Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte
Eline Laperre
The Locative Possessive in English
and West-Flemish
A diachronic study
Masterproef voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van
Master in de Taal- en Letterkunde Engels-Duits
2012-2013
1
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Anne Breitbarth and my co-supervisor, Prof. Dr.
Liliane Haegeman, for their help and support in writing this thesis. Furthermore, I am very
grateful to Prof. Dr. Luc de Grauwe, and Prof. Emeritus Magda Devos, fort heir help in
analysing the Middle Dutch results of this study. Finally, I also thank Janne Vandriessche for
giving me the inspiration to write this thesis.
2
Table of contents
3
1. Introduction
It is generally known that in English, locative possessive constructions of the type to John’s,
where a head noun meaning home is omitted, occur relatively frequently. However, it may be
a lesser known fact that such constructions exist in the West-Flemish dialect of Dutch as well.
It may, then, be interesting to compare the locative possessives in these two languages, and to
find out how they developed. However, scholarly literature regarding the locative possessive
is remarkably scarce. Thus, I have conducted this study in order to investigate how the
locative possessive developed in English and West-Flemish, how it is used in these languages
today, and whether the constructions in both languages originated as Ingvaeonisms or a
parallel independent development.
For this construction, I have used the term ‘locative possessive’, because it is a possessive
construction which is used to express location. Some authors (Grafmiller, forthcoming; Allen
2004) refer to the locative possessive as an ‘elliptical’ possessive; however, this term may
cause confusion, as not all elliptical possessives are locatives. For instance, constructions such
as this is my book and that is Mary’s also contain an elliptical possessive: Mary’s. In this case,
the elided head noun, book, can be derived from the context, and the meaning of this
construction is, of course, not locative. To avoid such confusion, I have chosen to refer to the
construction that I will investigate as a locative construction. Another problematic aspect of
the terminology is that many authors refer to possessives as genitives. While it is important
for my study to distinguish between the genitive case and other possessive markers, I have
chosen to solely use the term ‘genitive’ when I am referring to the genitive case. Otherwise, I
will always use the term ‘possessive’. Thus, the type of possessive that this study focuses on
will always be referred to as the locative possessive.
The framework of the present study is cognitive grammar and the prototype theory. Cognitive
grammar considers two participants to be the basis of each clause or phrase: the landmark,
which is the primary constituent in every clause or phrase, and the trajector, which is the
secondary constituent. In possessive phrases, the possessor, i.e. the head noun, is considered
to be the trajector, whilst the possessee is labelled the landmark (Langacker 1995;Taylor
1996). The locative possessive will furthermore be investigated by means of the prototype
theory (Heine 1997), and this framework will be used to explain how locative possessives
4
most likely originated in English and West-Flemish. Specifically, I will argue that the locative
possessive is one of the most prototypical possessive constructions in English and WestFlemish, and that consequently, the interpretation of locative possessives, even if they have
omitted the trajector, is relatively easy.
As it was my aim to discuss the diachronic development of the locative possessive in English
and West-Flemish, corpus research was conducted in order to map this development. For
West-Flemish, a number of Middle Dutch corpora were examined. Unfortunately, corpora of
modern dialects are not yet available, so no corpus research regarding the West-Flemish
possessive could be done on corpora containing modern texts. As the locative possessive is
used in the entire English language area, corpora of modern English could be examined.
However, I have restricted these English corpora to British English corpora only, for reasons
of space and time. For West-Flemish, the research was conducted by running the concordance
program AntConc on the Middle Dutch corpora. AntConc only allows string searches with
regular expressions, rather than on syntactic structures, like the CorpusSearch program that
was used for the English research. In other words, the methodologies for English and Dutch
differ significantly. This of course carries the consequence that the Dutch and English results
of the research cannot unconditionally be compared to one another. Both may be used to
investigate diachronic developments, but the frequency of occurrences in one language may
not be comparable to that of the other language. However, such a comparison is not the
purpose of this study; rather, it aims to map the development of the locative possessive in both
languages separately, and then to investigate why it developed in these particular languages.
Chapter 2 in this study will deal with the question whether the locative possessive should be
considered an old Ingvaeonism, or whether the development of these constructions in English
and West-Flemish should be considered a parallel independent development. Chapter 3 will
focus on the English possessive: first, the English possessive marker and its origin will be
discussed, then, the locative possessive in English will be discussed, and finally, the third
chapter of this thesis will address the corpus research that was done in order to map the
development of the English locative possessive. Chapter 4, then, will focus on the WestFlemish possessive. First, it will also discuss the Modern Standard Dutch possessive and its
diachronic development, then, it will address the locative possessive in West-Flemish and
finally, the corpus research that maps the diachronic development of the locative possessive in
5
Dutch will be discussed. Chapter 5 will contain a discussion of the results in both languages,
and will interpret these results in a cognitive framework, and by means of the prototype theory.
6
2. Ingvaeonisms and Ingvaeonic features in Germanic languages
The following chaper will focus on the question whether the locative possessive can be
considered to be an Ingvaeonism. In section 2.1, I will first discuss what Ingvaeonisms and
Ingvaeonic languages are, before turning to the discussion of the locative possessive with
relation to Ingvaeonisms in section 2.2.
2.1 Ingvaeonisms and Ingvaeonic languages
According to Van Keymeulen (2003: 394), “the term Ingvaeonism is used for a wide variety
of phenomena which do not fit into the ‘normal’ development of Low Franconian, but which
are paralleled by phenomena in English and / or Frisian.” Today, ingvaeonic features occur in
a series of coastal dialects reaching from West-Frisia to Cape Gris Nez in present-day France.
One example is the absence of the dental n before s and th in, for instance, the English words
other (Old Saxon oþar) and us (Old Saxon ûs), where Dutch has ander and ons (van Bath
1949). Ingvaeonisms are not, however, purely dialectal features, as Weijnen (1999) seems to
argue; some Ingvaeonisms occur in Modern Standard Dutch as well. One example is the
absence of n in vijf ‘five’: the cognate forms in English and Frisian are five and fiif
respectively, whereas German has the form fünf, with n. The Modern Standard Dutch personal
pronouns starting in h (such as hij or hem) can also be argued to be Ingvaeonisms, as the
English and Frisian pronouns (he and hy respectively) start in h as well. Furthermore,
Ingvaeonisms are not strictly confined to dialects in the coastal areas, either. Weijnen (1999),
for instance, notes some Ingvaeonisms in a few Brabantine dialects, and Van Keymeulen
(2003: 395) also argues that the occurrences of Ingvaeonisms in present-day Dutch dialects
“increase towards the western coast”, indicating that these features are not all confined to the
coastal dialects.
Interestingly, Van Keymeulen (2003) puts forth the hypothesis that Ingvaeonisms occur in
some Dutch dialects, which are usually considered to be Franconian dialects, because an
ancient population, which spoke an Ingvaeonic language, lived in the coastal areas of presentday Flanders and the western Netherlands before these areas were ruled by the Franks. From
the early Middle Ages onwards, Franconian tribes gradually started migrating to more western
areas, and by the 7th century, they had come into contact with the Ingvaeonic tribes living in
7
present-day Flanders and the Netherlands. During the 7th century, the Franconian tribes
gradually established dominance over the Ingvaeonic tribes, and their language was
accordingly influenced by the Franconian dialects. Arguably, the reason why some
Ingvaeonisms have survived in the present-day dialects might be the fact that “in a situation
where the source language is dominant, namely Ingvaeonic, the stable components of the
source language […] are transferred to the receiving language, namely Franconian” (Van
Keymeulen 2003: 398). During the early Middle Ages, the Frisian Kingdom was gradually
gaining power as well, and from the late 7th century onwards, the Frisian language was able to
influence Old English and the Franconian dialects through language contact (Van Keymeulen
2003; Weijnen 1999). Interestingly, Weijnen (1999) argues that Ingvaeonisms did not enter
the English language because of the Saxon tribes that migrated to Britain in the 5th century,
and consequently brought their language with them; rather, Ingvaeonisms first appeared in
English only after the Anglo-Saxon migrations had taken place. Thus, these Ingvaeonisms
must have been transferred from another language into English: in all likelihood, they were
introduced into English because of language contact with the Frisian Kingdom. Importantly,
from this notion, it may be inferred that Ingvaeonisms did not yet exist in the 5th century in
the Saxon dialect; otherwise, they would have entered the language with the Anglo-Saxon
migrations to Britain.
2.2 The locative possessive as an Ingvaeonic feature?
In this chapter, I will discuss the possibility that the locative possessive may be an Ingvaeonic
feature. An argument in favour of such an interpretation may be that the locative possessive
occurs in most languages or dialects which happen to be Ingvaeonic. First of all, the
construction occurs in English (Biber et al. 2002, Allen 2004); a few examples are at John’s,
to the baker’s, at my father’s, and so on. Secondly, as Devos (2005) shows, West-Flemish has
the locative possessive in constructions such as bi Annies, to pepes (‘at granddad’s’), to min
moeders (‘at my mother’s’). Furthermore, the locative possessive can be found in FrenchFlemish, in for example toe de bakkers (‘at the baker’s’), toe me zusters (‘at my sister’s’) or
no de meres (‘to the mayor’s’). Finally, the construction also occurs in West-Frisian, in for
instance by masters (‘at the schoolmaster’s’), by domeneys (‘at the pastor’s’), or by de bakkers
(‘at the baker’s’) (Sipma 1913), and in North-Frisian, in constructions such as äät präästers
(‘at the pastor’s’), äät ualaatjen (‘at grandfather’s’), äät Wöögens (‘at Wöögen’s’) (FeringÖömrang Wurdenbuk 2002).
8
However, one argument against the interpretation of locative possessives as Ingvaeonic
phenomena may be the fact that, according to Van der Horst (2008), the locative possessive
was used in the entire Dutch language area, and not just the coastal areas. However, as we
have seen, other Ingvaeonisms do exist in some Brabantine dialects, and even in the Modern
Dutch Standard language. This notion alone can therefore not disprove the Ingvaeonic
interpretation of the locative possessive.
A more important argument against an Ingvaeonic interpretation might be related to the time
period in which the construction originated. Ingvaeonisms are rather old phenomena. As
indicated before, they probably did not exist yet in the Saxon dialect during the 5th century,
and they must have been part of the Dutch coastal dialects and the Frisian language before the
7th century. Heeroms (1972) argues that Ingvaeonisms first occurred around 400 AD, and that
some Ingvaeonic dialects existed until after the High Middle Ages. He divides this
‘Ingvaeonic period’ into thee subperiods: ‘early’ Ingvaeonic, which is dated from 400 to 800,
‘later’ Ingvaeonic, dated from 800 until 1200, and ‘latest’ Ingvaeonic, which is date after
1200. He argues that, in the inland parts of the Dutch and Low Dutch language areas, only
Ingvaeonisms from the first period have survived, which means that the Ingvaeonisms from
these areas are quite old. The ‘lasest’ Ingvaeonic was, according to Heeroms (1972) only
spoken in Frisia during the High Middle Ages. Thus, in order to interpret the locative
possessive as an Ingvaeonism, the construction would have to be very old. However, Allen
(2004) and Van der Horst (2008) claim that the locative possessive only arose in Middle
English and Middle Dutch, respectively, making the locative possessive a rather recent
phenomenon. In order to determine with more certainty whether the locative possessive is an
Ingvaeonism or not, more research needs to be done on this construction in the Ingvaeonic
languages. In the following chapters, such research will be presented, although only with
respect to English and West-Flemish.
9
3. English
The third chapter of this thesis will address the locative possessive construction in English.
Chapter 3.1 will first provide a theoretical discussion of the English possessive, and will then
narrow down the discussion to the locative possessive. As it was my aim to map the
diachronic development of the locative possessive, the English possessive marker was also
discussed from a diachronic viewpoint. In order to achieve this aim, corpus research was
conducted on the occurrence of the locative possessive in earlier stages of English. This
corpus research and its results will be addressed in chapter 3.2.
3.1 Possessives in English
The following chapter will discuss the English possessive marker, and more specifically, the
locative possessive in English. Section 3.1.1 will address the nature of the possessive
morpheme in English, and in section 3.1.2, the development of the possessive marker from a
genitive case affix to a phrasal affix will be discussed. Section 3.1.3 will deal with the
separated possessive in English, and finally, section 3.1.4 will address the locative possessor
and its occurrence in present-day English.
3.1.1 The Modern English possessive
Before focussing on the locative possessive, it may be useful to discuss the nature of the
English possessive, both as it exists in present-day English, and how it developed
diachronically. There is general consensus among scholars that the possessive marker in
present-day English should no longer be considered a true inflectional affix. The reason for
this notion is that in English, the possessive marker can not only attach to the head noun, but
it can also appear “at the right edge of a noun phrase containing postmodification” (Börjars et
al. 2013: 125) , or “syntactic groups” (Allen 2008: 43), as in, for example, [the man with the
red jumper]’s keys, where the possessive relation affects the entire noun phrase. This
construction is most commonly referred to as a group genitive, although, according to Börjars
et al. (2013), the term phrasal genitive appears as well. Little agreement, however, can be
found in the literature about what Börjars et al. (2013: 125) call the “theoretical status of ‘s”.
While the possessive morpheme arguably still has characteristics of an affix, it also behaves
like a clitic in some respects.
10
Before we, however, turn to the discussion of the status of the possessive morpheme, it may
be useful to briefly summarize the core differences between clitics and affixes: (Zwicky &
Pullum 1983)
1. “Clitics can exhibit a low degree of selection with respect to their hosts, while affixes
exhibit a high degree of selection with respect to their stems“ (Zwicky & Pullum
1983: 503).
2. “Arbitrary gaps in the set of combinations are more characteristic of affixed words
than of clitic groups” (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 504).
3. “Morphophonological idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words than of
clitic groups.” (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 504).
4. “Semantic idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic
groups” (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 504).
According to these criteria, the English possessive seems more clitic-like than affix like. First,
it shows a somewhat lower degree of selection with respect to its host than affixes: as noted
above, the English possessive can attach to the right edge of noun phrases, even when the
word at the right edge of the syntactic group is not a noun (Börjars et al. 2013). However, as
Allen (2008: 45) argues, “if it is to be called a clitic, it is one which exhibits the affix-like
characteristic of sensitivity to the morphological nature of its host.” In other words, while the
possessive marker can attach to noun phrases that contain postmodifiers, it does of course still
select its host on the basis of morphology.
Secondly, as far as I am aware, arbitrary gaps do not usually occur with respect to the
possessive marker: it can attach to most types of nouns, and when the ‘s possessive cannot be
used due to syntactic or morphological restrictions, these restrictions are usually of a
systematic, rather than arbitrary, nature. Furthermore, the English possessive can take
idiosyncratic forms, as is the case for the pronouns my, you, her, their, and our (Nevis 2000).
Finally, Nevis (2000) presents another reason why the English ‘s possessive marker cannot be
considered a ‘pure’ clitic: while clitics can be interpreted as derived bound words, the English
possessive cannot. Like independent words, clitics are assigned word classes, and they can
function as inflectable stems, just as words can be inflected. The English possessive marker,
by contrast, can still be analysed morphologically; in other words, as part of a word. A first
argument that Nevis (2000: 394) provides to support this statement, is the fact that “the
possessive marker exhibits haplology when combined with the homophonous plural marker:”
possessive plural nouns do not repeat the s of the possessive, as, for instance, the plural
possessive noun cats’ indicates (see example (1).
11
(1)
(a) the eyes of the cats
(b) the cat’s eyes
(c) the cats’ eyes
(d) * the cats’s eyes
Secondly, the English possessive can take idiosyncratic forms, as is the case for the pronouns
my, you, her, their, and our (Nevis 2000). Thus, it can be argued that the English possessive
marker cannot be analysed as a pure clitic, nor as a pure affix.
Several alternative interpretations of the theoretical nature of the possessive marker have been
suggested. Zwicky (1977) proposes three types of clitics: simple clitics, special clitics, and
bound words. Simple clitics are defined by Zwicky (1977: 3) as “cases where an unaccented
bound form acts as a variant of a stressed free form with the same cognitive meaning and with
similar phonological make-up.” Examples of simple clitics are the French conjunct pronouns
me ‘me’, and le ‘him’, as opposed to the corresponding ‘full’ forms, the disjunct pronouns
moi ‘me’ and lui ‘him’ (Zwicky 1977). Special clitics, then, are “cases where a free
morpheme, when unaccented, may be phonologically reduced, the resultant form being
phonologically subordinated to a neighboring word” (Zwicky 1977: 5). The use of these
clitics is generally dependent on register or style: in English, some pronouns can, in informal
registers, be realised as reduced forms, as in he sees ‘er (her), or she met ‘im (him) (Zwicky
1977). Finally, bound words are “cases where a morpheme that is always bound and always
unaccented show considerable syntactic freedom, in the sense that they can be associated with
words of a variety of morphosyntactic categories” (Zwicky 1977: 6). These clitics are always
located at the margins of constituents. The English possessive morpheme is, according to
Zwicky (1977), an example of a bound word. Nevis (2000), however, has argued that the
division between special clitics and bound words can be discarded, due to considerable
overlap between the two categories. Hence, a two-way division between simple and special
clitics has been adopted, and the English ‘s possessive has, in this view, been analysed as a
special clitic (Nevis 2000).
