter (ed.). 1975. English mystery plays: A selection (Penguin English Library).
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective
(Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haugland, Kari E. 2006. Old English impersonal constructions and the use and non-use
of nonreferential pronouns. PhD thesis, University of Bergen.
Healey, Antonette diPaolo. 1997. Dictionary of Old English. In K. H. van Dalen-­Oskam,
K. A. C. Depuydt, W. J. J. Pijnenburg & T. H. Schoonheim (eds.), Dictionaries of
medieval Germanic languages: A survey of current lexicographical projects. Selected
proceedings of the International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, 4–7 July 1994
(International Medieval Research 2), 55–61. Turnhout: Brepols.
Herbst, Thomas, David Heath, Ian F. Roe & Dieter Gotz (eds.). 2004. A Valency Dictionary of English: A corpus-based analysis of the complementation patterns of English
verbs, nouns and adjectives (Topics in English Linguistics 40). Berlin & New York:
Mouton de Gruyter. Online version: <http://www.patternbank.uni-erlangen.de/
cgi-bin/patternbank.cgi>; last accessed June 2013.
Herrtage, Sidney J. (ed.). 1966 [1879]. Sir Ferumbras: Edited from the unique manuscript Bodleian ms. Ashmole 33 (Early English Text Society: Extra Series 34). Reprint. London: Oxford University Press.
Hickey, Raymond. 1984. A valency framework for the Old English verb. In Jacek
Fisiak (ed.), Historical syntax (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 23),
199–216. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Using the OED quotations database as a corpus—a linguistic appraisal. ICAME Journal 21, 17–30.
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse.
Language 56(2), 251–99.
270 | References
Hughes, Geoffrey. 1988. Words in time: A social history of the English vocabulary (The
Language Library). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hundt, Marianne & Geoffrey Leech. 2012. ‘Small is beautiful’: On the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of
English (Oxford Handbooks in Linguistics), 175–88. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ito, Eiko. 1974. A study of impersonal verbs in Middle English. Kobe College Studies
21, 1–23.
Iwata, Seizi. 1995. The distinctive character of psych-verbs as causatives. Linguistic
Analysis 25(1–2), 95–120.
Iyeiri, Yoko. 2010. Verbs of implicit negation and their complements in the history of English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins; Tokyo: Yushodo Press.
Jespersen, Otto. 1894. Progress in language: With special reference to English. London:
Swan Sonnenschein.
Jespersen, Otto. 1927. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part III:
Syntax. Second volume. London: Allen & Unwin.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Keith Oatley. 1989. The language of emotions: An analysis of
a semantic field. Cognition and Emotion 3(2), 81–123.
Kay, Christian J. & Thomas J. Chase. 1990. Semantic approaches to an historical thesaurus. In Jerzy Tomaszczyk & Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.), Meaning and lexicography (Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe 28), 303–13.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kay, C. & M. L. Samuels. 1975. Componential analysis in semantics: Its validity and
applications. Transactions of the Philological Society 74(1), 49–81.
Kay, Christian & Irené Wotherspoon. 1997. Historical Thesaurus of English. In K. H. van
Dalen-Oskam, K. A. C. Depuydt, W. J. J. Pijnenburg & T. H. Schoonheim (eds.),
Dictionaries of medieval Germanic languages: A survey of current lexicographical projects. Selected proceedings of the International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds,
4–7 July 1994 (International Medieval Research 2), 49–54. Turnhout: Brepols.
Kay, Christian & Irené Wotherspoon. 2005. Semantic relationships in the Historical
Thesaurus of English. Lexicographica 21, 47–57.
Kay, Christian J., Irené A. W. Wotherspoon & Louise M. Sylvester. 2001. One thesaurus leads to another: TOE, HTE, TME. In Christian J. Kay & Louise M. Sylvester
(eds.), Lexis and texts in early English: Studies presented to Jane Roberts, 173–86.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kay et al. 2009: See HTOED under ‘Dictionaries, Thesauri, and Corpora’.
Kearns, Kate. 2000. Semantics (Macmillan Modern Linguistics). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Kearns, Kate. 2006. Lexical semantics. In Bas Aarts & April M. S. McMahon (eds.),
The handbook of English linguistics (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), 557–80.
Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice (Typological Studies in Language 23). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kim, Hyeree. 1996. The synchrony and diachrony of English impersonal verbs: A study in
syntactic and lexical change. PhD thesis, The Ohio State University. UMI no.:
9639268.
References | 271
Kitis, Eliza. 2009a. Emotions as discursive constructs: The case of the psych-verb
‘fear’. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Katarzyna Dziwirek (eds.), Studies
in cognitive corpus linguistics (Lodz Studies in Language 18), 147–72. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Kitis, Eliza. 2009b. From motion to emotion to interpersonal function: The case of
fear predicates. In Hanna Pishwa (ed.), Language and social cognition: Expression
of the social mind (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 206), 433–54.
Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kletzmayr, Regina. 1996. The valency of Old English locative verbs. MA thesis, Universität Wien.
Kohnen, Thomas. 2006. Historical corpus linguistics: Perspectives on English diachronic corpora. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies 17(2), 73–91.
Kopytko, Roman. 1988. The impersonal use of verbs in William Shakespeare’s plays.
Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 21, 41–51.
Koskenniemi, Inna. 1967. Repetitive word pairs in Old and Early Middle English
prose: Expressions of the type whole and sound and answered and said, and other
parallel constructions (Turun Yliopiston Julkaisuja. Sarja B. 107). Turku: Turun
Yliopisto.
Kossmann, Bianca. 2007. Rich and poor in the history of English: Corpus-based analyses
of lexico-semantic variation and change in Old and Middle English. PhD thesis, University of Freiburg. Available for download from <http://www.freidok.unifreiburg.de/volltexte/4689/pdf/diss_freidok.pdf>; last accessed June 2013.
Kovatcheva, Mira. 1986. Semantico-syntactic description of some Middle English impersonal verbs. Godishnik na Sofiiskiia Universitet. Fakultet po Klasicheski i Novi
Filologii 75, 129–77.
Krzyszpień, Jerzy. 1984. On the impersonal-to-personal transition in English. Studia
Anglica Posnaniensia 17, 63–9.
Krzyszpień, Jerzy. 1985. Some remarks on hit-sentences in Old English. Linguistica
Silesiana 5, 123–9.
Krzyszpień, Jerzy. 1987. A semantic interpretation of verbs in the OE and ME impersonal construction with an Experiencer. Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 34(1), 23–40.
Krzyszpień, Jerzy. 1990. A diachronic analysis of English impersonal constructions with
an experiencer. Krakow: Nakładem Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Lagerquist, Linnea M. 1985. The impersonal verb in context: Old English. In Roger
Eaton, Olga Fischer, Willem F. Koopman & Frederike van der Leek (eds.), Papers
from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Amsterdam,
April 10–13, 1985 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 41), 123–36. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lavine, James E. 2010. Case and events in transitive impersonals. Journal of Slavic
Linguistics 18(1), 101–30.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 26). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
272 | References
Levin, Beth, Grace Song & B. T. S. Atkins. 1997. Making sense of corpus data: A
case study of verbs of sound. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2(1),
23–64.
Lewis, Charlton T. (ed.). 1966 [1891]. An elementary Latin dictionary. Reprint. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Lewis, Robert E. 1997. Middle English Dictionary. In K. H. van Dalen-Oskam, K. A. C.