A second widely adopted interpretation is that of the possessive marker ‘s as a phrasal affix
(Anderson 1992). In this view, the possessive marker is considered to have all the
characteristics of a regular inflectional affix, except for the fact that it attaches phrasally
12
(Nevis 2000). As indicated above, the possessive marker shows sensitivity to the morphology
of its host (Allen 2008), and cannot be considered a bound word, due to the haplology it
exhibits when attached to plural nouns, and its morphological idiosyncrasies (Nevis 2000).
These affixal qualities, combined with the phrasal attachment of the possessive marker, have
prompted an analysis of the possessive as a phrasal affix. This study will adopt this analysis as
well.
3.1.2 The origin and development of the English possessive
While the possessive marker in Modern English is analysed as a phrasal affix, this is not the
case in Old English; rather, in Old English, a possessive relation was expressed by means of
the genitive case (see example 2). An overview of the genitive case inflections in Old English
can be found in table (1).
(2)
ðæs
cyninges
gerefa
the:M.GEN.SG
king:(M)GEN.SG
reeve:(M)NOM.SG.
‘the king’s reeve’
(cochronA-5, ChronA_[Plummer]:1001.18.1434) (ASC(A) 1001.21), as cited
in Allen 2008: 76, her (3-13)
Strong
Masc.
Neut.
Short
Long
Sg. stānes scipes þinges
Pl.
stāna
scipa
þinga
Weak
Fem.
Masc.
Neut.
Fem.
u-
Athematic
stem
Short Long
naman
ēagan
giefe
sorge
tungan
suna
mannes
giefa
sorga namena ēagena tungena suna
manna
Table (1): Old English genitive inflections, from The Magic Sheet of Old English inflections
(http://faculty.virginia.edu)
In what follows, I will discuss the development of the English possessive marker, from its Old
English realisation as an inflectional affix to its present-day status as a phrasal affix.
During the Middle English period, the genitive case marker underwent several significant
changes in morphology and distribution. First of all, already near the end of the Old English
period, there was a “statistically highly significant trend towards favouring the prenominal
position for structurally assigned genitive case” (Allen 2008: 118). In other words, the
13
postnominal genitive gradually began to disappear, and this development was completed by
the end of the Early Middle English period (c. 1300). The postnominal genitive (see example
(3) was then, gradually, replaced by of- possessive (see example 4) constructions (Allen,
2008).
(3)
Old English postnominal genitive:
of ðære
foresædan
cyrcan
þæs
of the:F.DAT.SG aforesaid church:(F)DAT.SG
eadigan
the:M.GEN.SG
Stephanes
blessed:M.SG Stephen:(M)GEN.SG
‘from the aforementioned church of the blessed Stephen’
(COCATHOM2,ÆCHom_II,_2:12.14.263), as cited in Allen 2008: 83, her (321a)
(4)
Middle English of-possessive:
for þære
deorewurðnysse
of þære
forme
for the:F.DAT.SG preciousness:(F)DAT.SG of the:F.DAT.SG first
dohter.
daughter(F)
‘because of the preciousness of the first daughter’
(CMKENTHO,139.153) (Festis 242), as cited in Allen 2008: 160, her (4-28)
Koike (2006) links the Old English postnominal position of genitives to the relation of the
genitive nominal phrase to the head noun. Genitive nouns expressing a Patient or a Cause
relation, which are normally nonhuman nouns, are usually postposed. The partitive (see
example (5)) genitive is also postposed in most cases, except when it is a pronoun (see
example 6); in that case, it occurs before the head noun. Preposed genitives are, according to
Koike (2006) usually those expressing an interpersonal relation, a possessive relation, or
Agentive or Experiencer relations. Importantly, as the postnominal genitive disappeared, the
distribution of the genitive case marker was reduced both syntactically and semantically, as it
could no longer be used in postnominal genitive positions, in combination with nouns
expressing Patient, Cause or partitive relations (Allen 2008; Koike 2006).
14
(5)
Behealdað þæt ge ne forseon ænne þyssera lytlinga
Watch out that you:NOM.SG not.neglect one these:GEN.PL little
ones:GEN.PL
‘Watch out that you do not neglect one of these little ones’
(CH 34, 153), as cited in Koike 2006: 52, her (e-10)
(6)
Gif ure
ænigum
sum ungelimp becume
If 1PL:GEN any:DAT.PL some mishap comes
‘If a mishap befalls any of us’
(cocathom2, ÆCHom_II,_35:267.234.6022), as cited in Allen2008: 85, her (324)
Some authors (see e.g. Taylor 1996; Lightfoot 1999) have suggested that the loss of the
postnominal genitive in English was caused by the loss of the genitive as a case in Early
Middle English. Lightfoot (1999), for instance suggests an Early Reanalysis Hypothesis. This
theory assumes that children growing up in, and acquiring the language of dialect areas where
the language had already lost (part of) its case system, could no longer recognise –es as a case
inflection, precisely because those children did not acquire cases anymore. According to this
hypothesis, the possessive marker already had the status of a phrasal affix in Early Middle
English (Allen 2008). However, Allen (2008) rejects the Early Reanalysis Hypothesis, on the
basis of evidence for the retention of the genitive case beyond the Early Middle English
period. This evidence will discussed in what follows.
A second significant change regarding the English genitive case marker, is the loss of
agreement inflection. According to Allen (2008), in an initial stage of the development, near
the end of the 12th century, inflectional agreement within nominal phrases had become
optional. In other words, articles or adjectives no longer needed to be inflected according to
the case of the nominal. By the 14th century, near the end of the Middle English period, the -es
possessive marker was no longer a genitive case marker that was exclusively used with
masculine and neuter singular nouns, but a possessive marker that could be used with all
nouns, regardless of gender and number (Allen 2008) (see example (7) below).
15
(7)
þese anticristis
disciplis
these Antichrist:POSS
disciples
‘these disciples of the Antichrist’
(CMWYCSER, 398.3106), as cited in Allen 2008: 146, her (4-16)
Importantly, as Allen (2008) points out, the loss of agreement inflection does not imply the
loss of the case system in English. In fact, the genitive case remains in existence throughout
the Middle English period, even though agreement no longer occurred in the nominal phrase.
Gradually, the genitive case inflections ceased to be used and were replaced by a possessive
marker –es, but instances of the genitive can still be found until the end of the Middle English
period (Allen 2008). The evidence which Allen (2008: 146) presents for the retention of the
genitive case is first of all that “invariant –es did not become the only genitive inflection for
nouns until after the end of the ME period.” Secondly, even texts which normally do not
display much inflection, contain some cases of agreement within the NP (see example 8). In
other words, the genitive case still appears in some texts that can be considered inflectionpoor texts, indicating that the genitive case was not immediately lost after the Old English
period (Allen 2008).
(8)
Inn aness were
In
heowe
a:GEN man:GEN hue
‘in the likeness of a man’
(Orm 11602), as cited in Allen 2008:146, her (4-17b)
Furthermore, the retention of a dative/accusative distinction in English may, arguably, also
support the idea that the genitive case still exists as well. A final piece of evidence is related
to the morphophonemic alternation between [f] and [v] in words like wife/wives. In Old
English, [f] and [v] were allophones: [f] appeared in word-final position, and [v] in
intervocalic position. Thus, when followed by a plural or genitive case marker, the voiced
allophone was selected. However, the spelling remained <f>. In Middle English, then, these
allophones had become two phonemes, with different spellings. The phonological process,
which caused the <f> in intervocalic position to become voiced, disappeared. However, <v>
or <u> spellings, representing [v]-pronunciation, can be found both in the plural and the
possessive forms of words normally ending in [f] (see example (9)).
16
(9)
in his wyues heritage
‘in his wife’s heritage’
(CMCAPCHR,128.2957), as cited in Allen 2008: 148, her (4-18)
This could mean that, although the phonological process that had demanded the [v]pronunciation had disappeared, the plural and possessive markers still interacted on a
morphological level with their host. These four points may serve as evidence of the fact that
in Middle English, the genitive case was still present in the language, and that the possessive
marker was thus still a genitive (inflectional) suffix (Allen 2008).
Allen (2008) notes, however, that due to the aforementioned optionality of agreement, the
genitive inflection was often characterised by once-only marking (see example (10) below.
(10)
þt
ter
walde wakenin of wif. &
That there would arise
weres somnunge; richesce. &
of wife and man:POSS union wealth and
orldes weole
world:POSS prosperity
‘that of man and woman’s union, there would arise wealth and worldly
prosperity’
(CMHALI,150.322), as cited in Allen 2008: 149, her (4-19)
Because the head of the NP was usually located at the right edge of the NP, it is not always
possible to determine whether head marking (i.e. only the head NP is marked) or edge
marking (i.e. the entire NP is marked, at the right edge) took place (Allen 2008). Another
issue regarding edge marking, is that the –es inflection had started to spread beyond
masculine and neuter nouns of the majority of the nouns within the –a stem class; for
instance, once-only marking gradually spread to appositives and conjoined possessors. This
spread of –es to inflectional classes where it normally did not appear in Old English could
have facilitated the reanalysis of the genitive suffix as an edge inflection. A further catalyst in
the reanalysis of the English genitive to a phrasal affix was in all likelihood the origin of the
group genitive. As explained in section 3.1.1, group genitives are constructions to which a
possessive marker is attached on a phrasal level: the possessive marker attaches to the whole
NP, and not just the head noun. This should not be confused with once-only marking: in
17
phrases which show once-only marking, the possessive marker still attaches to the noun itself,
and the possessive relation does not, as is the case for the group genitive, refer to the phrase as
a whole (Allen 2008). In conclusion, Allen (2008: 151) argues that “it was the optionality of
agreement morphology combined with the spread of -es into noun classes where it had not
been found earlier that made possible the reanalysis of this suffix as something rather
different from the masculine and neuter singular genitive marker of OE.”
3.1.3 The separated genitive or his genitive
In addition to the –es possessive marker, the so-called his genitive or separated genitive
appeared in Middle English as well (Allen 2008). This type of possessive marker will briefly
be discussed in the following section, in order to give a complete account of the development
of the English ‘s possessive marker. Even though the construction is often referred to as a
‘genitive’, in this study I will not refer to possessive markers as genitives, unless they are
actually genitive case markers. Therefore, the construction will henceforth be referred to as
the his possessive or the separated possessive. The his possessive is construction which is
formed by means of a (separated) possessive pronoun, rather than an attached possessive
marker, and was mainly used between 1400 and 1750 (Allen 2008). One example can be
found below:
(11)
Of seth, ðe was adam is
sune
Of seth, who was adam POSS son
‘Of Seth, who was Adam’s son’
(Gen&Ex (A) 493), as cited in Allen 2008: 223, her (6-1)
The his possessive can take several different spellings: his, ys and is (Allen 2008). Some
authors (e.g. Taylor 1996) have suggested that the possessive marker of present-day English
did not develop from the genitive inflection, but originated as a separated possessive. These
views are supported by the claim that the apostrophe of the present-day possessive marker is
an indication of contraction; therefore, it is argued that the possessive marker cannot have
derived from an inflectional affix, but rather from his (Taylor 1996). This study will,
however, reject this view, as the Modern English possessive quite clearly has its origins in the
genitive case, and adopt the idea that past confusion between the attached and separated
possessives, due to ambiguous spelling, caused the apostrophe to be retained as part of the
possessive marker in present-day English (Baugh and Cable 2002). As Allen (2008) notes,
18
the apostrophe was originally used to indicate elisions of vowels, and thus, the apostrophe
might represent the elision of –e in the possessive affix –es, resulting in the present-day
possessive marker ‘s. However, in Early Modern English, the apostrophe also began to be
used in contractions. Thus, the presence of the apostrophe was often misinterpreted as being a
sign of a contraction of his, and following this idea, the origin of the English possessive
marker was often mistakenly assumed to be related to his (Allen 2008).
3.1.4 The locative possessive
3.1.4.1 Theoretical discussion
In the final subsection of this chapter, I will focus on the theoretical nature of the locative
possessive, and its occurrence in present-day English. Unfortunately, not much literature
regarding this particular type of possessive is available. In what follows, I will discuss two
different approaches to locative possessives in comparison to other elliptical constructions.
On the one hand, Biber et al. (2002) analyse locative possessives as independent possessives
with a null head noun, and consider elliptical possessives to be constructions where the head
noun can be recovered from the immediate context. Allen (2004), on the other hand, analyses
locative possessives in a similar way, but describes elliptical possessives differently.
Biber et al. (2002) discuss the English locative possessive with relation to the so-called
independent genitives. Independent possessives are defined as “genitive phrases standing
alone as a noun phrase” and Biber et al. (2002) go on to say that “[u]nlike other genitives,
they are not part of another (main) noun phrase” (Biber et al. 2002: 81). They divide
independent possessives into two subtypes: the first are constructions which have become
conventional, and therefore no longer need a head noun to support the meaning of the phrase.
Below are a few examples:
(12)
She’s going to a friend’s. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)
(13)
The vast main concourse had the combined appearance of a football
scrimmage and Christmas Eve at Macy’s. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)
(14)
An open bottle of Jack Daniel’s is on the candle table. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)
19
The possessive construction a friend’s in example (x1) refers to someone’s home, the
possessive Macy’s in (x2) is used to refer to a shop, and the possessive in (3x) refers to a kind
of whisky. Thus independent possessives can be seen to be used to people’s homes, to places
of business or to clubs as well as to commercial products or firms (Biber et al. 2002). The first
two examples illustrate the pattern that is of interest to this study, and that I have referred to as
locative possessives. Thus, in Biber et al.’s (2002) view, the locative possessive is a subtype
of conventional possessive constructions, which in their turn are types of independent
genitives. Importantly, the possessives in this first subtype are, according to Biber et al.
(2002) not to be considered elliptical constructions, as the omitted noun is no longer necessary
in the context: these constructions can be understood without requiring the presence of a head
noun. In order words, they assume a null head noun for the English locative possessive
construction. Structurally, then, such possessives are nominal constituents whose head is the
possessive noun.
Unlike the conventional independent possessives discussed above, other independent
possessives are considered fully fledged nominal constituents in which the possessive
modifies a head noun which is elided (Biber et al. 2002). While independent genitives are
characterised by omission of the head noun, these constructions are considered as elliptical
because the relevant head noun can be recovered from the context. If this were not possible,
the construction would not make sense semantically. A few examples of the elliptical
possessive, as Biber et al. (2002) define it, can be found below.
(15)
This isn’t my handwriting, it’s Selina’s. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)
All the Turner girls preferred girls’ toys to boys’. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)
The elided head nouns, handwriting and toys respectively, are present in the context, and
thereby allow the full interpretation of the elliptic genitive.
The second analysis of locative possessives that will be addressed here is the one suggested
by Allen (2004). She analyses the locative possessive in a similar way as Biber et al. (2002),
but her analysis of elliptical possessives differs. Three types of possessives are discussed in
her study:
(16)
We’ll meet at Mary’s. (Allen 2004: 351, her (1a))
20
(17)
This is Mary’s. (Allen 2004: 351, her (1a))
(18)
Mary’s is red. (Allen 2004: 351, her (1a))
Type (16) is a locative possessive, in which the head noun is omitted. Allen (2004) thus
proposes a null head noun for the locative possessive construction in English. Type (17)
expresses ownership: the omitted noun is interpreted as the possessum, while the possessive
noun is the possessor. Such constructions are also regarded as having a null head noun by
Allen (2004), whilst Biber er al. (2002) consider constructions of the type (17) to be elliptical,
and argue that the head noun needs to be recovered from the immediate context. According to
Allen (2004), however, in both (16) and (17), the meaning of the head noun can apparently be
recovered without there being a need for an antecedent in the context. The possessive
construction in type (18) is analysed by Allen as elliptical, which means that in such phrases,
the head noun is not entirely omitted; rather, in order to make sense of the meaning of the
construction, the head noun needs to be recovered from the immediate context.
According to Allen (2004), examples of the types (17) and (18) are found from the Old
English period onwards, whereas locative possessives (type (16)) have, so far, not been
discovered in Old English. An Old English example of the second type, which expresses
ownership, is the following:
(19)
hit is eal Godes
It is all God’s
(Blickling 51.1), as cited in Allen 2004: 351
An Old English example of the third type, which needs an antecedent head noun in the
context, is provided in (20):
(20)
na þurh his agene mihte, ah þurh godes
Not through his own power, but through God’s’
(ÆCHIXI.184, as cited in Allen 2004: 351
According to Allen, 2004, the first example of a locative possessive dates form c.1280:
21
(21)
he was at seint poules
he was at Saint Paul’s
(c. 1280 South Eng. Leg. 109.91), as cited in Allen 2004: 351
It should be noted that nor Biber et al. (2002), nor Allen (2004) discuss restrictions on the
nature of the possessive in the locative, independent or elliptical patterns. For instance, one
may wonder whether pronouns can take the place of the possessor noun. Huddleston &
Pullum (2002) indicate that personal pronouns cannot he used in the locative possessive
pattern, but do not elaborate on the question whether, for instance, indefinite or relative
pronouns are grammatical in such constructions. In order to answer this question, a small
survey was conducted in order to establish the grammaticality of pronouns in particular
locative and elliptical constructions. These constructions can be found below:
(i) a. I don't remember at whose I met Jane.
b. I first met Mary at Sylvia's house but I don't remember at whose I met Jane.
(ii) a. You don't find air conditioning at everybody's.
b. You find air conditioning at some people's homes but not at everybody's.
(iii) a. You don't find air conditioning at his.
b. You find air conditioning at some students' homes but not at his.
c. You find air conditioning at some students' homes but not at mine.
(iv) a. This is the student at whose I first met my present wife.
b. This is the student at whose house I first met my present wife.
The (a) types are all locative constructions, whereas the (b) and (c) types are elliptical. Three
native speakers were questioned, and asked to evaluate the sentences above in terms of
grammaticality. All (a) constructions were considered ungrammatical, and most (b) and (c)
constructions were labelled as grammatical. Two out of the three native speakers considered
type (1a) to be less grammatical than the other (b) types, but more so than the (a) types. From
these findings it can be inferred that pronouns are most likely ungrammatical in locative
possessive constructions, and that most pronouns, except relative ones, can be considered
grammatical in elliptical possessive constructions. However, this survey was very restricted in
22
nature, as only three native speakers were interrogated. In order to adequately describe the
grammaticality of pronouns in locative or elliptical constructions, more extensive research
needs to be done.
3.1.4.2 Corpus research: the locative possessive in present-day English
Since the locative possessive itself is not extensively described in the literature, I have
conducted a small corpus investigation, in order to examine whether locative possessive is
indeed common in English, and to find out which nouns are used as possessor nouns in the
locative construction. To carry out this study, I first created a list of phrases was created.
These phrases were divided into four categories: the first consisted of proper nouns (e.g. to
John’s, at Mary’s), the second of nouns denoting kinship (e.g. at my sister’s, at my
granddad’s), the third of nouns denoting professions (e.g. at the hairdresser’s, at the baker’s)
and the fourth of complex noun phrases (e.g. to my older brother’s, at John’s mother’s). I
then examined the distribution of these constructions in the British National Corpus (BNC).
The results of this investigation will be discussed below, and the full list of phrases and the
results can be found in appendix X.
It is important to note that this corpus research wa of a rather restricted nature. First of all, the
‘simple search’ function of the BNC was used, which can only produce a limited amount of
results. Secondly, the research was done by searching for particular lexical items, rather than
syntactic structures. As a consequence, there may very well be many more locative
possessives in the corpus that were not detected by means of this research. The goal of this
research, however, was not to find all locative possessives in the BNC; rather, it was merely
meant to show if the locative possessive existed in combination with certain types of nouns or
noun phrases. The full list of phrases and the results can be found in appendix X.
As indicated before, the locative possessive phrases that were researched with the BNC can be
divided into four categories: proper nouns, kinship nouns, professional nouns and complex
noun phrases. The first category of nouns that was researched, was that of proper nouns. The
results of the corpus search clearly show that proper nouns can, indeed, be used as the
independent possessor in the locative pattern. A few examples are to/at John’s, to Mary’s, and
at Ann’s. Secondly, kinship terminology was entered into the corpus, and in most cases, a
locative possessive was found: to/at my brother’s, to/at my sister’s, at my mother’s, at my
nan’s, at granddad’s, to/at my cousin’s and to my aunt’s. While not strictly a kinship noun,
23
the phrase to/at my friend’s was also searched for, and found, within this category, since the
relationship a person has with a friend can, arguably, be considered to be on a similar level as
the relationship with kin. Surprisingly, no locative possessive was found with the noun uncle.
To conclude from this that the locative possessive is not compatible with uncle would be
somewhat rash, since it does exist with aunt and all other kinship terms that were researched.
A more likely explanation could, arguably, be that the corpus did not contain any instances, or
that the search did not find any due to the restricted nature of the corpus. It can be noted that
this sort of problem illustrated the problems of basing one’s research solely on corpora.
The third category of locative possessives that were researched consisted of nouns denoting
professions. Instances were found of to/at the hairdresser’s, to/at the butcher’s, to/at the
baker’s, to/at the dentist’s and to/at the doctor’s. The following phrases did not yield any
results: to/at the vicar’s, to/at the nurse’s, to/at the officer’s, to/at the farmer’s, and to/at the
teacher’s. Interestingly, the professional nouns which did appear in locative possessive
constructions all have in common that, when combined with a locative possessive, they
usually refer to the shop or office where the relevant profession is practiced. For example, at
the baker’s refers to the bakery, and at the dentist’s refers to the dentist’s office. In contrast, if
the second set of profession nouns were found in locative possessive constructions, they
would naturally not refer to the place where the profession is practiced, but rather to the home
or residence of the person practicing the profession. In other words, at the vicar’s would refer
to the vicar’s house, not to the church, and at the officer’s would refer to the officer’s home,
not to the police office. It may then perhaps be argued that a prerequisite for professional
nouns to be used in locative possessives could be that the construction must denote the shop
or office where the profession is practiced. Such an interpretation may, however, be
somewhat problematic for at the farmer’s. A farmer practices his profession on his farm, so
one might argue that the locative possessive should be possible as well. However, the farm is
also the farmer’s residence, and does not exclusively refer to the location of his profession.
This ambiguity may then be the reason why it does not appear in locative possessive
constructions. Thus, it can be further argued that the locative possessive containing
professional nouns should not simply refer to the shop or office where the profession is
practiced, but that it should solely and unambiguously refer to this location. Of course, one
must exercise caution in making such arguments, as this particular research was rather
restricted: more extensive research could show instances of the constructions which I have
now considered to be non-existent.
24
The fourth category of possessives that were examined were complex noun phrases. The
phrases that were researched were to/at my eldest cousin’s, to/at my little sister’s, to/at my
older brother’s, to/at my late grandfather’s, to/at the tall baker’s, to/at the old vicar’s, to/at
John’s mother’s, to/at my friend’s sister’s and to/at my French teacher’s. No results were
found in this category.
In conclusion, it can be argued with relative certainty that the locative possessive in presentday English can be used with proper nouns and (most) nouns denoting kinship. Locative
possessives containing professional nouns usually seem to refer to the shop of office where
the profession is practiced. Importantly, however, it should be noted that this is not the case
when professional nouns are used in non-locative elliptical constructions, of the type where
the head noun can be recovered from the immediate context. As example (22) shows, in these
cases, the elliptical construction does refer to the home or residence of the person in question.
(22) Jenny’s house is nice but the doctor’s is much nicer.
Furthermore, ambiguity can arise in constructions of the type exemplified in (23)
(23) The dentist’s practice is always full but there is never anyone at the doctor’s.
In this case, two interpretation of the doctor’s are possible: firstly, the doctor’s can be a
locative possessive, but secondly, it can also be an elliptical possessive, with practice as the
elided head noun. Thus, one should take care to analyse locative or elliptical possessives
containing professional nouns adequately, and bear in mind that these constructions can
sometimes be ambiguous. Finally, complex nouns phrases were not found to appear within
locative possessives. However, the rather restricted nature of this small research must be kept
in mind, as more extensive research may change these results.
25
3.2 Corpus Research
In the following section, I will attempt to map the development of the locative possessive
construction in English. Corpus research was conducted in order to accomplish this: several
corpora containing material ranging from Middle English (ME) to Modern British English
(MBE) were used in this study, and were searched for locative possessives. Section 3.2.1
discusses the individual corpora that were used, and the data that were examined. In section
3.2.2, I will present and discuss the results of my research.
A few preliminary notes should be made regarding this study. First of all, Old English corpora
were not included in my research, since, according to Allen, this type of possessive was
unknown in Old English. As she notes, the first example that has been found so far is “he was
at seint poules (c.1280 South Eng. Leg. 109.91)” (Allen 351). Secondly, it should, of course,
also be noted that all results from this research reflect written language. Thus, it is quite
probable that the development of the locative possessive in spoken language use was different
from what this study may show. However, as no spoken records of language use existed
before the 20th century, we must rely on written material in order to conduct historical
linguistic research. It was moreover outside the scope of this study to analyse the spoken
material that does exist.
3.2.1 Corpus and data
In order to map the development of the locative possessive in English, four corpora were
consulted: the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2 (PPCME2), the PennHelsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME), the Penn-Helsinki Parsed
Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE) and the Parsed Corpus of Early English
Correspondence (PCEEC).
Due to time restrictions and the extended nature of the corpus, it was not possible to examine
all corpora entirely, and therefore, I have attempted to create a representative sample of texts
from the corpora, by carefully selecting a number of texts per corpus. The selection made for
this research was based on two factors: text genre and time period. Regarding the first factor,
text genre, I have chosen two texts per chosen time period, one reflecting a more literary,
narrative genre and one reflecting a more non-literary, administrative genre. If found, a
difference in usage of the locative possessive between genres could indicate that its usage was
perhaps genre- or register-dependent. As for the second factor, the time period, I have taken
texts from two points in each century: one from around the ’25 year mark and one from
around the ’75 year mark for each genre, with a margin of ten years before or after said year
mark. Thus, my selection consists of four texts per century. I have not regarded geographical
variation as a criterion, as it was my intention to focus more on the diachronic development of
the locative possessor, rather than its geographical distribution. It would, of course, be
interesting to examine geographical factors in the diachronic development of the locative
possessor; this was, however, not within the scope of this research. Importantly, the somewhat
restricted nature of this study necessarily implies that it can only yield preliminary results. A
26
more thorough examination of the corpora could, perhaps, change these results; however, as
indicated before, the text sample was selected in order to represent the corpora as a whole,
and therefore, this research could be expected to yield relatively accurate results.
3.2.1.1. PPCME2
The first corpus that was examined, the PPCME2, splits the ME period up into four main
subperiods: M1, M2, M3 and M4 (see table X). It should be noted that the PPCME2 uses two
sets of dates: composition dates and manuscript dates. When these dates differ for one text, a
more specific period designation code is used. These are all listed in table X below.
Period
designation
MX1
M1
M2
M23
M24
M3
M34
MX4
M4
Composition date
Manuscript date
unknown
1150-1250
1250-1350
1250-1350
1250-1350
1350-1420
1350-1420
Unknown
1420-1500
1150-1250
1150-1250
1250-1350
1350-1420
1420-1500
1350-1420
1420-1500
1420-1500
1420-1500
(copied from PPCME2 web
info)
The Middle English texts which I have selected can be found in table X. This selection
contains texts from the four main periods, M1-M4, only; in other words, their composition
dates and manuscript dates do not differ in any relevant way. In doing this, I have tried to
ensure that all selected texts clearly represent one time period only.
Text
Kentish Homilies.
Peterborough Chronicle.
Lambeth Homilies.
Vices and Virtues.
Kentish Sermons.
Earliest Prose Psalter.
The New Testament.
(Wycliffe)
John of Trevisa’s
Polychronicon.
Mandeville’s Travels.
The Cloud of Unknowing.
Malory’s Morte Darthur.
Gregory’s Chronicle.
Date
1125-1150
1150
1225
1200-1225
1275
1350
1388
Genre
Homily
History
Homily
Religious Treatise
Homily
Bible
Bible
1387
History
1425
1400-1425
1470
1475
Travelogue
Religious Treatise
Romance
History
27
As the Kentish Homilies and the Peterborough Chronicle are the only texts in the corpus from
the 12th century, these were both selected in order to represent the century, even though the
Peterborough Chronicle is not from around the ’25 or the ’75 year mark. However, the texts
do each represent a different genre. The corpus contained only one text from around 1275: the
Kentish Sermons. Therefore, only this one text was examined. A similar problem occurred for
the ’25 year mark of the 14th century: the only appropriate text from around this time was the
Earliest Prose Psalter, and therefore I have included it, even though it was written c. 1350. I
did not consider the Ayenbite of Inwyt (1340) an appropriate text, as the information on the
PPCME2 webpage states that “the language may be representative of the late 13th century”
(PPCME2 info). As no texts within ten years of the ’75 year mark of the 14th century were
available, John of Trevisa’s Polychronicon (1387) and Wycliffe’s New Testament (1388)
were selected.
3.2.1.2 PPCEME
The second corpus that was examined for this study was the PPCEME. In this corpus, the
Early Modern English period is divided into three 70-year time periods, which are listed in
table X below. The text sample can be found in table X. Letters were not included in the Early
Modern English selection, in order to avoid overlap with the PCEEC, which consists solely of
letters.
Period designation
E1
E2
E3
Date
1500-1569
1570-1639
1640-1710
(from PPCEME web info)
Author
/
Elyot, Thomas
Madox, Richard
/
Title
A Hundred Merry Tales.
The Boke named the Gouernour.
The Diary of Richard Madox.
The Statutes of the Realm. (1570)
Taylor, John
Brinsley, John
Fox, George
All the works of John Taylor.
Ludus literarius or The Grammar
Schoole.
The journal of George Fox.
Locke, John
Directions concerning education.
Date
1526
1531
1582
15711572
1630
1627
Genre
Fiction
Educational Treatise
Diary (Private)
Law
16731674
1685
Autobiography
Travelogue
Educational Treatise
Educational Treatise
3.2.1.3 PPCMBE
The third corpus, the PPCMBE, divides the Modern British English period into three periods
of 70 years each: 1700-1769, 1770-1839 and 1840-1914. Unlike the previously discussed
corpora, these periods are not given a name or code. The texts that were selected for this
research are listed in table X.
28
Author
Ryder, Sir
Dudley
/
Boswell, James
Chapman,
George
O’Keeffe, John
/
Thring, Edward
Bain, Alexander
Benson, Arthur
C.
Benson, Arthur
C.
Title
The Diary of Dudley Ryder.
Date
1716
The Statutes at Large. (171x)
Boswell in Extremes.
A Treatise on Education with a Sketch
of the Author’s Method.
Recollections of the life of John
O’Keeffe.
The Statutes of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland. (1835)
Edward Thring, headmaster of
Uppingham School. Life, diary, and
letters
Education as a science.
1715-1716 Law
1776
Diary
1774
Educational
Treatise
1826
Autobiography
The Diary of Arthur Christopher
Benson.
The Schoolmaster. A commentary
upon the aims and methods of an
assistant-master in a public school.
1835
Genre
Diary
Law
1870-1872 Diary
1878
Educational
Treatise
1905-1906 Diary
1908
Educational
Treatise
The PPCMBE contains three texts from the 20th century, the youngest of which is from 1913
(Weahers’ Commercial Gardening). Despite the fact that these texts are not from around the
’25 year mark, two were included in the sample, in order to give an indication of the usage of
the locative possessive in the early 20th century. Two texts by Benson were selected, rather
than Weathers’ text, as it was my opinion that Benson’s texts fit the genre categories better.
3.2.1.4 PCEEC
The final English corpus under investigation was the PCEEC. This corpus contains letters
with composition dates ranging from c.1410 to 1695. Thus, it partly covers Middle English,
partly Early Modern English language use. As noted before, overlap with the PPCEME was
avoided by not selecting letters for the Early Modern English sample. A further issue with this
corpus could not be avoided: as all texts are letters, is was not possible to distinguish genres.
Hence, only time was considered as a factor in making a selection. I still chose to select two
sets of letters per ‘25/’75 year mark, as this provided two different writing styles per time
mark to compare. However, as these sets of letters often covered several years’ writing, it was
in some cases not possible to select texts solely from within a 10-year margin after the ’25 and
’75 year marks, as I have attempted to do with the previously discussed corpora. The sets of
letters chosen are listed in table X.
Collection
Marchall
Date
1440?-1476
29
Cely
Elyot
Brereton
Harvey
Parkhurst
Barrington
Pory
Haddock
Essex
1474-1488
1528-1536
1520?-1539?