Depuydt, W. J. J. Pijnenburg & T. H. Schoonheim (eds.), Dictionaries of medieval
Germanic languages: A survey of current lexicographical projects. Selected proceedings
of the International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds, 4–7 July 1994 (International Medieval Research 2), 63–74. Turnhout: Brepols.
Lewis, Robert E. 2002a. Some observations on the use of manuscripts, dates, and
preferred editions in the Middle English Dictionary. In Yoko Iyeiri & Margaret
Connolly (eds.), And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche: Essays on medieval English presented to Professor Matsuji Tajima on his sixtieth birthday, 169–79. Tokyo:
Kaibunsha.
Lewis, Robert E. 2002b. The Middle English Dictionary at 71. Dictionaries 23, 76–94.
Lewis, Robert E. & Mary Jane Williams. 2007. Middle English Dictionary: Plan and
bibliography, 2nd edn. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
López-Couso, María José. 1996. On the history of methinks: From impersonal construction to fossilised expression. Folia Linguistica Historica 17(1–2), 153–69.
Loureiro-Porto, Lucía. 2005. The semantic predecessors of need: From Old to Early
Modern English. PhD thesis, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.
Loureiro-Porto, Lucía. 2009. The semantic predecessors of need in the history of English
(C750–1710) (Publications of the Philological Society 43). Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell.
Loureiro-Porto, Lucía. 2010. A review of early English impersonals: Evidence from
necessity verbs. English Studies 91(6), 674–99.
Madden, Frederic (ed.). 1847. La3amon’s Brut, or Chronicle of Britain: A poetical semiSaxon paraphrase of the Brut of Wace, 3 vols. London: Society of Antiquaries of
London.
Mair, Christian. 1988. The transition from the impersonal to the personal use of the
verb like in late Middle English and Early Modern English—some previously neglected determinants of variation. In Manfred Markus (ed.), Historical English:
On the occasion of Karl Brunner’s 100th birthday, 210–18. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker
Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft.
Malak, Janusz. 2008. Derivational conspiracy: The demise of subjectless clauses in English. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego.
Malchukov, Andrej & Anna Siewierska (eds.). 2011. Impersonal constructions: A crosslinguistic perspective (Studies in Language Companion Series 124). Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Marín, Rafael & Louise McNally. 2005. The Aktionsart of Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. In Emar Maier, Corien Bary & Janneke Huitink (eds.), Proceedings of
SuB9, 212–25. Nijmegen: NCS.
References | 273
Marín, Rafael & Louise McNally. 2011. Inchoativity, change of state, and telicity: Evidence from Spanish reflexive psychological verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory 29(2), 467–502.
Martín Díaz, Ma. Auxiliadora & Francisco J. Cortés Rodríguez. 2003. The meaningsyntax interface of writing verbs: Templates, constructions and linking rules
within a lexical grammar of Old English verbal predicates. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 47, 13–35.
Matsuzaki, Toru. 2008. Prominence theory: An approach to the impersonal-to-­
personal shift in OE and ME. Journal of Chikushi Jogakuen University and Junior
College 3, 27–36.
Matsuzaki, Toru. 2010. A historical analysis of psych verbs in English. Journal of
Chikushi Jogakuen University and Junior College 5, 59–70. [in Japanese]
McCawley, Noriko A. 1976. From OE/ME ‘impersonal’ to ‘personal’ constructions:
What is a ‘subject-less’ S? In Sanford B. Steever, Carol A. Walker & Salikoko S.
Mufwene (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, April 22, 1976,
192–204. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
McKnight, George H. (ed.). 1962 [1901]. King Horn, Floriz and Blauncheflur, The assumption of our Lady (Early English Text Society: Original Series 14). Reprint.
London: Oxford University Press.
McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McSparran, Frances. 2002. The Middle English Compendium: Past, present, future.
Dictionaries 23, 126–41.
Méndez Naya, Belén & María José López Couso. 1997. What is really meant by impersonal? On impersonal and related terms. Atlantis 19(2), 185–92.
Middeke, Kirsten. 2012. Case-assignment in Old English. Paper presented at 17th
International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL-17), University of Zurich (Switzerland), 20–25 August 2012.
Miranda García, Antonio & Javier Calle Martín. 1999. Impersonal constructions in
OE Holy Gospels. In Ana Bringas López, Dolores González Álvarez, Javier Pérez
Guerra, Esperanza Rama Martínez & Eduardo Varela Bravo (eds.), ‘Woonderous
Ænglissce’: SELIM studies in medieval English language, 107–19. Vigo: Universidade
de Vigo, Servicio de Publicacións.
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Miura, Ayumi. 2005. Impersonal constructions in Chaucer’s English. MA thesis, The
University of Tokyo.
Miura, Ayumi. 2007. The impersonal verb remembren in Chaucer revisited. Language
and Information Sciences 5, 213–28.
Miura, Ayumi. 2008. New impersonal verbs in some late fourteenth-century English
texts. In Masachiyo Amano, Michiko Ogura & Masayuki Ohkado (eds.), Historical
Englishes in varieties of texts and contexts: The Global COE Programme, International Conference 2007 (Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 22),
187–200. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Miura, Ayumi. 2012a. Why are like and loathe impersonal and love and hate non-­
impersonal? Paper presented at 17th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL-17), University of Zurich (Switzerland), 20–25 August
2012.
274 | References
Miura, Ayumi. 2012b. Middle English verbs of fear and anger: Parallel histories of
impersonal usage. In Javier Martín Arista, Roberto Torre Alonso, Andrés Canga
Alonso & Inmaculada Medina Barco (eds.), Convergent approaches to mediaeval
English language and literature: Selected papers from the 22nd Conference of SELIM,
123–57. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Miura, Ayumi. 2012c. A syntactic-semantic study with the MED? New evidence for
verbs of fear and impersonal constructions. Paper presented at the Third International New Approaches to English Historical Lexis Symposium (HEL-LEX 3),
Tvärminne (University of Helsinki, Finland), 7–10 March 2012.
Moessner, Lilo. 1984. Impersonal constructions in Early Middle English. Studia Ang­
lica Posnaniensia 17, 29–38.
Möhlig-Falke, Ruth. 2009. The early English impersonal construction: An analysis of
verbal and constructional meaning. PhD thesis, University of Cologne.
Möhlig-Falke, Ruth. 2012. The early English impersonal construction: An analysis of
verbal and constructional meaning (Oxford Studies in the History of English). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Molina, Clara. 2008. Historical dictionary definitions revisited from a prototype theoretical standpoint. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6, 1–22.
Mukhin, Anatolij M. & Natalya M. Yulikova. 1991. Locative valency of the English
verb: A historical approach. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax
(Topics in English Linguistics 2), 291–301. Berlin & New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Part I: Parts of speech. Helsinki:
Société Néophilologique.
Nagucka, Ruta. 1978. A note on ME subjectless sentences. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 10, 49–53.
Nakao, Toshio. 1972. History of English II (Outline of English Linguistics 9). Tokyo:
Taishukan Publishing Company. [in Japanese]
Nawata, Hiroyuki. 2011. Gradual or parametric change? Revisiting the loss of nonnominative Experiencers of like. Studies in Modern English 27, 75–99.
Ogura, Michiko. 1981. The syntactic and semantic rivalry of quoth, say and tell in medieval English. Hirakata: KUFS Publication.
Ogura, Michiko. 1985. Two proposals of revising van der Gaaf’s theory. The Tsuru
University Review 23, 53–8.