1573
1569-1575
1628-1632
1610-1632
1657-1673
1675-1677
3.2.2 Methodology
The program used to conduct this research was CorpusSearch2 (reference). The query that
was written to run the program searched first of all for possessive NPs, secondly, for NPs in
the genitive case and thirdly, for PPs containing an NP which in its turn could contain a
possessive noun, a possessive marker or a genitive case marker. This third part of the query
was repeated four times, with four different prepositions: “at”, “to”, “by” and “in”. The query
was run on all corpora included in this study, and the results of the selected texts were
manually extracted and reviewed. Not only elliptical, but also non-elliptical locative
possessive constructions were extracted from these results, in order to establish whether the
frequency of one construction varied in relation to the other. If, for instance, the number of
elliptical locative possessives is larger than the number of non-elliptical constructions at one
particular point in time, this could mean that the elliptical construction was used more often
than the non-elliptical one, and vice versa.
3.2.3 Results and discussion
In what follows, the results of my research regarding the locative possessive in English will
be presented. A complete chronological overview of the results can be found in appendix 1,
along with and all results per corpus.
Before the results can be presented, however, a few remarks must be discussed. Firstly, as
mentioned before, it is important to note that this research can only yield preliminary results
due to the restricted nature of the data. Secondy, the results of this study will be addressed
chronologically, rather than per corpus, as the PCEEC covers Late Middle English to Early
Modern English language use. Thus, the corpora will be merged where necessary, and all data
will be presented in chronological order. Thirdly, the spelling of the possessive morpheme
was not considered a distinguishing factor for this study. Several different spellings were
encountered in the data: both attached (-s, -es, -ys) and separated (‘s, ys, his) spellings. All
constructions containing any of these were included in the results of this study.
30
3.2.3.1 Middle English
The first occurrence of an elliptical locative possessive in Middle English was found in
Malory’s Morte Darthur, from 1470: at Saynt Albons (PPCME2: Malory, Morte Darthur).
Gregory’s Chronicle (1475) contained twenty more instances of locative possessors, all which
were most likely names of churches, cathedrals, monasteries or similar religious institutions.
Two hits do not contain any form of “Saint”: to Powlys and at Powlys (PPCME2, Gregory’s
Chronicle); However, from the context, it can be inferred that St. Paul’s cathedral in London
is meant. A further source from this time, Cely’s letters (1474-1488) also included ten
locative possessors. Only three of these were names of religious institutions, however; six
personal names were found, and one NP denoting a person, at Bornellys wyedows (PCEEC,
Cely). From these results, it could, arguably, be inferred that the locative possessive was
mainly used to denote religious institutions in Late Middle English. One might then consider
the possibility that this construction may have originated as a way of shortening names of
religious institutions. It could be argued that, since the names of these institutions were in all
likelihood unique in the area, there could be no doubt what was meant when one shortened the
name.
Interestingly, no locative possessives were found in the corpora before 1470, although Allen
places the first occurrence of the locative possessor at 1280 (351). This lack of results before
1470 may, however, be attributed to the selective nature of this research, and it is likely that
the construction is attested in other sources, which were not included in my text sample. A
second noteworthy aspect of the results is the fact that in the 1475 and the 1474-1488 texts,
the number of instances is quite high. This seems strange, compared to the complete lack of
results before 1470. It could have been expected that the number of occurrences started rather
low, and grew higher with time, as it can be assumed that the integration of this construction
in language use developed gradually. Instead, the locative possessive appears suddenly, and in
a relatively large number. Furthermore, both Gregory (PPCME2) and Cely (PCEEC) use the
elliptical form significantly more often than the non-elliptical form, which indicates that the
construction was, in all likelihood, already established as a normality in their language use.
The frequency of the locative possessive also remains high in later texts, and therefore, it
cannot be attributed to idiosyncratic language use. However, we must again exercise caution
and bear in mind that this research examined a limited number of texts; some instances of
locative possessives may occur in other corpus texts from before 1470. In order to map the
early usage of the locative possessive, more exhaustive research would need to be conducted,
which was outside the scope of this study.
3.2.3.2 Early Modern English
In Early Modern English, usage of the locative possessive becomes quite frequent. The results
now contain a relatively great number of proper names denoting persons, rather than almost
solely names of religious institutions. Names of such institutions are, naturally, still found
rather frequently as well. Furthermore, two instances of nouns denoting professions were
31
found in locative possessive constructions: at the stacioner’s (PCEEC: Barrington, 16281632) and at my lord Treasurers (PCEEC: Pory, 1610-1632).
However, no instances of locative possessives were found in A Hundred Merry Tales
(PPCEME), Elyot’s The Boke named the Gouernour (PPCEME), or Elyot’s letters (PCEEC),
however. A Hundred Merry Tales (PPCEME) did contain a number of instances with a nonelliptical construction, which could arguably mean that this is the preferred construction in
this work. Neither elliptical, nor non-elliptical locative possessives were found in The Boke
named the Gouernour (PPCEME), or in Elyot’s letters1. Hence, we cannot make claims about
whether Elyot uses the elliptical form or not, and whether he has a preference for one
construction. A few further sets of letters did not contain any locative possessives either:
Brereton and Haddock’s2 letters (PCEEC) did not contain locative possessors, neither
elliptical, nor non-elliptical constructions, at all; Harvey’s letters provide two non-elliptical
possessives, to Sir Thomas Smyths hous and in kings college (PCEEC: Harvey, 1573), yet no
elliptical forms.
Strikingly, texts written in non-literary or administrative genres did not yield any results.
Elyot’s 1531, Brinsley’s 1627 and Locke’s 16853 educational treatises, and the 1571 Statutes,
all lacked instances of locative possessives, both elliptical and non-elliptical forms. Hence, the
use of the locative possessive could, arguably, be considered genre-dependent. One could
argue that it is the register of the language use in the non-literary or administrative genres may
be more formal, and that the (elliptical) locative possessive was perhaps considered a more
informal form. However, this suggestion may be rejected, as these genres not only lack
elliptical forms, but non-elliptical ones as well. A more plausible explanation could be that
these genres simply do not easily lend themselves to expressions of location or direction. It
seems obvious that locative possessives appear in literary or more narrative genres, which tell
stories, and these stories could easily describe persons going from one location to another, or
locations where other persons live. Non-literary genres, however, do not often allow for such
a topic. Hence, such constructions probably appear less often.
3.2.3.3 Modern British English
Modern British English language use in the examined corpus texts contained a large amount
of locative possessives. Importantly, the number of elliptical constructions is significantly
higher than the number of non-elliptical forms. No instances of non-elliptical locative
possessives were found before 1826, and in total, only six occurred in Modern British
English.
1
One instance of a PP containing a possessive pronoun, rather than a noun, was found: at his house (PPCEME:
Elyot, 1531). Though it indicates location, the head noun cannot be elided. Thus, this was not considered a
locative possessive.
2
Haddock’s text provides a PP containing a possessive pronoun: at his howse (PCEEC: Haddock, 1657-1673).
3
Two instances of possessive PPs without ellipsis were found, yet the possessive noun was indefinite: into a
Cutlers shop and at a friends house (PPCEME: Locke, 1685). As the head noun cannot be ellided in these cases,
these constructions were not considered locative possessives.
32
The locative possessives in the PPCMBE were predominantly proper names and nouns
denoting kinship (e.g. to brother’s: PPCMBE: Ryder, 1716). One noun denoting a profession
was found, although it also contained a proper noun: at Mr. Donaldson the bookseller’s
(PPCMBE: Boswell, 1776).
However, as in Early Modern English, the locative possessives appear almost solely in literary
or narrative genres. The same reason for its lack in non-literary or administrative genres is
assumed for Modern British English: the topics discussed in these texts usually do not contain
many descriptions of persons going to a location where another person resides. Nevertheless,
one locative possessive did appear in the 1715-1716 Statutes: at St. Albans (PPCMBE).
In conclusion, it can be argued that this research shows a rather clear development from little
use of the locative possessive in Middle English, to the predominant use of the construction.
The first instances of English locative possessives that were found in this study were from the
1470s, and were used to denote names of religious institutions. After this time, the
construction gradually became increasingly frequent, and came to be used for proper nouns
denoting persons, nouns denoting profession and nouns denoting kinship. By the early 18th
century, the elliptical forms of the locative possessive were used significantly more frequently
than the non-elliptical forms.
33
4. Dutch and West-Flemish
In this fourth chapter of this study, I will focus on the locative possessive construction in
Standard Dutch and West-Flemish. Chapter 4.1 will first of all provide a theoretical
discussion of the English and West-Flemish possessive constructions, and will then focus on
the locative possessive in West-Flemish. As was the case for the English possessive, the
Dutch and West-Flemish possessive constructions will be discussed from a diachronic
viewpoint as well. Chapter 4.2 will focus on the corpus research that was conducted in order
to map the diachronic development of the West-Flemish locative possessive.
4.1 Possessives in Dutch and West-Flemish
The present chapter will address the Dutch and the West-Flemish possessive constructions
and the locative possessive in West-Flemish. While this research specifically investigates
West-Flemish, a discussion of the Standard Dutch -s possessive and its diachronic
development has been included, as this study will argue that the possessive marker used in
the West-Flemish locative possessive is, in fact, of the same type as the Dutch -s possessive
marker. The usual West-Flemish possessive markers, by contrast, are, as we shall see, of a
different kind. Section 4.1.1 of this study will focus on the theoretical status of the Standard
Dutch -s possessive marker, and section 4.1.2 on its diachronic development from a genitive
case to a suffix as part of a determiner. In section 4.1.3, the standard possessive markers of
West-Flemish will be discussed, and finally, section 4.1.4 will focus on the locative
possessive and its occurrence in present-day West-Flemish.
4.1.1 The Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive
In Modern Standard Dutch, possessive meaning is, in most cases, expressed by means of the
preposition van (Weerman & de Wit 1999). The -s possessive, which is the focus of this
chapter, is still used in some particular contexts, however. According to Booij (2005), the
only nouns that can take the -s possessive are proper nouns, nouns which can be used as forms
of address (such as mother ’moeder’, vader ‘father’, buurman ‘neighbour’, etc.) and
quantifying personal nouns (e.g. iemand (somebody), which are, as Booij (2002: 45)
indicates, “words functioning as proper names with an inherent referential value.” Two
34
further restrictions apply to the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive: first of all, nouns
preceded by articles cannot take the -s possessive. For instance, *de buurmans huis ‘the
neighbour’s house’ is ungrammatical. Only possessive pronouns can precede -s possessors, as
in e.g. mijn moeders huis ‘my mother’s house’. A second restriction is that the -s possessive
can only be used in prenominal position: *Dit huis is Jans ‘This house is John’s’ is
ungrammatical as well (Booij, 2002).
It is generally agreed upon that the Standard Modern Dutch -s possessive is no longer a case
marker, as Dutch no longer has morphological case (Allen 2008; Booij 2005; Weerman & de
Wit 1999). Arguably, Dutch does still show signs of the remnants of a genitive case in phrases
like de ontwikkeling der hemellichamen ‘the development of the stars’ (Weerman & de Wit
1999: 1184, their (58)c.). However, this kind of genitive usually occurs in written language
only, and is not part of the core system of the language (Weerman & de Wit 1999). In fact,
according to Weerman & de Wit (1999), this type of genitive is different from the ‘original’
Old Dutch genitive case. First of all, it is acquired relatively late, and learned as a way of
converting the normal possessive pattern (with the preposition van) into a different phrase, not
as part of a “full genitive paradigm” (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1184). Secondly, the genitive
in such constructions is more restricted in terms of morphology and syntax than in Middle
Dutch: most forms use the determiner der followed by a plural noun (Weerman & de Wit
1999), as exemplified in (x1), though not always, as indicated in example (x2). According to
Weerman & de Wit (1999), the form using des with a singular masculine noun only appears in
idiomatic expressions (see example (x3)). This type of genitive is thus not as productive as the
Old and Middle English genitive was.
(x1)
het beleid der Nederlandse universiteiten
The policy the-GEN Dutch universities (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1184, their
(58)b.)
(x2)
het Dictee der Nederlandse Taal
The dictation the-GEN Dutch Language
(x3)
de heer des huizes
The man the-GEN house-GEN (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185, their (59)b.)
A third restriction in comparison with the ‘original’ genitive is that the forms with der cannot
occur in prenominal positions (Weerman & de Wit 1999), as indicated in example (x4) below.
35
(x4)
*der Nederlands universiteiten beleid
The-GEN Dutch universities policy (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185, their
(62)b.)
A somewhat more productive form of the des genitive is the reduced form of des, ‘s, which
can appear in prenominal position, as exemplified in (x5)
(x5)
‘s rijks schatkist
‘s government-S treasure (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185, their (61)a.)
Finally, the form des is restricted in the sense that it is often used in academic, formal style,
where it is used to describe a certain characteristic or behaviour. This type of construction is
used with des only, even, strangely, with feminine nouns, as shown in example (x7).
(x6)
Zo’n optreden is des ministers
Such behaviour is the-GEN minister-GEN (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185,
their (63)a.)
(x7)
Dat is nu eenmaal des vrouws
That is now once the-GEN:MASC woman-GEN:MASC (Weerman & de Wit
1999: 1186, their (63)c.)
Thus, what is left of the genitive in Modern Standard Dutch is hardly productive, and of a
very restricted nature, both on a morphological and a syntactic level.
Turning back to the -s possessive in Modern Standard Dutch, it should be noted that the Dutch
-s possessive cannot be analysed as a phrasal affix, as we have done for the English ‘s
possessive. The reason for this is that, unlike the English ‘s possessive, the Dutch -s
possessive is, as has been indicated before, quite restricted in its attachment to nouns (Booij
2002). The English possessive, by contrast, can attach to most types of nouns and even
phrases. It can furthermore be argued that the Dutch -s possessive does not quite fit the
description of a clitic, either. The main criteria for clitics, as suggested by Zwicky and Pullum
(1983: 504-505) were the following:
36
(1) The degree of selection between the clitics and words preceding them is low.
(2) There are no arbitrary gaps in the set of host-clitic combinations.
(3) No morphophonological idiosyncrasies exist within clitic groups.
(4) There are no semantic idiosyncrasies for clitic groups.
The Dutch -s possessive shows a high degree of selection towards its host. This selection is,
as we have seen, not purely morphological or phonological, but also semantic: not only are
possessive pronouns the only elements that are allowed in prenominal position (as in mijn
moeders huis ‘my mother’s house’), but the nouns need to have the quality that they can be
used in address (which include proper names, and nouns like vader ‘father’ and dominee
‘reverend’) (Booij 2002). Arbitrary gaps with relation to the Dutch -s possessive can be found
as well, as not all forms that can be used as an address can take the -s possessive. For
instance, the noun agent ‘policeman’ can be used as a form of address, but a phrase like
agents fiets ‘policeman’s bike’ is nevertheless ungrammatical (Booij, 2005).
Morphophonological and semantic idiosyncrasies within the possessive NP were not found;
rather, it might perhaps be argued that, because of the morphophonological and semantic
restrictions to the -s possessive, this construction in itself is a morphophonological and
semantic idiosyncrasy within the system of possessives in Modern Standard Dutch. In sum,
the Dutch -s possessive does not carry the characteristics of a clitic to a significant extent.
Thus, an analysis of the -s possessive as an affix seems more appropriate. However, as Dutch
no longer inflects for case, the possessive marker cannot be analysed as a case marker.
An analysis which has often been suggested for this type of possessive, is that the possessive
NP functions as a determiner (Allen 2008, Booij 2002, de Wit 1999). Specifically, it is the
construction [(possessive pronoun) + proper name + s] which can be considered a determiner
(Booij 2002), or, as Weerman & de Wit (1999: 1172) argue, this construction is “a
morphological complex that occurs in D and -s is a bound definite suffix that binds the
nominal predicate in syntax. This view also provides an explanation for the fact that no
determiner (other than a possessive pronoun) can precede the possessor noun, as exemplified
in (x8).
(x8) a. *de jongens boek
The boy-S book
b.
*iedere jongens boek
every boy-S book
37
c.
*de man met die gekke brils caravan
the man with those funny glasses-S caravan (Weerman & de Wit 1999:1171,
their (38))
Since the possessive NP is, in this view, interpreted as a determiner, prenominal possessors
which already have a determiner, such as de jongen ‘the boy’ in (X8a.), cannot take -s in
addition to their first determiner (Weerman & de Wit 1999).