Ogura, Michiko. 1986a. Old English ‘impersonal’ verbs and expressions (Anglistica 24).
Copenhagen: Rosenkilde & Bagger.
Ogura, Michiko. 1986b. OE verbs of thinking. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 87(3),
325–41.
Ogura, Michiko. 1990. What has happened to ‘impersonal’ constructions? Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 91(1), 31–55.
Ogura, Michiko. 1991. Displese yow and displeses yow: OE and ME verbs used both
‘impersonally’ and reflexively. Poetica 34, 75–87.
Ogura, Michiko. 2003. ‘Reflexive’ and ‘impersonal’ constructions in medieval English. Anglia 121(4), 535–56.
Ogura, Michiko. 2004. The king liked pears: A choice rather than a change. In English Linguistics Society of Korea (ed.), Otto Jespersen: Festschrift for the 80th birthday of Professor Sung-Sik Cho, 494–509. Seoul: Hankook Munhwasa.
References | 275
Ogura, Michiko. 2006. ME douten and dreden. In Graham D. Caie, Carole Hough &
Irené Wotherspoon (eds.), The power of words: Essays in lexicography, lexicology and
semantics (Costerus New Series 163), 117–30. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Ogura, Michiko. 2012. Words and expressions of emotion in medieval English. Studies in Medieval English Language and Literature 27, 1–38.
Ogura, Michiko. 2013. Words and expressions of emotion in medieval English (Studies in
English Medieval Language and Literature 39). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Ohno, Hideshi. 2001. On variant readings of liken and listen/lusten in the Canterbury
Tales. In Yoshiyuki Nakao & Akiyuki Jimura (eds.), Originality and adventure:
Essays on English language and literature in honour of Masahiko Kanno, 55–70.
Tokyo: Eihosha.
Ohno, Hideshi. 2010. The impersonal and personal constructions in the language of
Chaucer. In Osamu Imahayashi, Yoshiyuki Nakao & Michiko Ogura (eds.), Aspects of the history of English language and literature: Selected papers read at SHELL
2009, Hiroshima (Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 25), 115–
29. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Ono, Shigeru. 1975. The Old English verbs of knowing. Studies in English Literature:
English Number 1975, 33–60.
Ortony, Andrew & Gerald L. Clore. 1989. Emotions, moods and conscious awareness: Comment on Johnson-Laird and Oatley’s ‘The language of emotions: An
analysis of a semantic field’. Cognition and Emotion 3(2), 125–37.
Osawa, Fuyo. 1996. Missing arguments in earlier English clause structures. UCL
Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 365–85.
Osawa, Fuyo. 2010. Transitivisation in the history of English. In Osamu Imahayashi,
Yoshiyuki Nakao & Michiko Ogura (eds.), Aspects of the history of English language
and literature: Selected papers read at SHELL 2009, Hiroshima (Studies in English
Medieval Language and Literature 25), 331–41. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Osawa, Fuyo. 2013. Impersonal constructions and the non-universality of subject.
In Michio Hosaka, Michiko Ogura, Hironori Suzuki & Akinobu Tani (eds.),
Phases of the history of English: Selection of papers read at SHELL 2012 (Studies in
English Medieval Language and Literature 42), 211–26. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999. Grammaticalization and social embedding: I think and
methinks in Middle and Early Modern English (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 55). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
Pantaleo, Nicola. 2002. Impersonals as modals in Middle English religious literature.
In David Hart & Maria Lima (eds.), Modality in Late Middle English and Early
Modern English: Semantic shifts and pragmatic interpretations, 143–60. Naples:
Cuen.
Parodi, Claudia & Marta Luján. 2000. Aspect in Spanish psych verbs. In Héctor
Campos, Elena Herburger, Alfonso Morales-Front & Thomas J. Walsh (eds.), Hispanic linguistics at the turn of the millennium: Papers from the 3rd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 210–21. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Peitsara, Kirsti. 1997. The development of reflexive strategies in English. In Matti
Rissanen, Merja Kytö & Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.), Grammaticalization at work:
Studies of long-term developments in English (Topics in English Linguistics 24),
277–370. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
276 | References
Penke, Martina & Anette Rosenbach. 2007. What counts as evidence in linguistics?:
An introduction. In Martina Penke & Anette Rosenbach (eds.), What counts as
evidence in linguistics: The case of innateness (Benjamins Current Topics 7), 1–49.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades (Current Studies in Linguistics Series 27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pishwa, Hanna. 1999. The case of the ‘impersonal’ construction in Old English. Folia
Linguistica Historica 20(1–2), 129–51.
Pocheptsov, George G. 1997. Quasi-impersonal verbs in Old and Middle English. In
Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Studies in Middle English linguistics (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 103), 469–88. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2000. On stativity and causation. In Carol Tenny & James Pustejovsky (eds.), Events as grammatical objects: The converging perspectives of lexical semantics and syntax, 417–44. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Quirk, Randolph. 1965. Descriptive statement and serial relationship. Language
41(2), 205–17.
Richter, Michael & Roeland van Hout. 2010. Why some verbs can form a resultative
construction while others cannot: Decomposing semantic binding. Lingua
120(8), 2006–21.
Rissanen, Matti. 1989. Three problems connected with the use of diachronic corpora. ICAME Journal 13, 16–19.
Rissanen, Matti. 1992. The diachronic corpus as a window to the history of English.
In Jan Svartvik (ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991 (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 65), 185–205. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rissanen, Matti. 2000. The world of English historical corpora: From Cædmon to
the computer age. Journal of English Linguistics 28(1), 7–20.
Rissanen, Matti. 2004. Computerised corpora and the study of the history of English.
The Journal of English Language and Literature (The English Language and Literature Association of Korea) 50(5), 1089–103.
Rissanen, Matti. 2008. Corpus linguistics and historical linguistics. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, 2 vols, vol. 1
(Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 29), 53–68. Berlin &
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Roberts, Jane. 1998a. On the Thesaurus of Old English. Medieval English Studies Newsletter 39, 8–21.
Roberts, Jane. 1998b. A Thesaurus of Old English: One snapshot of a vanished world.
NOWELE 33, 133–53.
Roberts, Jane. 2000. The ‘Historical Thesaurus’ as a tool for medievalists. Studies in
Modern English 16, 1–23.
Roberts, Jane. 2002. Some thoughts on the representation of Early Middle English in
the Historical Thesaurus of English. Dictionaries 23, 180–207.
Roberts, Jane & Louise Sylvester. 1997. A Thesaurus of Middle English. In K. H. van
Dalen-Oskam, K. A. C. Depuydt, W. J. J. Pijnenburg & T. H. Schoonheim (eds.),
Dictionaries of medieval Germanic languages: A survey of current lexicographical projects. Selected proceedings of the International Medieval Congress, University of Leeds,
4–7 July 1994 (International Medieval Research 2), 41–5. Turnhout: Brepols.
References | 277
Rothwell, William. 2001. OED, MED, AND: The making of a new dictionary of English. Anglia 119(4), 527–53.
Rozwadowska, Bożena. 2005. A new perspective on event participants in psychological states and events. In Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts,
Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds.), Organizing grammar: Studies in honor of
Henk van Riemsdijk (Studies in Generative Grammar 86), 563–71. Berlin & New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The concept of mind. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Sabatini, Raymond N. 1979. The disappearance of the impersonal construction in
English. The South Central Bulletin 39(4), 151–3.
Samuels, M. L. 1965. The role of functional selection in the history of English. Transactions of the Philological Society 64(1), 15–40.