4.1.2 Development of Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive
The present chapter will focus on the development of the Dutch possessive from a genitive
case marker to a suffix which is part of a determiner. It should be noted that only the main
types of genitives or -s possessives will be discussed, which contributed to my aim of
discussing the development of the possessive marker. Some idiomatic genitive constructions,
or remnants of such constructions, which are, for instance, visible in the Dutch word steeds,
tevens, ‘s namiddags, or constructions like ten zevenen, ten achten will not be addressed. Old
and early Middle Dutch still had a case system, which means that a possessive meaning was
still expressed through the genitive case. Van Der Horst (2008) distinguishes six types of Old
Dutch genitives:
(1) Genitive objects
(x1) lasteris beida herta min (WP4 68, 21) (Van der Horst 2008: 148)
Disgrace-GEN expects heart my
My heart expects disgrace
(2) Pronominal genitives, which refer to subclauses
(x2) ande begunde ine thes flen, that se then thufel nedorfte gesen (CF5 460) (Van der
Horst 2008: 149)
And began him this-GEN to beg, that she the devil not-be allowed to see
And began to beg this of him, that she might not be allowed to see the devil
(3) Gentives dependent on adjectives
(x3) Ik thes uurdig ni bium (HE6 2104) (Van der Horst 2008: 149)
I this-GEN worthy not am
4
Wachtendonckse Psalmen
Mittelfränkische Reimbibel (Central Franconian Rhyming Bible)
6
Heliand
5
38
I am not worthy of this
(4) Genitives dependent on a substantive
(x4) fan uuambun muodir minro (WP 70,6) (Van der Horst 2008: 149)
from womb mother-GEN my-GEN
from my mother’s womb
(5) Partitive genitives
(x5) thu bist scona an thinen werchen, wanda thu niet scandliches neduost (LW7 54,
3-4) (Van der Horst 2008: 149)
You are beautiful in your works, because you nothing shameful-GEN not-do
You are beautiful in you works, because you do nothing shameful.
(6) Genitives as predicate nouns
(x6) sithor siu mannes uuarth (Van der Horst 2008: 149)
Since she man-GEN became
Since she became of a man: i.e. since she got married
In early Middle Dutch (1200-1350), the genitive case is used in more or less the same fashion,
but some changes have occurred. Van Der Horst (2008) once again distinguishes six types of
genitives:
(1) Genitive object
(x7) Uwes goet raets hebbet danc (R8 547) (Van der Horst 2008: 352)
Your-GEN good-GEN council-GEN have thanks
Have thanks for your good council
(2) Genitives in impersonal constructions
(x8) sijns ontfarmede hem gereet (Maerlant, Franc. 260) (Van der Horst 2008:
353)
It-GEN overcame him readily
It overcame him readily
(3) Genitives dependent on adjectives
(x9) ghi en wert niet zijnre hulpen vro (BR9 693) (Van der Horst 2008: 353))
7
Leiden Willeram
Van den vos Reynaerde
9
De reis van Sint Brandaan
8
39
You not will not his-GEN help-GEN cheerful
You will not be cheerful of his help
(4) Genitives dependent on substantives or pronouns
(x10) onser alre oorsprong (RU10 51) (Van der Horst 2008: 353)
us-GEN all-GEN origin
the origin of us all
(5) Partitive genitives
(x11) ende vele quader gheeste die ut uoeren (LD11 62,23) (Van der Horst 2008:
353)
And many evil-GEN spirits-GEN who out drive
Any many evil spirits who drive out
(6) Adverbial genitives
(x12) Des ander daghes voer de zone up ganc (R 2927) (Van der Horst 2008:
353)
The-GEN other-GEN day-GEN before the sun up went
The other day, before the sun came up
Van der Horst (2008) further notes that genitive forms with the -s suffix, instead of the true
genitive inflection, also appear already:
(x13) in keyser Vrederijx tiden (SI12 25) (Van der Horst 2008: 354)
In emperor Vrederik-S times
In emperor Vrederik’s times
The genitive in the late Middle Dutch period (1350-1500) can still be used in the same ways
as in the early Middle Dutch period:
(1) Genitive objects
(x14) Maer zal my alleine verboden zijn mijns rechts te ghenietene? (GB13 204, 368)
(Van der Horst 2008: 574)
10
Ruusbroec de Wonderbare
Het Luikse Diatesseron
12
Het boek van Sidrac in de Nederlanden
13
Gentse Boethius
11
40
But will to me alone forbidden be my-GEN right-GEN to enjoy?
But will I alone be forbidden to enjoy my right?
(2) Genitives in impersonal constructions
(x15) soe mach hem sarbeits wel verdrieten (HI14 193, 23) (Van der Horst 2008: 574)
So makes him work-GEN quite sadden
So does work quite sadden him.
(3) Genitives dependent on adjectives
(x16) des seker
sijt (HI 30, 15) (Van der Horst 2008: 574)
It-GEN sure is
Is sure of it
(4) Genitives dependent on substantives
(x17) (hij) was op dese tyt op des bisscops hoff (BD15 84) (Van der Horst 2008: 575)
(he) was on this time on the bishop-GEN court
(he) was on this time on the bishop’s court
(5) Partitive genitives
(x18) want hi en hadde niet veel volcks by hem (BD 77) (Van der Horst 2008: 575)
Because he NEG had not many people-GEN with him
Because he did not have many people with him
(6) Adverbial genitives
(x19) Endi si ginghen des Manendaghes savonts omtrent vier uren van den toern
(BD 79) (Van der Horst 2008: 575)
And they went Monday-GEN evening-GEN around four hours from the tower
And they went Monday evening around four o’clock from the tower
Van der Horst (2008) indicates that, during this period, the -s possessive is increasingly often
used, and presents the following example:
(x20) (ze) hebben Jan de Coninck Godertssen […] in her Dirck van Zulens stede
geset (BD 84) (Van der Horst 2008: 577)
(they) have Jan de Coninck Godertssen [] in Lord Dirck van Zulen-S stead put
They put Jan de Coninck Godertssen in Lord Dirk van Zulen’s place
14
15
Gedichten van Willem van Hildegaersberch
Bisschop David van Bourgondië en zijn stad
41
Weerman & de Wit (1999) furthermore argue that from the 13th century onwards, the genitive
was gradually replaced by a van-construction: by the end of the 13th century, there is,
according to them, an almost 50/50 distribution between the uses of the genitive and the vanconstruction. Van der Horst demonstrates this as well, as he finds constructions like the
following:
(x21) dien tijd van haerre baringhen (CH 941, 38) (Van der Horst 2008: 574)
this time OF her bearing
This time of her bearing
During the fourteenth century, the use of van increases rather drastically, so that the
distribution of the genitive versus the prepositional possessive is more or less 16% and 84%,
respectively. By the end of the fifteenth century, the difference has increased even further, and
the genitive is only used 4% of the time, whereas the van-construction is used in 96% of
cases. In sum, during the Middle Dutch period, the genitive is gradually replaced by van
(Weerman & de Wit 1999), whilst a possessive using the -s suffix also arises (Van der Horst
2008).
One possible explanation for the rise of -s as a possessive marker, is provided by Weerman &
de Wit (1999). The paradigm of Middle Dutch genitives (copied from Weerman & de Wit
1999: 1165, their (23)) shows that the phonemes /s/, /r/ and /n/ played an important role for
the genitive case formation.
Form
Genitive
Nominative
Translation
singular, masculine, strong
dies wormes
die worm
the worm
singular, masculine, weak
dies cnapen
die cnape
the boy
singular, feminine, strong
dier gifte
die gift
the gift
singular, feminine, weak
dier sielen
die siele
the soul
singular, neuter, strong
dies brodes
dat broot
the bread
singular, neuter, weak
dies beelden
dat beelde
the statue
plural, strong
dier worme
die worme
the worms
plural, weak
Dier cnapen
die cnapen
the boys
42
The /s/ phoneme gradually became more typical of the genitive case due to two phonological
processes. First of all, the difference between the weak and the strong paradigm became
gradually less clear, because of the phonological process of schwa deletion in word-final
position. When the schwa on the nominative weak forms, such as cnape or beelde
disappeared, the nouns cnap or beeld could be reinterpreted as strong forms. These strong
forms require an /s/-ending in the genitive, as can be seen in the paradigm. Weerman & de
Wit (1999: 1165) argue that “a reinterpretation of this kind, triggered by the process of schwa
deletion, occurred quite frequently.” Thus, more nouns received an -s ending in the genitive.
A second phonological process that was going on during the Middle Dutch period, was the
deletion of /n/ at the end of nouns. This process is, according to Weerman & de Wit (1999)
comparable to the Modern Dutch /n/-deletion in some dialects: for example, the plural noun
boeken ‘books’ is often pronounced /bukə/ ‘boeke’. Because the /r/ was also used to form the
dative, it logically follows that the /s/ gradually became the most characteristic sound for a
genitive.
During the 16th century, the deflexion that was started in Middle Dutch continues, and the
genitive case is used less and less. The same genitive constructions as in the Middle Dutch
period still exist: genitive objects, genitives in impersonal constructions, genitives dependent
on adjectives and genitives dependent on substantives, partitive genitives and finally,
adverbial uses of the genitive (Van der Horst 2008). The use of the -s possessive, however,
increases, and examples such as the following are more frequently found:
(x22) ende hy roemden hem oock seer van des keysers ende coninck van Spaengiens
gewelt ende rijckdom (HC16 143) (Van der Horst 2008: 798)
And he praised to him very much as well of the emperor and king of Spain’s power
and richness
The 17th century shows even less use of the genitive case. Genitive objects are still used
sometimes, along with genitives depending on substantives and adjectives. Genitives as
predicate nouns occur sometimes as well. Partitive genitives, however, are still used relatively
frequently (Van der Horst 2008). The use of -s possessives increases, and sometimes already
occurs with feminine nouns, as in:
16
De historie van Christoffel Wagenaer discipel van D. Johannes Faustus
43
(x23) indien men op haar moeders komste wacht (V17 409b) (Van der Horst 2008:
1076)
If one for her mother-S coming would wait
If one would wait for her mother’s coming
In the 18th century, the use of the genitive has declined significantly since the 17th century.
Genitive objects are quite rare by this point, and are generally used in fixed expressions only.
Genitives dependent on adjectives are rather rare as well, but genitives dependent on
substantives do still occur sometimes. Remarkably, partitive constructions still maintain a
relative high frequency; they are formed with either substantives (x24a), infinitives (x24b) or
nominalised adjectives (x24c) in the genitive case (Van der Horst 2008).
(x24a) dat zulke hoofden vol waans zijn (B18 25) (Van der Horst 2008: 1357)
That such heads full delusion-GEN are
That such heads are full of delusion
(x24b) Na nog wat pratens ging Marten Neef heen (WD19 542) (Van der Horst 2008:
1357)
After more some talking-GEN went Marten Neef away
After some more talking, Marten Neef left
(x24c) Ik heb u wat nieuws te zeggen (WL20 7) (Van der Horst 2008: 1357)
I have you something new-GEN
to say
I have something new to say
As can be expected, -s possessives are used more often, including with feminine nouns, as
Van der Horst (2008) indicates (see example x25).
(x25) myn broeder heeft zyn vaders goedaartigheid (WD 765) (Van der Horst 2008:
1356)
My brother has his father-S kindness
My bother has his father’s kindness
17
Vondel, VW
Verjaard Briefgeheim. Brieven aan B. Huydecoper
19
Historie van mejuffrouw Sara Burgerhart
20
Historie van de heer Willem Leevend
18
44
Finally, by the 19th and 20th century, the genitive case has, as Van der Horst (2008) argues,
almost entirely disappeared from the language. As in the 18th century, partitive genitives are
still widely used in the 19th century, with substantives (x27a), infinitives (x27b) and
nominalised adjectives (x27c) in the genitive case.
(x27a) een prachtig stuk werks (MM21 45) (Van der Horst 2008: 1623)
A beautiful piece work-GEN
A beautiful piece of work
(x27b) na twee uren gaans (L 100) (Van der Horst 2008: 1623)
After two hours walking-GEN
After two hours of walking
(x27c) alleen was er iets kouds in zijn blik (MM 68) (Van der Horst 2008: 1623)
Only was there something cold-GEN in his look
Only there was something cold in his look
The -s possessive is, of course, used as well, in constructions such as (x28), but according to
Van der Horst (2008), this type of construction may have been considered somewhat
informal.
(x28) met haar hoofd tegen heur zusters schouder (L. Couperus, Extaze 1892; 1994,
36) (Van der Horst 2008: 1622)
With her head against her sister-S shoulder
With her head against her sister’s shoulder
Now that the diachronic development of the genitive and the -s possessive in Modern
Standard Dutch has been presented, it may be useful to consider what caused the change from
possessive meaning being expressed through the genitive case, to it being expressed by means
of an -s possessive marker, which we have analysed as part of a determiner. As noted before,
the -s possessive marker most likely developed out of the genitive -s case marker. According
to Weerman & de Wit (1999), the genitive –s case marker was probably reanalysed at the
time another language change was already taking place in many Germanic language: the “rise
of the determiner system” (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1169). In older stages of the Germanic
languages, they argue, the D slot could remain empty, and Middle Dutch texts show that, at
this time, the determiner system had not developed entirely either, since the article die could
21
Multatuli, Max Havelaar
45
not, in those texts, clearly be distinguished from the demonstrative die. The demonstrative
article die developed into the definite article de when the determiner system had developed,
and the D position needed to be filled by a lexical item. The development of the possessive
marker -s is analysed in a similar fashion: the genitive -s was reanalysed as a determiner -s, as
it needed to fill the D position. Weerman & de Wit (1999) argue that the reason why the
determiner system developed is that the case system disappeared. Cases coded semantic
distinctions syntactically, so when the cases disappeared, the semantic distinctions needed to
be coded in another way: the determiner system codes them functionally.
To conclude, since the early Middle Dutch period, cases have started to disappear, and as a
result, a determiner system developed for Dutch. The genitive case, consequently, also
disappeared, except in some partitive constructions and some fixed expressions. The -s
genitive case marker was gradually reanalysed as a suffix, which is part of the determiner.
4.1.3 Two prenominal possessors in West-Flemish
In West-Flemish, possessive relations are usually expressed differently than in Modern
Standard Dutch. The West-Flemish possessive system will only be discussed rather briefly,
as I will argue that the locative possessive is, in fact, similar to the Modern Standard Dutch -s
possessive. While in Modern Standard Dutch the van construction and the -s possessive
marker are the standard means of expressing possession, in West-Flemish, this is done by
means of two constructions: the possessive pronoun zenen (x1) and the possessive marker sen
(x2) (Haegeman, 2013).
(x1)
Valère zenen oto (Haegeman 2013: 219)
Valère his
(x2)
car
Valère sen oto (Haegeman 2013: 219)
Valère se cat
The first construction, using the possessive pronoun zenen is considered a “doubling
construction” (Haegeman 2013: 220), as the possessive pronoun effectively doubles the
possessor NP. The pronoun agrees in person and number with the possessor, and in number
and gender with the possessum. The second construction is labelled by Haegeman (2013: 220)
as the “sen construction”. It is important to note that, synchronically, sen is not analysed as
46
the phonologically reduced form of zenen, as sen can also be used with feminine nouns
(Haegeman 2013), as in (x3)
(x3)
Marie sen hoed (Haegeman 2013: 220, her (1)e)
Marie sen hat
Marie’s hat
The three main differences between the doubling construction and the sen construction,
according to Haegeman (2013), are first of all that zenen can occur with both plural and
singular possessor nouns, while sen can only take a singular noun. Secondly, sen requires
adjacency to the possessor noun, whereas zenen does not. Finally, sen can be realised with the
reciprocal possessor mekaar, whereas zenen cannot (Haegeman 2013).
An appealing historical analysis for the existence of the two possessive construction is
perhaps that sen has derived from the possessive pronoun zijn through grammaticalisation
processes, as a consequence of which a historically agreeing possessive pronoun was no
longer capable of indicating the gender of number of the possessor. However, Allen (2008)
rejects this claim, as zijn was originally a reflexive possessive pronoun, and was not specified
for gender or number. In some Middle Dutch texts, zijn is, in fact, used both with singular and
plural, and masculine and feminine nouns. Sen, then, has been argued to have developed, not
“from a specifically masculine third person form to an invariant form, but rather from a form
which was never specified for gender or number, but only for person” (Allen 2008: 201). In
this view, the sen construction may easily have been a doubling construction, which
originated when the zijn form did not yet specify for gender (Allen 2008).
4.1.4 The locative possessive in West-Flemish
The following section will focus on the locative possessive in West-Flemish. The theoretical
nature of this possessive construction has been addressed in section 3.1.4.1 of chapter 3;
hence, the present discussion will only briefly repeat the core characteristics of the locative
possessive. I will furthermore provide an outline of the occurrence of the locative possessive
in present-day West-Flemish. Finally, I will argue that the West-Flemish locative possessive
is rather similar to the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive, and thus differs from the usual
West-Flemish possessive constructions.