Samuels, M. L. 1972. Linguistic evolution: With special reference to English (Cambridge
Studies in Linguistics 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sauer, Hans. 2010. How the Anglo-Saxons expressed their emotions. Paper presented at MANCASS Easter Conference, The University of Manchester (United
Kingdom), 30 March to 1 April 2010.
Schendl, Herbert. 1992a. Historical syntax: The Old English verb. In Wilhelm G.
Busse (ed.), Anglistentag 1991 Düsseldorf: Proceedings, 293–306. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Schendl, Herbert. 1992b. A valency description of Old English possessive verbs. In
Matti Rissanen, Ossi Ihalainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.),
History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics (Topics
in English Linguistics 10), 418–36. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schmidt, A. V. C. (ed.). 1995 [1978]. The Vision of Piers Plowman: A critical edition
of the B-Text based on Trinity College Cambridge MS B.15.17, 2nd edn. London:
Everyman.
Seoane Posse, Elena. 2000. Impersonalising strategies in Early Modern English.
English Studies 81(2), 102–16.
Shaver, Phillip R., Shelly Wu & Judith C. Schwartz. 1992. Cross-cultural similarities
and differences in emotion and its representation: A prototype approach. In Margaret S. Clark (ed.), Emotion (Review of Personality and Social Psychology 13),
175–212. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Shibasaki, Reijiro. 2010. On the transition of transitivity in English. In Merja Kytö,
John Scahill & Harumi Tanabe (eds.), Language change and variation from Old
English to Late Modern English: A festschrift for Minoji Akimoto (Linguistic Insights:
Studies in Language and Communication 114), 349–74. Bern: Peter Lang.
Šimko, Ján. 1968. Some aspects of the transition from the impersonal to the personal
construction in English. Recueil Linguistique de Bratislava 2, 108–23.
Simpson, John. 2002. The revolution of English lexicography. Dictionaries 23, 1–15.
Sonnenhauser, Barbara. 2010. The event structure of verbs of emotion in Russian.
Russian Linguistics 34(3), 331–53.
Sosa Acevedo, Eulalia. 2007. Exploring semantic and syntactic relations within the
Old English verbs of hearing. In Manuel Brito (ed.), Insights and bearings: Festschrift for Dr. Juan Sebastián Amador Bedford, 317–30. La Laguna: Universidad de
La Laguna.
278 | References
Sosa Acevedo, Eulalia. 2009. Lexical classes and the conative construction in Old
English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 45(1), 69–90.
Stanley, E. G. 2002. Celebrating the Middle English Dictionary. Dictionaries 23, 23–47.
Stern, Gustaf. 1931. Meaning and change of meaning with special reference to the English
language (Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 38). Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri
Aktiebolag.
Stevens, Martin & A. C. Cawley (eds.). 1994. The Towneley Plays (Early English Text
Society: Supplementary Series 13–14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Storm, Christine & Tom Storm. 1987. A taxonomic study of the vocabulary of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(4), 805–16.
Strite, Vic. 1989. Old English semantic-field studies. New York: Peter Lang.
Sullens, Idelle (ed.). 1983. Robert Mannyng of Brunne: Handlyng Synne (Medieval &
Renaissance Texts & Studies 14). Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, State University of New York.
Sylvester, Louise. 1996. Procedures in classifying Middle English vocabulary: Some
preliminary observations. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Middle English miscellany: From
vocabulary to linguistic variation, 123–33. Poznań: Motivex.
Sylvester, Louise. 2000. Towards a Middle English thesaurus: Some exploratory approaches. In Jane Roberts & Janet Nelson (eds.), Essays on Anglo-Saxon and related
themes in memory of Lynne Grundy, 557–69. London: King’s College London,
Centre for Late Antique & Medieval Studies.
Sylvester, Louise. 2004. Evidence for diachronic semantic change in the Historical
Thesaurus of English: A cognitive linguistic approach. In Isabel MoskowichSpiegel Fandiño & Begoña Crespo García (eds.), New trends in English historical
linguistics: An Atlantic view, 189–221. La Coruña: Universidade da Coruña.
Sylvester, Louise. 2010. The roles of reader construal and lexicographic authority in
the interpretation of Middle English texts. In Margaret E. Winters, Heli Tissari &
Kathryn Allan (eds.), Historical cognitive linguistics (Cognitive Linguistics Research 47), 197–219. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sylvester, Louise & Jane Roberts. 1996. Middle English word studies. Medieval English Studies Newsletter 34, 8–11.
Sylvester, Louise & Jane Roberts (eds.). 2000. Middle English word studies: A word and
author index. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
Sylvester, Louise & Jane Roberts. 2002. Word studies on early English: Contexts for a
thesaurus of Middle English. In Javier E. Díaz Vera (ed.), A changing world of
words: Studies in English historical lexicography, lexicology and semantics (Costerus
New Series 141), 136–59. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.
Tani, Akinobu. 1995. Variant readings and the study of impersonal constructions in
Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde. The Bulletin of Mukogawa Women’s University (Humanities and Social Science) 43, 25–31.
Tani, Akinobu. 1997. One determinant of the choice between the personal and impersonal uses of impersonal verbs like and list in Late Middle English and Early
Modern English: An inquiry into the possibility of ‘person hierarchy’. Studies in
Medieval English Language and Literature 12, 45–59. [in Japanese]
Terasawa, Jun. 2011. Old English metre: An introduction (Toronto Anglo-Saxon Series
7). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
References | 279
Tissari, Heli. 2003. LOVEscapes: Changes in prototypical senses and cognitive metaphors
since 1500 (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 72). Helsinki:
Société Néophilologique.
Tissari, Heli. 2004. Like like love: Comparing two modern English words diachronically.
In Christian Kay, Carole Hough & Irené Wotherspoon (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics: Selected papers from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 21–26 August 2002,
vol. 2: Lexis and transmission (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 252), 235–49.
­Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure (Transatlantic Series in Linguistics). New York & London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge
history of the English language, vol. 1: The beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tripp, Raymond P., Jr. 1978. The psychology of impersonal constructions. Glossa
12(2), 177–87.
Trousdale, Graeme. 2008. Words and constructions in grammaticalization: The end
of the English impersonal construction. In Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Donka
Minkova (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language IV: Empirical and analytical advances in the study of English language change (Topics in English Linguistics 61), 301–26. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
van der Gaaf, W. 1904. The transition from the impersonal to the personal construction in
Middle English (Anglistische Forschungen 14). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
van der Wurff, W. 1992. Another Old English impersonal: Some data. In Fran Colman
(ed.), Evidence for Old English: Material and theoretical bases for reconstruction, 211–
48. Edinburgh: John Donald.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2001. Towards personal subjects in English: Variation in feature interpretability. In Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), Grammatical relations in
change (Studies in Language Companion Series 56), 137–57. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2012. Psych-verbs in the history of English: The diachrony of argument structure. Paper presented at Non-Canonically Case-Marked Subjects
within and across Languages and Language Families: Stability, Variation and
Change, Reykjavík (Iceland), 4–8 June 2012.
van Voorst, Jan. 1992. The aspectual semantics of psychological verbs. Linguistics and
Philosophy 15(1), 65–92.
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2010. Agentivity and stativity in experiencer verbs: Implications for a typology of verb classes. Linguistic Typology 14(2–3), 213–51.
Visser, F. Th. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language. Part One: Syntactical
units with one verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
von Seefranz-Montag, Ariane. 1983. Syntaktische Funktionen und Wortstellungsveränderung: Die Entwicklung ‘subjektloser’ Konstruktionen in einigen Sprachen (Studien
zur Theoretischen Linguistik 3). München: W. Fink.
von Seefranz-Montag, Ariane. 1984. ‘Subjectless’ constructions and syntactic change.
In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical syntax (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 23), 521–53. Berlin, New York & Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers.
280 | References
Wahlén, Nils. 1925. The Old English impersonalia. Part I: Impersonal expressions containing verbs of material import in the active voice. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri
Aktiebolag.
Wakayama, Masayuki. 1999. English impersonal constructions revisited: An investigation of Helsinki Corpus. Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education 18(2), 635–43.
Walker, Greg (ed.). 2000. Medieval drama: An anthology (Blackwell Anthologies).
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Waltz, Heidi. 1997. Causative psych-verbs in the history of English. In Irmengard
Rausch & Gerald F. Carr (eds.), Insights in Germanic linguistics II: Classic and contemporary (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 94), 337–43. Berlin &
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Warner, Anthony R. 1992. Elliptical and impersonal constructions: Evidence for auxiliaries in Old English? In Fran Colman (ed.), Evidence for Old English: Material
and theoretical bases for reconstruction, 178–210. Edinburgh: John Donald.
Weiner, Edmund. 1990. The Oxford English Dictionary and Middle English. Medieval English Studies Newsletter 23(1), 14–16.
Weiner, Edmund. 2000. Medieval multilingualism and the revision of the OED. In
D. A. Trotter (ed.), Multilingualism in later medieval Britain, 169–74. Cambridge:
D. S. Brewer.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1999. Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals (Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiggins, Alison. 2007. A makeover story: The Caius Manuscript copy of Guy of Warwick. Studies in Philology 104(4), 471–500.
Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: ‘methinks’ there is
some confusion. In Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English (Studies in Language Companion
Series 53), 355–70. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Yanagi, Tomohiro. 2012. From dative-marked Experiencers to prepositional Experiencers in the history of English. Paper presented at 17th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL-17), University of Zurich (Switzerland), 20–25 August 2012.
Yoshikawa, Fumiko. 2006. Middle English verbs with both impersonal use and reflexive use. In Michiko Ogura (ed.), Textual and contextual studies in medieval English: Towards the reunion of linguistics and philology (Studies in English Medieval
Language and Literature 13), 205–16. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
References | 281
INDEX
Verbs are in principle presented in the Middle English bare forms used in the
book. Old English or Present-day English equivalents are provided if they are cited
in the text.
abelȝen (OE abelgan), 133, 134, 135, 137
accusative, 4, 5, 41–2, 113, 250n. 22
adŏuten, 118, 120, 123, 124–5, 127, 233
adrēden, 109, 110, 112–14, 115, 117, 120,
123, 124–5, 127, 144, 233
(ge)æfestian, 216
affraien, 118, 120, 123, 125, 127
agasten, 109, 110, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120,
123, 125, 127
agent, 38, 41, 42, 250n. 24
agrillen, 39, 126, 133, 134, 135, 137
agrīsen, 86–8, 90, 103, 105, 107, 110,
111, 113–14, 115–16, 117, 118, 119, 120,
122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128–9, 144,
171, 223, 227, 237
agrūwie, 86–8, 90, 103, 110, 114, 116,
119, 123, 125, 127, 128, 237
Allen, Cynthia L., 6, 8–9, 10, 14, 16, 23,
26, 30–2, 181, 228, 249n. 14
alliteration, 131, 140, 211, 225
alomp, 251n. 5
alōthen, 168, 170, 171, 174
Alphabet of Tales, 75, 81, 168
anbelȝen (OE onbelgan), 133, 134, 135,
137
Ancrene Riwle, 87, 91
andian, 216
Anger, 54, 57, 59, 76–9, 91–2, 93,
129–49, 156, 226, 227, 228–9,
229–30, 237, 241
Anglo-Norman Dictionary (AND), 60
angren (PDE anger), 17, 49, 77–8, 79,
90, 91, 130, 134, 135, 137, 139, 141, 145,
147, 148, 233, 237
animacy, see Target of Emotion
anoien, 72–3, 75, 92, 195, 198, 200,
203, 205, 207, 211, 230, 237
apaien, 179, 180, 181, 185, 186, 192, 194
aquāken, 118, 120, 123, 125, 127
areuen (OE ofhrēowan), 49, 69–71,
75, 83–4, 85, 149, 150, 151–6, 195,
198, 203, 205, 211, 228
arghen, 49, 89–90, 103, 106–7, 109,
110, 114, 117, 119, 123, 125, 127, 233, 237
argument alternation, 35–6, 45, 99, 228
ashāmen (OE āsceamian), 84–5, 158–9,
160, 161, 164
aspect, 18, 35, 40–5, 46, 93, 99, 100,
105–7, 115–17, 122, 129, 131–2, 147,
149, 150, 154, 162–3, 166–7, 172–3,
191, 208–10, 216, 219–20, 224–5,
227, 232, 250n. 19
āðrēotan, 26, 67, 70, 74, 75, 79, 80, 82,
85, 90
283
auen, 49, 88–9, 103, 106–7, 119, 123,
125, 127, 128, 129, 237, 255n. 15
availen, 251n. 5
becuman, 36
bedŏut, 118, 120, 123, 127
behove (OE behofian), 13, 26, 27–8,
249n. 10
bēlden, 221, 222, 224
Beowulf, 247n. 17
betharf (OE beþurfan), 26–7, 36, 151
beyelpen, 217, 218, 220
bilŏven (PDE belove), 57, 63–4, 67, 76,
175, 178, 180, 181, 185, 187, 189, 192,
236, 237, 253n. 7
bimēnen, 151, 152, 154–5, 156, 227,
257n. 33
bimōnen, 199, 203, 205, 211