The locative possessive is a type of possessive construction which expresses a meaning of
location, which is headed by a preposition and characterised by ellipsis of the head noun of
47
the possessive construction. This elided head noun usually carries the meaning of house or
place, and in some cases the elided noun can refer to shops or businesses, or other places
where a profession is being carried out. Examples (x1) and (x2) present two instances of
locative possessives, with elision of the head noun of the possessive construction (indicated
by means of square brackets).
a. I’m going to John’s [house]
b.
I’m at the butcher’s [shop]
Such constructions exist in West-Flemish as well, and in order to establish how exactly these
were used, a small survey was conducted with speakers of West-Flemish. Eleven speakers,
who all used the locative possessive to some extent, were presented with a number of possible
locative possessive constructions, and were asked to indicate which of these constructions
were acceptable in their dialect, and which were not. The survey included proper nouns,
nouns referring to kinship, nouns denoting professions, complex PPs and pronouns. For every
instance, a few different prepositions or types of constructions in which the locative
possessive might appear were suggested in order to investigate whether, for instance, the
choice of preposition influences the grammaticality of the locative possessive. Four different
prepositions in different constructions were included in the survey:
a. K ga naar Rogers
b. K ben bi Rogers
I go to Roger-S
I am at Roger-S
I am going to Roger’s
I am at Roger’s
48
c. K ben22 to Rogers
I am at Roger-S
I am at Roger’s
d. Ie woont daar an Rogers
He lives there near Roger-S
He lives there near Roger’s
One further type of construction that was included uses the prepositions to or bi (I have
chosen to include to only):
e. K è
t to Rogers gehoord
I have it at Roger-S heard
I have heard it at Roger’s
Not all constructions were combined with each noun in the survey; for instance, construction
e. was only investigated in combination with nouns denoting professions, as it was expected
that all users who used constructions a. to d. with proper nouns, would also combine
construction e. with proper nouns. Nouns denoting professions, however, were expected to
combine not as easily with the locative possessive. The full survey and its results can be found
in attachment 3. Note that this survey was of a rather restricted nature, and thus no definite
conclusions can be drawn regarding the usage of the locative possessive in West-Flemish.
However, the survey can give an indication as to what constructions are most likely
grammatical, and what constructions are not.
A first category which was investigated was that of proper nouns, i.e. names of persons. All
speakers considered locative possessives with proper names as grammatical, although one
speaker did not use the preposition to. This preposition was not part of her dialect, and thus,
she did not use it in locative possessive constructions. This does not mean that it was the
locative possessive, which she considered ungrammatical, but rather the preposition itself.
Secondly, kinship nouns (such as zuster ‘sister’, meme ‘nan’, or cozijn ‘cousin’) within
locative possessives were regarded as grammatical by the majority of speakers, though not by
22
Some speakers use the verb zin (‘am’) instead.
49
all. Especially the word broer ‘brother’ was not always used in combination with locative
possessives: merely half the speakers considered locative possessives containing broer as
grammatical. The most likely explanation for this is that in West-Flemish, ‘brother’ is often
realised as broere, and not just as broer. It can be argued that the -s possessive marker cannot
easily attach to broere, for phonological reasons. Interestingly, a parallel can be observed
between this phonological restriction and the phonological process of schwa-deletion in
Middle Dutch: nouns ending in schwa could not take the genitive, but as soon as the schwa
was dropped, these words were capable of taking an -s ending (see 4.1.2). Thus, broere can,
arguably, not take the -s possessive because it ends in schwa, and since broere is, to many
West-Flemish speakers, the most commonly used form, it could not be used in a locative
possessive construction.
A third type of nouns that was investigated was nouns denoting professions. Such nouns were
only rarely used in constructions of the a., b. and c. types. However, professional nouns in
constructions of the e. type were considered grammatical by some, depending on the lexeme.
For instance, k è t bi den doktoors gehoord (‘I heard it at the doctor’s’) and k è t to den
bakkers gehoord (‘I heard it at the baker’s) were considered grammatical by four and three
speakers respectively. Construction d. in combination with professional nouns was considered
to be grammatical more often: examples (x1-x5) were all considered to be grammatical:
(x1)
Hij woont daar aan den coiffeurs
He lives there near the (male) hairdresser’s
(x2)
Hij woont daar aan de coiffeuzes
He lives there near the (female) hairdresser’s
(x3)
Hij woont daar aan den kosters
He lives there near the sexton’s
(x4)
Hij woont daar aan den pasters
He lives there near the priest’s
(x5)
Hij woont daar aan den beenhouwers
He lives there near the butcher’s
This may perhaps be explained by the fact that, in these particular constructions, the reference
to a location is very overt, because the verb ‘to live’ clearly requires a complement that refers
50
to a location. Naturally, the construction without a possessive marker (hij woont daar aan den
beenhouwer, ‘he lives there near the butcher’) is still grammatically correct, but a location is
nonetheless implied rather strongly. By contrast, constructions such as bi den beenhouwer
(‘with the butcher’) do not so much indicate a clear location: the example above does not
indicate that the speaker is in the butcher’s shop, but rather, that the speaker is in the presence
of the butcher, which is also illustrated by the different English translation of the preposition.
With relation to nouns indicating professions, a parallel can be drawn to Modern Standard
Dutch: the -s possessive in Modern Standard Dutch can only be used with proper nouns or
nouns of address (see 4.1.1), and it seems that this may be the case for the West-Flemish -s
possessive in locative constructions as well.
A fourth category which was investigated was that of noun phrases containing adjectives.
These were usually considered ungrammatical within locative possessive constructions.
Nouns denoting kinship in combination with adjectives were considered grammatical only by
a few speakers in locative possessives, but noun phrases containing a professional noun and
an adjective were not. Other complex noun phrases, which constitute the fifth category, were
only rarely used in a locative possessive construction as well. One construction, k ben bi
Rogers moeders (I’m at Roger’s mother’s), was considered grammatical by three speakers,
but the construction using the doubling possessive instead of -s for the first possessive, as in k
ben bi Roger zen moeders (‘I’m at Roger his mother’s’), was considered more grammatical
than the former. Thus, the locative possessive is considered grammatical in combination with
some complex phrases, all of which are formed by means of proper nouns or kinship nouns.
In Modern Standard Dutch, however, this is not the case: the -s possessive cannot attach to
complex noun phrases (see 4.1.1).
Furthermore, the construction k ben bi min zusters in Gent (‘I’m at my sister’s in Ghent’) was
considered grammatical by the majority of speakers, whereas k ben bi min zuster in Gents
(‘I’m at my sister in Ghent’s’) was considered ungrammatical by all. In the former cases, the
possessive marker attaches to the head noun, and the postmodifier is not marked as a
possessive. Thus, it can be inferred that in West-Flemish, the -s possessive marker must attach
to the head noun, and, as opposed to the English possessive marker, cannot be used phrasally,
The Modern Standard Dutch possessive -s is similar to the West-Flemish -s possessive in this
respect: the Modern Standard Dutch -s cannot be used phrasally either.
51
Finally, the locative possessive in West-Flemish can also be formed with pronouns, as
indicated in examples (x6-x8), and most speakers do use this construction. Note however that
only plural pronouns can be used in combination with locative possessives: to t mines (‘at
mine’), to t jonnes (‘at yours’), to de zins (‘at his’) are ungrammatical.
(x6)
Hij komt naar toezens
Hij is toezens
(x7)
(x8)
(he comes to ours)
(he is at ours)
Hij is to toezens
(he is at ours)
Hij is bi toezens
(he is at ours)
K ga naar tjunders / tjulders / tulders
(I am going to yours)
K ben tjunders / tjulders / tulders
(I am at yours)
K ben to tjunders / tjulders / tulders
(I am at yours)
K ben bi tjunders / tjulders / tulders
(I am at yours)
K ga naar tunders
(I am going to theirs)
K ben tunders
(I am at theirs)
K ben to tunders
(I am at theirs)
K ben bi tunders
(I am at theirs)
Interestingly, the West-Flemish pronouns as they appear in locative possessive constructions
do not only take an -s possessive marker, but usually also a t- in word-initial position. What is
further remarkable is that this type of pronoun does not necessarily need a preposition in order
to express a locative meaning. Perhaps one could argue, then, that the t- represents a remnant
of a preposition, possibly to, and that the t-pronouns are a contracted form of the preposition
to and the pronouns oes, ulder, under. This could then be the reason why the pronoun can
stand on its own whilst still carrying a locative meaning. However, these remarks are purely
speculative, and more research would need to be done in order to establish the true origin of
these t-pronouns.
In conclusion, the locative possessive marker in West-Flemish shows a number of significant
similarities with the -s possessive of Modern Standard Dutch: first of all, it is realised by -s,
whilst the usual possessive markers in West-Flemish are the doubling construction or the sen
construction, as shown by Haegeman (2013). Secondly, the phonological constraint on the use
52
of the -s possessive in Modern Standard Dutch appears to hold true for the West-Flemish
locative possessive marker as well. Furthermore, the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive
can only occur with proper nouns and nouns that can be used in an address, which is the case
as well for the West-Flemish -s possessive marker. Finally, the West-Flemish -s possessive
marker cannot be used phrasally, like the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive marker. One
difference between the -s possessives in Modern Standard Dutch and West-Flemish is that, in
a few cases, the West-Flemish -s possessive marker can attach to complex noun phrases,
while the -s possessive marker in Modern Standard Dutch cannot. Finally, this study has
found that in West-Flemish, pronouns can obtain a possessive marker, and be used in locative
possessive constructions instead of a possessor noun. Further research regarding these
pronouns may be necessary in order to determine when they were first used in the locative
possessive construction, how they developed in this particular usage, and how their
remarkable composition originated.
4.2 Corpus Research
In what follows, the locative possessive in Dutch and its development will be examined
through diachronic corpus research. As indicated before, the locative possessive no longer
exists in Modern Standard Dutch, yet Van Der Horst (2008) indicates that it did occur, though
not very frequently, in Middle Dutch. In the modern West-Flemish dialect, however, the
construction is used relatively often. Thus, while the locative possessive was lost in most
Dutch dialects, it was retained in West-Flemish.
With regard to this corpus research, it should first of all be noted that Old Dutch texts were
not examined for two reasons: not many Old Dutch texts survive to this day, and Van Der
Horst does not mention the existence of a locative possessive in Old Dutch. A second remark
regarding this study is again that, naturally, these texts do not represent spoken language, but
rather, written language. It is quite likely that the development of the locative possessive from
Dutch to West-Flemish will not be easily mapped, as it is a dialectal feature in West-Flemish,
and dialects are usually spoken, not written. Furthermore, no corpus of West-Flemish written
or spoken language exists today, which also hinders to some extent the accurate description of
the locative possessive from a diachronic perspective. However, it may still be possible to
draw some conclusions from this research with regard to the development of the locative
possessive.
53
Section 4.2.1 will discuss the copora and data used in this research, and section 4.2.2 will
present and discuss the results of this study.
4.2.1 Corpora and Data
Two corpora were examined for this study: the Corpus Van Reenen-Mulder (CRM14), which
contains 14th-century chancery documents, and the Compliatiecorpus Historisch Nederlands
(CHN), which was compiled by Evie Coussé. The CHN is divided into two subcorpora: the
Compliatiecorpus Historisch Nederlands: ambachtelijke teksten 1250-1800 (CHNa) and the
Compliatiecorpus Historisch Nederlands: narratieve teksten 1575-2000 (CHNn). The CHN is
a compliation corpus, i.e. it is made up of parts of several corpora. The CHNa contains parts
of the Corpus Gysseling, containing Middle Dutch texts from 1250 to 1299, the Corpus Van
Reenen-Mulder, and a corpus of judicial texts (Geschiedkundige rechtsbronnen), containing
sources from 1400 to 1799. Of all these corpora, a representative sample was selected, and
complied into one corpus, the CHNa. The CHNn consists of a compilation of narrative texts,
taken from the Digital Library of Dutch Literature (Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse
Letteren). As the CHN also contains part of the CRM14, overlap of the results is possible.
When this was the case, both corpora were indicated as sources.
In contrast to the English corpora, no selection was made from the CRM14 and the CHN.
The CHN already is a representative sample of several corpora, and therefore, I did not
consider it necessary to make another selection from this sample. Furthermore, if it is the case
that the locative possessive was not very frequent during the Middle Dutch period, and was
only less used in later times, as Van Der Horst (354) claims, making a selection from the data
would only lessen the chance that an instance of the locative possessive is found through
corpus research.
4.2.2 Methodology
This research was conducted by running the concordance program AntConc on all corpora. I
have chosen to enter prepositions in the program, rather than nouns and/or possessive
markers. If nouns had been entered, the program would have yielded too many irrelevant
results. The locative possessive is usually formed with the possessive marker –s, and since
this is a single letter, entering this into the program would also have yielded too many
54
irrelevant results. Full locative possessive constructions, by contrast, would have yielded too
few results, as there would be a significant chance that other constructions, with different
words, would not be found in the corpus. Thus, a number of prepositions were selected, and
run through the program. These were tot (cf. English to), bi (cf. English by, at), naar (cf.
English to) and tussen (cf. English between). All prepositions were, of course, entered in their
different spellings. The results were then manually reviewed, and all locative possessives,
both elliptical and non-elliptical, were extracted.
4.2.3 Results and Discussion
A number of locative possessives were encountered in this research.
One issue with the locative possessive in Middle Dutch is the fact that it is not always easy to
distinguish between locative possessive markers and patronymic markers. Patronyms end in ‘soen/-zoen’ (meaning ‘son’), which is sometimes abbreviated to <z> (as in Jan Heermansz,
CHNa: Leiden, 1439). This ‘z’ can often be elided, so that the possessive of the patronym is
kept, as in henrics wouters (CHNa: Kuringen, 1393). In these cases, it is often unclear
whether the name purely represents a patronym, or whether there is a locative possessive
element attached to it as well. Nonetheless, a few types of patronyms which were clearly
locative possessives were found in the results. A first type was a construction where the ‘soen/-zoen’ had not been elided, and the locative possessive marker was placed at the end of
the patronym, as e.g. in bi pieter jans zoens (CRM14: s-Gravenzande, 1353). A second type
that was considered a clear locative possessive, was when the first proper noun in the NP had
a possessive marker, while the patronym was only clearly marked as such. For instance, in
hannekins henox, the <x>, which is simply the spelling of /k/ - /s/, does not clearly represent a
locative possessive marker. It could be argued that it does, if one presupposes that two
possessive markers will not be spelled separately, but rather, that only one <s> will be used
to represent two. However, this example remains a clear instance of the locative possessive, as
the first name carries the locative possessive marker. Furthermore, there is a type of locative
possessives, which was rather prominent in the results, which are not patronyms, although
they might look like they are. The first proper noun in this kind of constructions carries a
possessive marker, and the second proper noun is a family name. An example is lodewijx van
den boemghaerde (CHNa: Oudenaarde, 1370). The possessive marker of the first proper noun
can hardly be considered a patronymic marker, as these are not usually attached to first
55
names, and the second proper noun is not a patronym, but a family name. Thus, such
constructions were considered locative possessives.
It may be noted that many locative possessives in these results appear with the preposition
tussen (between). Semantically, this preposition presupposes a binary structure: it always
heads two elements. Hence, many instances of locative possessives within these results, which
at first sight are not headed by a preposition (such as ende jans van den bossche, CHNa:
Oudenaarde, 1370), are actually headed by tussen. A further remark, regarding tussen, is that
the results of this research also included partly elliptical locative possessive constructions, in
which one NP was elliptical, and the other non-elliptical. A few examples are tusschen jan
boysts huus ende erue ende pieters van oeten (CRM14: Aalst, 1370) and tusschen lant
wouters van den vynne ende wouters mersmans (CRM14: Donk, 1381). Constructions with
tussen and two non-elliptical NPs were found as well, such as tusschen Dirc janszoens erue
ende Claes peter clenerts zoens erue (CHNa: Amsterdam, 1410). It could be argued that the
partly elliptical construction with tussen may represent an intermediate stage between the
non-elliptical and elliptical locative possessive. The head noun of one of the possessive
constructions can be elided, as it is present in the other, and therefore to a certain extent
redundant: it can be left out without causing a change in meaning. It might therefore be
considered a stage in between no ellipsis and full ellipsis, where the next step would be to
elide the head noun in both constructions. However, the results do not indicate that the partly
elliptical construction with tussen is, in fact, an intermediate stage at a diachronic level. Both
possessive constructions with and without ellipsis appear to be used simultaneously
throughout the Middle Dutch period; however, the non-elliptical locative possessive was
found more frequently. Thus, while the partly elliptical possessive may be considered an
intermediate stage on a synchronic level, this claim does not appear to hold true for the
diachronic level. It must however be noted once more that this research uses a limited amount
of data, and therefore, these results may vary to a certain extent, once a greater amount of data
has been studied more comprehensively.