bimŏurnen, 199, 203, 205, 211
bireuen, 151, 152, 154, 156, 256n. 32
bireusen, 151, 152, 156, 256n. 32
bishēnden, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164
blissian, 14
blīthen, 179, 180, 181, 182–3, 185, 192
bōlden, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225
Bosworth & Toller, 19, 51, 57, 60
calan, 14, 26
cāren, 199, 203, 205, 211
Carroll, Ruth, 33–6
case syncretism, 9
causation, 18, 30, 38–40, 45, 99, 114–15,
123, 149, 226–7, 232, 235–6, 238–9
causative meaning, 39–40, 45, 59–60,
64, 67, 69–70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76,
77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87–8,
89, 90, 93–4, 99, 158–9, 178–9,
181–4, 194
causative use, see ToE-subject
transitive construction (under
Target of Emotion)
Cause, 6, 26, 31, 32, 37, 227, 228
change of state, see stativity
Chaucer, 32, 88–9, 105, 247n. 17,
248n. 1, 257n. 37
chauncen, 8
chēven, 49
284 | Index
chiveren, 109, 110, 114, 117, 120, 123,
125, 126, 127, 255n. 16
coercion, 196, 209, 216, 233
compleinen, 199, 203, 206, 209, 211,
259n. 53
Composure/calmness, 59, 213, 242
conative alternation, 113–14, 121, 144,
153–4, 165, 170–1, 189–90, 194, 206,
214–15, 218, 229–30, 234, 237, 255n. 13
Contempt, 242, 261n. 8
control of emotion, 10–11, 15–16, 29,
45, 99, 100, 107–8, 111, 121–2, 132,
142–3, 150–1, 151–3, 157–8, 164,
167–8, 173, 176–7, 190–1, 197, 208,
231, 238
Corpus of Early English
Correspondence (CEEC), 96, 97
Corpus of Middle English Prose and
Verse, 97, 98, 115, 254n. 7
Courage, 58–9, 221–5, 227, 228, 229,
230, 234, 235, 242–3
Croft, William, 11, 12, 16, 38–9
dative, 4, 5, 10, 15–16, 31, 41, 250n. 22
dēlīten, 179, 180, 181, 182, 185, 188,
189, 192, 194, 228, 229
Denison, David, 13–14, 26
deponent, 92
Dictionary of Old English (DOE), 19, 51,
60, 253n. 18
DOE Web Corpus, 4, 60, 96
Diller, Hans-Jürgen, 53–4, 59, 93, 239,
240, 241, 242
disdeinen, 77–8, 79, 94, 130, 132, 141,
144, 145–6, 147–8, 149, 156, 172, 182,
226, 236, 237
displēsen, 199, 200, 201–2, 203, 206,
212, 228
dōlen, 199, 203, 205, 212
dŏuten (PDE doubt), 108, 109, 110,
112, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 123, 124–5,
127, 128–9, 193–4, 230, 233, 255n. 19
drēden (PDE dread), 49, 88–9, 103,
104–5, 106–7, 109, 110, 112–14, 115,
117, 118, 119, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128–9,
144, 193–4, 230–1, 233, 237, 238,
250n. 2, 253n. 19
duration of emotion, 15–16, 39–40, 45,
99, 100, 107–8, 112, 121–2, 128–9,
132, 142–3, 150–1, 151–3, 157–8, 164,
167–8, 173–4, 176–7, 190–1, 197, 208,
216, 220, 230–1, 236, 238–9
durren (PDE dare), 58–9, 221, 222,
224, 252n. 2
earmian, 82–3, 151
(ge)eglian (ME eilen, PDE ail), 13, 68,
69, 75
Ekman, Paul, 239
Elmer, Willy, 23–5
(ge)elnian, 216
embōlden, 221, 222, 224
emplēsen, 179, 181, 185, 192, 194,
259n. 46
emprīden, 217, 218, 220
encŏurāğen, 221, 222, 224
endeinen, 139, 141, 143, 145, 146, 148
enharden, 221, 222, 224
enhauncen (PDE enhance), 217–18,
219, 220, 223
enjoien (PDE enjoy), 21, 179, 181, 185,
189, 192, 194
envīen, 213–16, 260n. 54
erten, 138, 141, 145, 146, 148
eventive adverbial, 44, 46, 99, 150,
209, 233
Excitement, 59, 213, 242, 261n. 7
excīten, 138, 141, 145, 146, 148
Experiencer, 6, 10, 14, 15–16, 24–5, 26,
31–2, 36–7, 38–9
failen, 251n. 5
fainen, 179, 181, 185, 189, 192, 193, 194
Fear, 57, 86–90, 91–2, 93, 103–29, 144,
149, 156, 226, 227, 228–9, 229–30,
235, 237, 241
fēren (PDE fear), 17, 21, 108, 109, 110,
114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 123, 124–5, 126,
127, 233
finite clause, 4, 5, 7, 103, 110, 119–20,
130, 134, 141, 150, 152, 157, 159–60,
166, 170, 175, 185, 195, 205–6, 214,
218, 222
Finnish, 39–40, 41, 113
fordrēden, 109, 110, 114, 115, 117, 120,
123, 127
formal subject it, 6–7, 8, 65–6, 104, 133,
150, 157, 159, 166, 177–8, 182–3,
197–8, 201, 225
formal subject that, 178, 198–9
forsceamian (ME forshāmen), 14, 84,
85, 90, 158
fōrth-callen, 138, 141, 145, 146, 148
forthinken (OE forþencan), 72–3, 75,
92, 195, 198, 200, 203, 205, 211, 230,
236, 237, 253n. 10
forwretthen, 139, 141, 145, 146, 148
fourteenth century, 11, 79, 90, 91–3,
105–7, 140–1, 187, 236–8
fremishen, 118, 120, 123, 127
friclan, 13, 247n. 21
frighten, 17, 21, 118, 120, 123, 127
gāmen, 63–4, 67, 76, 175, 180, 181, 185,
187, 192, 223, 230, 237
gebyrian, 36
gedafenian, 36
genitive, 4, 5
geinen, 13, 49
German, 248n. 22, 253n. 7, 254n. 20,
255n. 17
geyflian, 26
gitsian, 13, 247n. 21
glāden, 8, 63–4, 67, 76, 175, 178, 180,
181, 185, 188, 189, 192, 193, 227, 229,
230, 237
gleuen, 179, 180, 181, 185, 189, 192, 194
glōrīen, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223,
260n. 57
glōrifīen, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223,
260n. 57
God, 128, 138, 148, 193–4, 230,
259n. 48
Gower, 32, 247n. 17
grāmen (OE gramian), 62, 71–2, 75,
76–7, 78–9, 130, 134, 135, 136, 137,
138, 141, 145, 148, 195, 198, 203, 205,
211, 237
grammaticalization, 26, 28, 245n. 7
Gratitude, 53, 59, 242
Greek, 92
Index | 285
grēmen (OE (ge)gremian), 11, 39, 62,
76–7, 78–9, 99, 130, 134, 135, 136,
137, 138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 148, 229,
236, 237
grēven, 72–3, 75, 133–4, 135, 137, 139,
141, 143, 145, 147–8, 195, 198, 200,
203, 205, 211
grillen, 39, 118, 120, 123, 126, 127, 133,
134, 135, 137, 141, 143, 145, 148
grīsen, 87–8, 90, 103, 105–6, 107, 110,
111, 113–14, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123,
125, 127, 128–9, 144, 223, 227, 237
grūen, 118, 120, 123, 127, 255n. 17
ICAMET, 96, 97
Icelandic, 248n. 22
Indifference, 58, 59, 242
infinitive, see non-finite clause
intransitive construction, 29, 45, 99,
110, 111, 113–14, 119–20, 121, 134, 141,
142–3, 152, 159–60, 170, 185, 205–6,
214, 218, 222
irken, 8, 75, 81, 82, 90, 166, 168, 170,
171, 172, 174, 182, 195, 198, 203, 205,
211, 226, 236, 237, 247n. 16
irritation, 78–9, 91, 129–31, 132, 141
irsan, 14
habitual/non-habitual interpretation (in
the simple present), 43–4, 46, 99,
106, 115–16, 129, 131–2, 147, 150, 154,
157, 162–3, 166–7, 172–3, 175–6, 191,
195–6, 208, 209, 210, 216, 219–20,
224, 227, 233, 237
happen(en), 8, 13
hardīen, 221, 222, 223, 224
hāten (OE hātian, PDE hate), 2, 14,
17, 21, 23, 35, 39–40, 82, 100–1,
168–75, 194, 229, 230–1, 234, 236,
238, 258n. 40
Hatred/enmity, 53–4, 57, 78, 79–82, 91,
92, 93, 166–75, 226, 228, 229, 230,
234, 240–1
hēdan, 14
Helsinki Corpus, 96, 249n. 10
herten, 221, 222, 224
hēvīen, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205,
212, 233
hidŏusen, 118, 120, 123, 127
highten, 179, 181, 185, 189, 192
Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English
Dictionary (HTOED), 19, 50–5, 56–60,
232–3
horren, 168, 170, 171, 174
(ge)hrēowsian (ME reusen), 68, 69–70,
90, 151
(ge)hrifnian, 216
Humility, 53, 57, 84–6, 91, 92, 93–4,
156–66, 226, 228, 229–30, 240,
241–2
hunger (OE hyngrian), 13, 26, 244
Jealousy/envy, 53–4, 59, 213–16, 226,
227, 228, 230, 240, 242, 260n. 4
joien, 7, 66–7, 92, 178, 180, 181, 185,
192, 225, 237
joissen, 179, 180, 181, 185, 189, 192, 194
286 | Index
Katherine Group, 63, 76, 87, 91
Laȝamon’s Brut, 63, 65, 76, 87, 91,
247n. 17
lakken, 13
Latin, 69, 75, 79, 81, 82, 92, 115, 122,
140, 146, 151, 168, 186–7, 188,
189–90, 207, 214, 215, 219–20, 229,
246n. 15, 248n. 21, 260n. 57
leofian, 243
Levin, Beth, 33, 35–6, 113, 232
lexical mapping, 228
lexical semantics, 1, 15, 18, 226
līken (OE (ge)līcian, PDE like), 2, 14,
15–16, 21, 30–2, 35, 36–7, 39, 40,
57–8, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 90, 99, 175,
178, 180, 181, 182, 183–4, 185, 187,
188, 189, 192, 193, 227, 228, 229,
230, 234, 237, 247n. 17, 249n. 12,
259n. 48
listen (OE (ge)lystan, PDE list), 8, 13,
37, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 175, 178,
181–2, 185, 187, 189, 192, 215, 227,
228, 229, 230, 234, 236, 237,
247n. 17, 247n. 21, 250n. 3
līten, 179, 181, 185, 192
long (OE langian), 13, 37, 54, 244
lōthen (OE lāðian, PDE loathe), 2,
35, 37, 78, 80–1, 82, 90, 94, 100–1,
166–7, 168–9, 170, 171, 173, 174,
215, 223, 229, 237, 243, 253n. 15,
258n. 40
Loureiro-Porto, Lucía, 26–8, 105
Love, 54, 57–8, 179, 240–1, 242
lŏven (OE lufian, PDE love), 2, 14,
15–16, 17, 21, 23, 35, 39–40, 49, 58,
128–9, 174, 179–80, 181, 184–6,
188–9, 189–91, 192, 193–4, 229,
230–1, 234, 236, 238, 250n. 3,
259n. 47
lusten (PDE lust), 62, 67, 175, 178,
181–2, 185, 186–7, 189, 192, 230,
237, 244
(ge)lustfullian, 37, 61–2, 67, 90, 178
mǢtan, 13
maien, 88–9, 103, 107, 119, 123, 125,
127, 237
manuscript variant, 100–1, 118–19, 139,
161, 168–9, 177, 180–1, 186, 200–1
mēnen, 14, 73–4, 151, 152, 154, 156, 195,
199, 200, 203, 205, 209, 211, 226,
236, 257n. 33
Mental pain/suffering, 57, 67–75, 91, 92,
93–4, 195–212, 226, 228–9, 229–30,
234, 241
merveillen, 8, 54
methinks, 3, 245n. 7, 261n. 13
metre, 246n. 11
mēven, 138, 139, 141, 145, 146, 148
Middle English Dictionary (MED), 1, 19,
49, 54–5, 57, 60, 63–4, 89, 97–8,
123–4, 126, 233, 244, 251n. 6,
252n. 14, 255n. 9, 261n. 14
Middle English Grammar Corpus
(MEG-C), 97
Middle English Medical Texts (MEMT),
97
middle event/voice, 11, 13, 30, 112, 229
middle reflexive, see reflexive
mirīen, 179, 181, 185, 192, 194
mirthen, 179, 180, 181, 185, 192, 193,
194, 227, 228
misfallen, 251n. 5
mislīken (OE mislīcian), 37, 68, 69,
70, 75, 195, 198, 200, 203, 205, 211,
230
mispaien, 199, 200, 203, 204, 205, 212,
228, 259n. 50
misplēsen, 199, 203, 204, 206, 212
mister, 8, 13, 26
mistīden, 251n. 5
mistīmen, 251n. 5
Möhlig-Falke, Ruth, 4–7, 8, 10–11, 13, 14,
16, 30, 32, 36–7, 39, 42–3, 47, 56, 57,
62, 69, 80, 83, 84, 246n. 8,
246n. 14, 247n. 21, 251n. 5, 253n. 6
More, Thomas, 8–9
mŏrnen (OE murnan), 14, 199, 200,
203, 205, 209, 211, 212, 217, 227
need (OE nēodian, ME nēden), 8, 13,
26, 28, 36
(ge)nihtsumian, 61–2, 65
nīthen (OE nīþan), 213–14, 215
noien, 39, 73, 75, 92, 195, 198, 203, 205,
207, 211, 230, 237
nominative, 2, 4, 6, 10–11, 15–16, 31
nonce expression, 22, 29, 50, 58, 73, 77,
81, 85, 91, 124, 132, 146, 202, 226,
247n. 21
non-finite clause (infinitive), 4, 5, 103,
110, 119–20, 130, 134, 141, 150, 152,
157, 159–60, 166, 170, 175, 185, 195,
205–6, 214, 218, 222
objective, 2, 6, 250n. 22
ofdrēden, 8, 88–9, 94, 103, 106–7, 109,
110, 114, 115, 117, 119, 123, 125, 127,
128, 149, 156, 172, 182, 226, 236, 237
offenden, 199, 201, 202, 203, 206, 212,
228
offrighten, 109, 110, 114, 115, 117, 120,
123, 127
ofhearmian, 68, 69, 75, 253n. 16
oflīcian, 37, 69, 70, 75
ofshāmen, 85–6, 92, 157, 158, 159, 160,
161, 163
ofthinken (OE ofþyncan), 69–71, 73,
75, 195, 196, 198, 203, 205, 211, 215,
228, 229, 237
Index | 287
ofunnan, 216
oglen, 118, 120, 123, 125, 127
Old French, 8, 64, 65, 66–7, 72, 78, 91,
92, 191
Old Norse, 75, 81, 87, 91
onhagian, 26, 61, 65, 253n. 6
ouen, 257n. 34
overthinken, 7, 72, 75, 195, 196, 198,
203, 205, 211
Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 19, 51,
54–5, 60, 97, 126, 252n. 14
paien, 64–5, 67, 92, 175, 178, 180, 181,
185, 192, 223, 228, 230, 237
partitive, 16, 113
passive construction, 30, 45, 99, 110,
112, 114, 115, 119–20, 123, 134, 141,
144, 152, 154, 159–60, 170, 172,
184–7, 205–6, 207, 214–15, 218, 219,
222, 223, 228, 234–5, 237
Patient, 235–6, 250n. 24
Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle
English (PPCME2), 96
personal construction, 6, 8, 10–13, 29
phrasal impersonal, 58, 243, 245n. 8,