As opposed to the English results, locative possessives deriving from names of saints, and
being used to denote religious institutions, are not very frequent in Middle Dutch.
Furthermore, these constructions do not appear to be used previous to locative possessives
with personal names; in fact, the first locative possessive indicating a religious institution is
bij sente godelen (CHNa: Brussel, 1312), which still contains a genitive inflection (-en).
56
Hence, the idea that the Middle Dutch locative possessive could have originated from such
names of religious institutions does not appear plausible. [Thus, if this is the case, it could be
argued that English and Middle Dutch/West-Flemish do not have the same kind of
development. This will be addressed in the “general discussion”]
Finally, the results show that the locative possessive was used in Middle Dutch for about a
hundred years, from the late 13th century to the late 14th century. The first instance of the nonelliptical construction is from the mid-13th century, and it occurs regularly in the corpus until
the late 15th century. One isolated instance from 1866 was found: naar t huis des Heeren
(CHNn: Holland, 1866). Importantly, the results do not show any kind of preference of the
use of the locative possessive per region, in West-Flemish, for instance. Only a few locative
possessives were actually found in Flemish texts: Brabantine texts and northern Dutch texts
contained several instances as well. Yet it is striking that, even though the construction still
exists in West-Flemish today, it was not found in the corpora after 1378. For Middle Dutch,
Van Der Horst (2008) provides a few examples from Van den vos Reynaerde and Jacob van
Maerlant’s Rijmbijbel. The following examples were taken from the text of Van den vos
Reynaerde that can be found in the Comburg Manuscript (Lulofs, 2001):
“Al sprekende quam dus gheloepen / Reynaert met sinen gheselle Brune / tote
Lamfroits bi den tune (R 646)” (Van Der Horst, 2008: 354)
“Hi hadde en vet hoen ghevaen / bi Lamfroyts an der heyden (R 879)” (Van Der
Horst, 2008: 354)
“Sint leedickene up eenen dach / tote des papen van Bloys (R 1509)” (Van Der
Horst, 2008: 354)
Van Der Horst (2008) classifies these examples under the early Middle Dutch period, from
1200 to 1350. However, Lulofs (2001) states that the Reynaert manuscript in his edition,
which is also the edition Van Der Horst (2008) references, was most likely written around
1400. A further example, according to Van Der Horst (2008), can be found in Maerlant’s
Rijmbijbel, as it was written c. 1285, in the ms.15001 (van Dalen-Oskam, 1997):
“Ende voer te sijns hoems ward (MR2415)” (Van Der Horst, 2008: 354)
57
These examples are, however, from the same time period as the results of this study; hence,
they cannot shed much further light on the development of the construction. Interestingly,
Van Der Horst (2008) does refer to one more example of the locative possessive from the late
17th century, i.e. almost three centuries after its last occurrence c.1400.
“Ick sal eer corten tijdt u weer to vaeyers vinden” (De Swaen, Gecroonde Leerse 35)”
(Van Der Horst, 2008: 1077)
This particular instance was found in De Swaen’s play De Gecroonde Leersse, which was
first performed in 1688. The language of the play was French-Flemish; as was noted in
chapter 2 [during the discussion of locative possessives in different languages], the locative
possessive does exist in the French-Flemish dialect today, while it is no longer used in
Standard Dutch. Hence, the construction may have undergone a more or less similar
development as West-Flemish. This cannot be determined with any kind of certainty yet,
however, as French-Flemish was not considered for this corpus research.
Turning back to the locative possessive in Middle Dutch, we have noted two remarkable
issues with these corpus results. First of all, it would be expected that, while the construction
gradually ceases to be used in most dialects of Middle Dutch, a preference for West-Flemish
would be apparent, as it does survive in this dialect. This is however not the case, the later
results are not necessarily West-Flemish ones. Secondly, except for the one instance in
French-Flemish, the locative is absent from the corpora from 1400 onwards. Since the
construction does exist in West-Flemish, however, it would be expected that results from
West-Flanders would keep appearing in the corpora. Nonetheless, a tentative explanation
could be provided for these remarkable results. Notably, van den Toorn et al. (2007) reject
the claim that every writer always wrote in his own dialect. From the early Middle Dutch
period onwards, writers adhered to a set of spelling conventions in most cases, which,
arguably, made the text look more distinguished, and ascertained that the text was understood
by those who spoke a different dialect (van den Toorn et al., 2007). For obvious reasons, this
may have been of great importance for official chancery documents, and, since corpora that
were used for this research mainly contain chancery texts, it may be of importance to this
study as well. Note however that these spelling conventions do not necessarily mean that
Dutch was in the process of being standardised; true standardisation only took place from the
16th century onwards (van den Toorn et al., 2007). Another factor may, arguably, be related to
58
the gradual gain in prestige of Brabant from the middle of the 14th century onwards. A
consequence of this prestige was that writers often adapted their spelling, vocabulary and
grammar to the Brabantine writing conventions (van den Toorn et al., 2007). A further factor
lies in the fact that the CHNn was compiled in such a way, that only texts from Holland were
incorporated (Evie Coussé reference). Hence, it was not possible for the corpus to generate
West-Flemish results in a more narrative context, in which it is, arguably, less necessary to
write in a distinguished and formal matter, as is the case for official documents. In a more
informal context, dialectal features from West-Flemish might have been more prominent.
These three factors may to a certain extent account for both the fact that no results were found
after 1400, and the fact that no preference was found for West-Flemish. Naturally, if no
Flemish texts were incorporated into the CHNn, this corpus search could not yield any results.
Furthermore, if the construction was no longer used in other Dutch dialects, Brabantine was
more prestigious than West-Flemish, and writers often adapted their language to make it more
intelligible, it would come as no surprise that later constructions in West-Flemish were
remarkably absent. Their presence from the late 13th until the late 14th century onwards may
be explained by the fact that the construction was widely used in that time, or, perhaps more
interestingly, the fact that it was West-Flemish which had the prestige up until the early 14th
century (van den Toorn et al., 2007). Hence, writers may very well have adapted their writing
to West-Flemish conventions, and temporarily taken over the locative possessive until WestFlemish lost its prestige. Naturally, these remarks are purely speculative. Due to a lack of
results from the corpus material, this research cannot show with much certainty when and
how exactly the construction was, and remained to be, used in West-Flemish. In order to
answer this question, more extensive research would need to be done.
59
5. Discussion
In this final chapter of my thesis, I will first compare the results of the English and WestFlemish corpus research within a cognitive framework (section 5.1). Then in section 5.2, an
answer will be formulated to the question whether the locative possessive is an Ingvaeonic
phenomenon, or whether its occurrence in Modern English and West-Flemish originated
through a parallel independent development.
5.1 Discussion of corpus results
The first Dutch instances of the locative possessive that this study generated were from the
late 13th century. According to the results, the construction was in use for about a hundred
years, until it disappeared again in the late 14th century. However, we know that the locative
possessive is still used today in West-Flemish. The lack of results after the 14th century and
the fact that the results do not show any kind of preference towards the West-Flemish use of
the construction, was explained with reference to the onset of language standardisation. A
combination of new spelling conventions and prestige of the Brabantine dialect (Van den
Toorn et al. 2007) made it less likely that West-Flemish instances would keep appearing in
official documents, and thus in our results. The first English results occurred a century after
the disappearance of the West-Flemish construction, in the late 15th century. In contrast to the
Dutch results, the English locative possessive was used more and more frequently from the
late Middle English period onwards, and by the Modern British English period, it appears to
have become the default option to express location by means of a possessive, as opposed to
the non-elliptical construction. Thus, while the locative possessive in Dutch was gradually
restricted to West-Flemish only, the English locative possessive rapidly developed into a
widely and often used construction.
The question may then be asked how the locative possessive originated in these languages,
and why it was possible to omit the head noun of a possessive construction and still have a
clear and easily understood construction. This question will be discussed within a cognitive
framework, and the prototype theory. According to Langacker’s (1995) theory of cognitive
grammar, two main participants are distinguished. The trajector is the primary participant
within the profiled relationship, and the secondary participant is termed the landmark. In
60
possessive constructions, the possessor noun is analysed as the landmark, whilst the
possessum is the trajector (Langacker 1995). In order to explain why it is possible to omit the
head noun, or the trajectory, the prototype theory might be a useful tool. Heine (1997: 39) lists
five prototypical properties of possession:
I.
The possessor is a human being.
II.
The possessee is a concrete item.
III.
The possessor has the right to make use of the possessee.
IV.
Possessor and possessee are in spatial proximity.
V.
Possession has no conceivable temporal limit.
Remarkably, all these properties seem to be characteristic of the locative possessive. First of
all, the possessor is always a human being, as the construction refers to a person’s home or
the place where he practices his profession. Secondly, the possessee is indeed a concrete item:
a house, a doctor’s practice, a shop, etc. The locative possessive generally refers to a building
which is owned by a person to live or practice his profession in. The third property is also
rather straightforward: since the locative possessive refers to places where people live or
work, the possessor has the right to make use of the possessee. The possessor and possesee
are also usually in spatial proximity: as the possessor either lives or works in the referenced
building, they are usually rather close to each other. However, it is possible to use the locative
possessive to refer to a place when the possessor is not actually present in said location. For
instance, it is possible to say I’m going to John’s when John is not home. However the
possessive relation between a person and his home or the workplace that he owns does imply
that he is there most of the time. Finally, possession has no conceivable temporal limit with
reference to the locative possessive. A home or workplace is usually a rather permanent
possession.
Heine (1997: 40) suggests the following schematic representation of possessive notions in a
prototype framework:
Figure 1: A prototype
characterisation of possessive
notions. From: Heine 1997: 97, his
Figure 1.1
PHYS
Ss
IN/I
PERM
TEMP
INAL
61
IN/A
According to this characterisation, permanent possessives are thus indeed the most
prototypical kind of possessive constructions. Temporary, physical and inalienable possession
(in which the possesee is inseperable from the possessor, e.g. a body part) are somewhat less
prototypical, and inalienable animate, inalienable inanimate and abstract possession is the
least prototypical (Heine 1997). In this view, the possessive relation between a person and his
residence or owned workplace is, arguably, most prototypical. This notion might provide an
explanation for why the trajector can simply be omitted, without having a significant impact
on the semantics of the construction. It may be argued that, because the trajector noun with a
meaning of ‘home’ or ‘owned workplace’ is so prototypical in locative constructions, that,
when omitted, the hearer or reader of the construction will automatically supplement the most
prototypical kind of noun in order to make sense of the meaning of the construction. In other
words, when a person hears the construction I’m going to John’s, he will try to make sense of
its meaning, and will think of the most prototypical noun in the first place: house. When this
noun is successfully identified as the omitted trajector, the hearer can interpret this
construction, and similar constructions without much difficulty. Since it is, arguably,
relatively easy to interpret the omitted trajector correctly in locative possessive constructions,
explicitly including the trajector in these constructions may be considered redundant, and
consequently, the locative possessive construction without the trajector noun may become
conventionally accepted and used. It may, then, be argued that the locative possessive with
omission of the trajector originated in this fashion.
5.2 Ingvaeonism or parallel independent development
In chapter 2 of this thesis, I have presented the hypothesis that the locative possessive might
be an Ingvaeonism. The argument in favour of this interpretation was that the locative
possessive appears in most ingvaeonic languages and dialects. However, the use of the
locative possessive was spread more widely than merely within the Ingvaeonic dialect areas:
even during the Middle Dutch period, it was used in the entire Dutch language area. A second
counterargument was that the locative possessive was in all likelihood too recent a
construction to be considered an ingvaeonism.
My research has shown that the locative possessive does indeed only occur from the Middle
Dutch and late Middle English periods onwards; in order to be an Ingvaeonism, the
construction would have had to be much older. Furthermore, the West-Flemish construction
62
was first used two hundred years before the English locative possessive was, making it highly
unlikely that the locative possessive in these languages originated out of the same ancient
Ingvaeonic language. The fact that the locative possessive occurred in the entire Dutch
language area before being restricted to West-Flemish can also indicate that it may not have
been an Ingvaeonism. While Ingvaeonisms do exist in Dutch today, it would still be expected
that the construction originated in West-Flemish, or another Ingvaeonic dialect, and then
spread to the rest of the Dutch language area. However, this is not what the results show. The
instances of locative possessives that were found in this study did not show any kind of
preference towards West-Flemish, nor in the beginning, nor at the end of the century in which
it occurred. Thus, it is my view that the locative possessive was a construction that was
originally spoken across the entire Dutch language area, but was then restricted to WestFlanders (and French-Flanders) alone.
In other words, the development of the locative possessive in English and West-Flemish can
be characterised as a parallel independent development, which means that it developed
separately in both languages. As I have argued, the development of this construction may
have been facilitated by the fact that it is such a prototypical construction, and that therefore
the trajector noun can be easily elided. Furthermore, the fact that possessives are syntactically,
morphologically and phonologically similar (though not identical) in most Germanic
languages may also be considered as a factor which aided the development of locative
possessives in English, West-Flemish, Frisian and French-Flemish: it seems likely that the
prototypical characteristics of possessives are similar in most Germanic languages, and that
the trajector noun is of a similar nature as the English and West-Flemish ones. This could
perhaps have served as a catalyst in the development of the locative possessive in English,
West-Flemish, Frisian and French-Flemish. That the locative possessive developed in these
particular language may thus have been coincidental to a certain extent, rather than a
consequence of the Ingvaeonic background of these languages. However, there is a second
factor which might have facilitated the rise of the locative possessive: language contact. As
was mentioned before, the Frisian Kingdom was rather powerful during the Middle Ages.
Thus, the locative possessive may have been a Frisian phenomenon, which was spread across
the Dutch and English language areas due to a significant amount of contact with these
languages. In sum, the locative possessive might have been transferred from Frisian to
English and Dutch during the Middle Ages due to language contact, and this transfer may
have been facilitated by the nature of the possessive in these languages.
63
However, it is still unclear why the locative possessive remained in use in West-Flemish and
French-Flemish, whilst it disappeared in the other Dutch dialects. In order to answer this
question, more extensive research would need to be done.
64
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study has mapped the diachronic development of the locative possessive
constructions in English and West-Flemish, and has argued that they are not Ingvaeonisms,
but rather independent parallel developments. While the locative possessive does appear in
most Ingvaeonic languages and dialects, the construction has arisen too recently to be
considered an Ingvaeonism, and, in the Dutch language area, it was initially used as a general
Dutch phenomenon, and its use became restricted to West-Flemish, the Ingvaeonic dialect,
afterwards. The possessive constructions in English, Modern Standard Dutch and WestFlemish have been discussed both synchronically and diachronically. The English ‘s
possessive was analysed as a phrasal affix, and originated out of the genitive case. However,
as case inflections were lost in English during the Middle English period, the ‘s possessive
was no longer considered an inflectional affix. The Modern Standard Dutch possessive
morpheme was considered as a suffix that was part of a determiner phrase, and this possessive
marker developed out of the genitive case marker as well. However, it no longer is an
inflectional affix either. The West-Flemish doubling possessive and the sen possessive were
briefly examined as well, but I have argued that the -s possessive of the West-Flemish
locative construction was similar to the Modern Standard Dutch possessive instead.
The diachronic development of the locative possessive in West-Flemish and English was then
examined by means of corpus research. The results of this research has shown that the English
locative possessive originated in the late 15th century, and was increasingly often used until it
was more or less the default option to express location by means of possessives. The WestFlemish locative possessive, however, originated in the late 13th century and was originally
used in the entire Dutch language area. However, the construction disappeared in Dutch after
the 14th century, and is only used in West-Flanders and French-Flanders today. The prototype
theory was used to interpret these results, and I have argued that the locative possessive is one
of the most prototypical possessive constructions in both English and West-Flemish. This
may have been a catalyst in its development: if the trajector noun, which is omitted in locative
possessive constructions, is of the most prototypical nature, then its omission does not pose
significant problems for the interpretation of this construction, and thus, the trajector noun
may, in time, have been considered redundant. I have also noted that the possessive
constructions in most Germanic languages seem similar in syntax, morphology and
65
phonology, which may have aided the development of the locative possessive in English,
West-Flemish, French-Flemish and Frisian. Another factor may have been language contact
due to the powerful position of the Kingdom of Frisia.
Further research on this topic may include an investigation of the locative possessive of
Frisian and French-Flemish, both from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. A further
aspect of the locative possessive which still needs to be examined in more detail is the
occurrence of pronouns as possessors.
66
References
Allen, Cynthia L. 2004. “A Note on ‘Ellipical’, ‘Absolute’, and ‘Independent’ Genitives in
Earlier English.” English Language and Linguistics 8:2. 351-354.
Allen, Cynthia L. 2008. Genitives in Early English: Typology and Evidence. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Baugh, Albert C. & Thomas Cable. 2002. A history of the English language. Oxon:
Routledge.