248n. 22
physical effect/manifestation, 54, 70, 71,
82, 84, 130, 209–11, 217, 227
Pishwa, Hanna, 15–16, 40
Pity/compassion, 53, 57, 82–4, 91, 92,
93–4, 149–56, 226, 228, 229, 234,
241
Pleasure/enjoyment, 57, 60–7, 91, 92,
93–4, 175–94, 226, 228, 229, 230,
234, 237, 241
pleinen, 199, 203, 205, 212
plēsen (PDE please), 7, 16, 17, 21, 32,
65–6, 67, 175, 177–8, 180, 181, 185,
189, 192, 193, 228, 237, 249n. 14
prepositional phrase, 4, 5, 103, 110,
119–20, 125, 130, 134, 141, 150, 152,
157, 159–60, 166, 170, 175, 185, 195,
205–6, 214, 218, 222
Pride, 53, 59, 217–21, 226, 227, 228,
229, 230, 240, 242
prīden, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223
prŏuden, 217, 218, 220, 230–1
288 | Index
provocation, 79, 133, 146
prōvōken, 138, 141, 145, 146, 148
psychology of emotion, 53–4, 59,
238–43
psych-verb, 17–18, 21, 35, 37–43, 232
punctual adverb, 122, 162, 209
Pylkkänen, Liina, 39–40, 41, 236
quāken, 49, 108, 109, 110, 114, 115, 117,
118, 120, 123, 125, 126, 127, 255n. 16
quāven, 109, 110, 114, 117, 118, 120,
123, 127
quēmen (OE (ge)cwēman, PDE queem),
11, 16, 30–2, 39, 64–5, 67, 90, 92,
175, 178, 181, 182, 185, 192, 227, 228,
229, 230, 236, 237
rate adverb, 44–5, 105, 140, 147, 154,
196, 255n. 16
reanalysis, 9, 32
recchen, 246n. 15
redŏuten, 118, 120, 123, 127
reflexive construction, 8, 30, 110, 111,
119–20, 134, 141, 144–5, 152, 159–60,
170, 185, 187–9, 202, 205–6, 214,
215, 218, 222, 228–9
middle-reflexive, 30, 45, 99, 112, 123,
145, 154–5, 165–6, 171, 188–9, 194,
207, 219, 223, 228–9
transitive-reflexive, 30, 154–5, 188–9,
219, 223, 229, 259n. 53, 260n. 57
regrēten, 199, 203, 206, 211, 212
rejoien, 179, 180, 181, 185, 189, 192,
194
rejoisen, 66–7, 175, 178, 180, 181, 185,
192, 228, 237
remembren (PDE remember), 14,
248n. 1
remorden, 200, 203, 204, 206, 212,
227, 228
repenten, 253n. 11
reuen (OE (ge)hrēowan, PDE rue), 8,
13, 16, 60, 68, 69–70, 75, 82–4, 93,
149–51, 151–2, 153–4, 155–6, 170, 195,
196, 198, 200, 203, 205, 211, 223,
228, 230, 237
rignan, 6, 246n. 10
Sanskrit, 92
sāvŏuren, 179, 181, 183–4, 185, 192
semantic analogy, 8, 65, 67, 75, 78, 222
sēmen (PDE seem), 8–9, 13, 24–5, 65,
248n. 5
serial relationship, 26
shāmen (OE (ge)sceamian, PDE
shame), 14, 16, 84, 85–6, 93, 99, 101,
157–8, 159–65, 170, 216, 223, 230,
237, 257n. 34
shēnden, 101, 158, 159–64, 227, 242
shōderen (PDE shudder), 108, 118,
120, 123, 127, 254n. 20
shruggen, 118, 120, 123, 127
shuddering, 90, 91, 93, 105–7, 108,
115–17, 122, 125–6, 227, 237
sīken, 210–11
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, 201–2,
247n. 17
sitten, 49
slēan, 26
smerten, 13, 71, 75, 195, 198, 203, 205,
211, 215, 223, 228, 230, 237
snīwan, 6
sorwen, 200, 203, 204–7, 210–11, 212,
217, 227
sŏuen, 71–2, 75, 93, 195, 198, 203, 205,
209, 211, 216, 228
Source, 6, 30
Spanish, 11, 41–2, 44–5, 235–6, 247n. 20,
248n. 22
stativity, 40–5, 93, 106–7, 116–17, 129,
147, 149, 150, 157, 162–3, 166–7,
175–6, 191, 196, 208, 216, 219–20,
224, 227, 232, 233, 237
change of state, 38, 90, 93, 105,
122, 132, 140, 142, 163, 196, 216,
227, 237
Stimulus, 37, 38, 39, 41
St. Juliana, 63, 136
stōnden, 251n. 5
suffīsen, 49, 64–5, 67
swēmen, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 212
174–5, 192–3, 194, 211–12, 215, 220,
223–4, 230, 236, 237–8
ToE-subject transitive construction
(causative use), 99–100, 114–15,
123, 135, 145–6, 155, 160, 161, 171–2,
181–2, 194, 202–4, 215–16, 217–18,
221, 226–7, 242
tarīen, 132, 138, 139, 141, 145, 146, 147,
148, 227
tēnen (OE tēonian), 75, 76–7, 78–9,
90, 130–1, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140,
141, 144, 145, 147, 148, 171, 195, 198,
203, 205, 211, 223, 230, 236, 237
terren, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139,
141, 145, 146, 147, 148, 227
tharf (OE þurfan, ME thurven),
26–7, 104–5, 151, 252n. 2, 257n. 34
Theme, 6, 8, 26, 27, 30, 31, 37, 41, 227,
228
Thesaurus of Middle English, 55, 252n. 13
Thesaurus of Old English (TOE), 51, 54,
79
thinken (OE þyncan, PDE think),
8–9, 13, 24–5, 39, 73, 248n. 5
thirst (OE þyrstan), 13, 26, 244
tikelen, 7, 66, 67, 92, 178, 181, 182–3,
185, 192, 225, 237
Tissari, Heli, 193, 241
transitive construction, 29, 45, 99, 110,
112–14, 119–20, 121, 134, 141, 144,
152, 159–60, 170, 185, 205–6, 214,
218, 222
transitive-reflexive, see reflexive
transitivity, 42–3, 113–14, 121, 144, 154,
171, 190, 206, 230, 233–7, 238
tremblen, 118, 120, 123, 125, 126, 127
(ge)twēogan, 16, 26, 54
Target of Emotion (ToE), 31–2, 37, 45
its animacy, 31, 32–3, 45, 99, 116–17,
126–7, 137–8, 147–8, 155–6, 163–4,
Valency Dictionary of English, 36
verbs of cooking, 33–5
verbs of desire, 244
uggen, 60, 81, 82, 87–8, 90, 103–4, 110,
111, 114, 116, 119, 123, 125, 127, 128–9,
166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 237
unlīken, 200, 203, 204, 205, 212
unpaien, 200, 203, 204, 206, 212
Index | 289
waimenten, 200, 203, 206, 211, 212
wanten, 13
weilen, 200, 203, 205, 209, 210, 212
wēpen, 210–11
wērīen, 7, 74, 92, 198, 200, 203, 205,
211, 225
West Midland, 63, 76–7, 79, 87, 91
wilnian, 247n. 21
wlāten (OE wlātian), 54, 78, 80–1, 82,
93, 166–7, 169, 170, 171, 173, 174, 237
wlenchen, 217, 218, 220
wondren, 54
word order, 9
290 | Index
word pair, 100–1, 118–19, 135, 139, 160–1,
168–9, 180, 200–1
wratthen, 62, 77, 78–9, 130, 132, 133,
134, 135–6, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 144,
145, 147, 148, 230, 237
wrēchen, 139, 141, 145, 146, 148
wrēthen, 62, 77–9, 92, 130, 132, 133,
134, 135–6, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145,
147, 148, 237
wrōthen, 139, 141, 145, 146, 148, 256n. 24
yearn (OE giernan), 244, 247n. 21,
261n. 12