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Geoffrey Leech. 2002. Student Grammar of Spoken and
Written English. Harlow: Longman, Pearson Education Limited
Booij, Geert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert. 2005. “Construction-dependent morphology” Lingue E Linguaggio 2. 1-16.
Börjars, Kersti, David Denison, Grzegorz Krajewski & Alan Scott. 2013. “Expression of
Possession in English: The Significance of the Right Edge.” Morphosyntactic Categories and
the Expression of Possession. (=Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 199.) ed. by Kersti
Börjars, David Denison & Alan Sott, 123-148. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Devos, Magda & Reinhild Vandekerckhove. 2005. West-Vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo
Fering-Öömrang Wurdenbuk. 2002. Kiel: Nordfriesische Wörterbuchstelle
Grafmiller, Jason. forthcoming. “Variation in English Genitives Across Modality and Genre”
Haegeman, Liliane. 2013. “Two prenominal possessors in West-Flemish” Morphosyntactic
Categories and the Expression of Possession. (= linguistics today 199) ed. by Kersti Börjars,
David Denison and Alan Scott. 219-251.
Heeroms, Klaas. 1972. “Zur Raumgeschichte des Inwgäonischen” Zeitschrift für
DIalektologie und Linguistik 3. 267-283.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalization.
Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. “Possession and possessive constructions” Language and the
Cognitive Construal of the World (=Studies and Monographs 82) ed. by John R. Taylor &
Robert E. MacLaury. 51-80. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gryuter
67
Nevis, Joel A. 2000. “Clitics.” Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and
Word-Formation. (= HSK 17.1) ed. By Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim
Mugdan, Vol. 1., 388-404. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, Parsed Version (2006). Annotated by Ann
Taylor, Arja Nurmi, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk and Terttu Nevalainen. Compiled by the
CEEC Project Team. York: University of York and Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Sipma, P. 1913. Phonology & Grammar of Modern West Frisian. With phonetic texts and
glossary. (= Publications of the Philological Society 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English. An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) (2007). Distributed by Oxford
University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
The Magic sheet of Old English Inflections.
http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/courses/handouts/magic.pdf
The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (2000). Anthony Kroch and Ann
Taylor, compilers. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.
The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2 (2000). Anthony Kroch and Ann
Taylor, compilers. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.
The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (2000). Anthony Kroch and
Ann Taylor, compilers. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.
Van Bath, B.H. Slicher. 1949. “Dutch Tribal Problems”. Speculum 24:3. 319-338.
Van der Horst, J.M. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlands Syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire
Pers Leuven.
Van den Toorn, M.C., W. Pijnenburg, J.A. van Leunvensteijn en J.M. Van der Horst. 2007.
Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Van Keymeulen, Jan. 2003. “Geographical differentiation in the Dutch Language Area.” The
Dawn of the Written Vernacular in Western Europe. ed by Michèle Goyens and Werner
Verbeke. Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Weerman, Fred & Petra de Wit. 1999. “The Decline of the Genitive in Dutch” Linguistics
37:6. 1155-1192.
68
Weijnen, A.A. 1999. Oude Woordlagen in de Zuidelijk-centrale dialecten. Amsterdam:
Meertens Instituut.
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1997. On Clitics. Ohio: Ohio State University
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Geoffrey K. Pulllum. 1983. “Cliticization vs. Inflection: English N’T”
Language 59:3. 502-513
69
APPENDIX 1
RESULTS CORPUS RESEARCH: ENGLISH
TABLE 1: All results elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1470
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1569-1575
1569-1575
ROMANCE
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
LETTER
LETTER
at Saynt Albons
at B. Pasmars
at Bornellys wyedows
to Dankortys
by Thomas Kesteyns
at Sente Johnys
to Sent Tomers
at Sent Tomors
at Twyssulltons
at Robard Torneys
at Thomas Clarkys
at Synt Mary Overeys
be syde Syn Jonys
at Syn Johnys
at Synt Mary Overes
at Synt Albonys
to Syn Gorgys
at Syn Poulys
at Syn Poulys
to Powlys
to Synt Mychellys
at Syn Donstonys
at Syn Albonys
at Syn Kateryns
from Syn Johnys
at Synt Albonys
at Synt Albonys
at Synt Mary Overeyes
to Synt Albonys
to Synt Albonys
at Poulys
at St. Symon's
(betwene Mr. Downes his howse)
and one Tilneye 's
CMMALORY,6.164
CELY,17.013.197
CELY,26.022.426
CELY,41.034.723
CELY,41.035.733
CELY,73.057.1225
CELY,98.077.1658
CELY,137.111.2436
CELY,143.114.2501
CELY,191.136.2992
CELY,191.136.2993
CMGREGOR,104.185
CMGREGOR,108.299
CMGREGOR,157.676
CMGREGOR,157.682
CMGREGOR,160.755
CMGREGOR,164.845
CMGREGOR,176.1113
CMGREGOR,180.1229
CMGREGOR,184.1308
CMGREGOR,184.1308
CMGREGOR,188.1391
CMGREGOR,188.1397
CMGREGOR,188.1404
CMGREGOR,191.1447
CMGREGOR,198.1576
CMGREGOR,203.1701
CMGREGOR,211.1901
CMGREGOR,211.1921
CMGREGOR,212.1923
CMGREGOR,230.2390
PARKHUR,161.029.519
PARKHUR,177.040.682
70
1569-1575
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1610-1632
1610-1632
1610-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
LETTER
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
at St. Andrew's
at Besse Jenyns
at Robert Cavies
at M. Creswels
at M. Fownds
at M. Fownds
at sherif Martens
at Mrs Lucars
at M. sherif Martons
at his brother Hudsons
at my cosyn Thomas
at Mrs Lucars
at M. Carleyls
at my cosyn Nycholas
at M. Huntleys
at M. Gilburns
at Alderman Barns
at M. Hankins
at M. Greenes
to M. Burdens
to St. Ellyns
to St. Crosses
at M. Owtreads
at M. Onleys
at M. Dees
at M. Owtreds
to the lordes
at Sir Edward Parhams
at my lord Treasurers
at Nurse Bedle's
Sir Thomas Barrington's
at Sir Gilbert Garrard's
at my brother Lytton's
at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's
at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's
to my brother Masham's
in Saint Gyles
at Sir Gilberd Garretts
at Sir Richard Evered's
at Sir Gilberte Garrett's
in St Giles
at Mr Martin's
at St Mary Overyes
at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's
From Mr Okelie's
PARKHUR,216.061.1133
MADOX-E2-H,83.59
MADOX-E2-H,86.95
MADOX-E2-H,132.241
MADOX-E2-P1,92.61
MADOX-E2-P1,94.103
MADOX-E2-P1,95.110
MADOX-E2-P1,95.116
MADOX-E2-P1,95.121
MADOX-E2-P1,96.130
MADOX-E2-P1,98.164
MADOX-E2-P1,98.170
MADOX-E2-P1,98.179
MADOX-E2-P1,98.187
MADOX-E2-P1,99.196
MADOX-E2-P1,101.255
MADOX-E2-P1,101.258
MADOX-E2-P1,104.313
MADOX-E2-P1,107.363
MADOX-E2-P1,111.430
MADOX-E2-P1,112.443
MADOX-E2-P2,117.38
MADOX-E2-P2,117.45
MADOX-E2-P2,160.460
MADOX-E2-P2,118.60
MADOX-E2-P2,118.73
PORY,69.002.58
PORY,71.002.82
PORY,128.004.186
BARRING,54.012.233
BARRING,56.014.277
BARRING,73.025.556
BARRING,88.040.758
BARRING,97.049.915
BARRING,101.055.1009
BARRING,110.064.1170
BARRING,113.066.1191
BARRING,113.066.1193
BARRING,114.066.1211
BARRING,114.066.1214
BARRING,120.072.1313
BARRING,127.080.1407
BARRING,132.084.1496
BARRING,135.086.1527
BARRING,145.096.1652
71
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1630
1630
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
1630
1630
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1675-1677
1675-1677
1715-1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1776
1776
1776
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
LETTER
LETTER
LAW
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
at the stacioner's
at Sir Gilbert Garrard's
at nurse Birde's
at St James
from my Lord of Bedford's
at Mr Goodyer's
From Mr Charneck's
at Mrs Necton's
from his master's
unto theire master's
at one Master Iohn Archibalds
to the Lord Marquesse of
Huntleys
at Sir William Sydleyes
at the Lord Woetons
to Rich: Johnsons
to ye Lord maiors
to Grace Barwickes
to Tho: Taylors
to Jane Milners
at Charles ffloydes
at James Merrickes
at Mr Neal's a Cooper
at one Corporall Gaskins
at St. Albans
to brother's
at Mr. Henry's
to brother's
Came to brother's
to brother's
at brother's
to brother's
at Aunt Bickley's
to brother's
to Lord Molyneux's
at Bunkley's
to brother's
to brother's
to Mr. Bailey's
to brother's
to Mr. Whatley's
at Sue's
at his mother's
at John Dykes's
at Swan's
BARRING,151.101.1724
BARRING,152.102.1741
BARRING,162.111.1852
BARRING,191.129.2226
BARRING,200.136.2341
BARRING,206.145.2465
BARRING,207.145.2468
BARRING,209.148.2508
BARRING,230.172.2954
BARRING,240.181.3150
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,134.C1.168
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.261
JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89
JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,145.C1.96
FOX-E3-H,151.181
FOX-E3-H,156.298
FOX-E3-P2,107.82
FOX-E3-P2,108.118
FOX-E3-P2,114.259
FOX-E3-P2,114.262
FOX-E3-P2,116.343
ESSEX,68.013.351
ESSEX,68.013.352
STATUTES-171X,5,51.41
RYDER-1716,161.10
RYDER-1716,163.71
RYDER-1716,165.131
RYDER-1716,165.151
RYDER-1716,166.164
RYDER-1716,166.166
RYDER-1716,166.180
RYDER-1716,170.285
RYDER-1716,171.328
RYDER-1716,175.421
RYDER-1716,177.465
RYDER-1716,177.471
RYDER-1716,178.486
RYDER-1716,178.489
RYDER-1716,178.517
RYDER-1716,181.575
RYDER-1716,182.598
BOSWELL-1776,39.115
BOSWELL-1776,47.369
BOSWELL-1776,47.369
72
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1826
1826
1826
1826
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
at Sir George's
at Mrs. Graham's
at Dr. Webster's
to Lady Colville's
at Sir George's
at Mr. Baron Maule's
at Sir George's
at Sir George's
at my father's
at Sir George's
at Sir George's
at my father's
at my father's
at Mrs. Boswell of Balmuto's
at my father's
at Mr. Donaldson the bookseller's
at Macqueen's
at my father's
at Mr. West's
At Lord Trimlestown's
At Mr. Stewart's
opposite this Captain Debrisay's
BOSWELL-1776,48.443
BOSWELL-1776,49.480
BOSWELL-1776,50.514
BOSWELL-1776,50.527
BOSWELL-1776,51.572
BOSWELL-1776,52.601
BOSWELL-1776,52.629
BOSWELL-1776,53.648
BOSWELL-1776,53.670
BOSWELL-1776,54.680
BOSWELL-1776,54.698
BOSWELL-1776,54.702
BOSWELL-1776,55.755
BOSWELL-1776,55.756
BOSWELL-1776,56.799
BOSWELL-1776,56.805
BOSWELL-1776,56.812
BOSWELL-1776,56.814
OKEEFFE-1826,1,2.35
OKEEFFE-1826,1,5.71
OKEEFFE-1826,1,32.339
OKEEFFE-1826,1,35.365
TABLE 2: All results non-elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1150
1225
to Sancte Berhtines minstre
ut of dines fader huse
(CMPETERB,50.253)
(CMVICES1,109.1317)
vt of tines fader huse
(CMVICES1,111.1328)
1350
1387
1387
HISTORY
RELIGIOUS
TREATISE
RELIGIOUS
TREATISE
BIBLE
HISTORY
HISTORY
(CMEARLPS,163.7241)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,65.452)
(CMPOLYCH,69.481)
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
in te halles of our Goddes hous
in erle Hunbaldus his hous
out of tat lost and corsede manis
hous
in erl Hunbald his hous
to Seynt Romayn his chirche
in Seint Peteris chirche
in Seynt Iohn his chirche
to Seynt Mary Chirche
at Seint Marye chirche
1225
(CMPOLYCH,VI,71.491)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,145.1022)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,155.1117)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,181.1296)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,259.1883)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,327.2389)
73
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1425
1440-1476
1440-1476
1440-1476
1470
1470
1470
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1475
1475
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
TRAVEL
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
ROMANCE
ROMANCE
ROMANCE
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
HISTORY
HISTORY
1475
1475
HISTORY
HISTORY
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1526
1526
1526
1526
1526
1569-1575
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
FICTION
FICTION
FICTION
FICTION
FICTION
LETTER
1569-1575
LETTER
1569-1575
1573
1582
1582
LETTER
LETTER
DIARY
DIARY
in Seint Clement his cherche
in his fader hous
to Seynt Gueroun his chirche
to Seint German his chirche
to Seynt Peter his cherche
in Seynt Peter his cherche
out of Seynt Martyns abbay
in hire faderes hows
in Seynt Bartholomewys Spytyll
at Seynt Bartolmews Spytyll
in my lordes plase
at his faders lodgyng
within kynge Uriens londe
in kynge Pescheors house
in the Dvke of Borgans londys
to my masterys plasse
at his faders place
be the Est Wache Howsse
be Sent Nycolas Chyrche
in John Roetis Place
in the byschoppys place of
Durham.
in Synt Petrys chyrche
in the byschoppe ys place of
London
in Saynt Mary chyrche
at Synt Edmondys Bury
unto a marchaunte ys place
be-syde Clopton ys Place
in Wycham ys college
in hys fadyrs place
to the Kynges paly
with yn the kyngys palys
to the gentylmannys place
to her faders house
out of her faders house
to a prestes house
to a prestys house
at one Mr. Frauncis Downes his
house of Tuddenham
betwene Mr. Downes his howse
(and one Tilneye 's)
in Christe 's Church
to Sir Thomas Smyths house
at M. secretaries lodging
in my Lord chanselors lodging
(CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2467)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2470)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,359.2616)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,387.2840)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,409.2998)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,419.3068)
(CMPOLYCH,VIII,93.3616)
(CMMANDEV,61.1520)
MARCHAL,F263.004.102
MARCHAL,F73.008.182
MARCHAL,F49.011.248
(CMMALORY,8.214)
(CMMALORY,31.997)
(CMMALORY,653.4404)
CELY,23.018.357
CELY,54.046.1001
CELY,131.104.2324
CELY,167.126.2811
CELY,167.126.2811
(CMGREGOR,96.20)
(CMGREGOR,96.40)
(CMGREGOR,128.554)
(CMGREGOR,158.713)
(CMGREGOR,161.783)
(CMGREGOR,188.1392)
(CMGREGOR,191.1462)
(CMGREGOR,192.1481)
(CMGREGOR,203.1707)
(CMGREGOR,204.1737)
(CMGREGOR,218.2079)
(CMGREGOR,221.2168)
MERRYTAL-E1-P1,8.101
MERRYTAL-E1-P1,48.360
MERRYTAL-E1-P1,49.379
MERRYTAL-E1-P2,141.488
MERRYTAL-E1-P2,144.515
PARKHUR,177.040.682
PARKHUR,177.040.682
PARKHUR,215.061.1127
HARVEY,20.001.306
MADOX-E2-P1,96.128
MADOX-E2-P1,101.238
74
1582
1582
1582
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
1630
1630
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
1630
TRAVEL
1630
1630
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
1630
TRAVEL
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1675-1677
1826
1826
1826
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
LETTER
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
St. Swythens Abbey
at M. Deas howse
M. Georg Powlets howse
to his mother house
neere Lincolns Inne
at your worthie sonne his
lodgeing
at Sir Gilbert Gerard's house
att Sir Gilberd Garrett's howse
at Sir Gilbert Garrett his howse
at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house
at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house
in Mrs Scott 's house
at Mr Necton 's house
unto my brother William's house
to Mr Pickering's house
to the Kings Palace
at his Maiestis Palace
at Master Iohn Gibb his house
to the Bishop of Murray his house
at one Master Iohn Stuarts house
to Master Iohn Acmootye his
house
at Master Iames Baylies house
at Master Nicholas Tempests
house
at his father in lawes (…) Sir
Robert Swifts house
at the Post-masters house
In S. Iacobs and in Saint
Katherines Churches
at Sir Warrham Saint Leigers
house
to Will Barnes his house
to other frendes houses
ye goalers house
Into Gerard Roberts house
by ye preists house
att Peter Hodgesons house
to ye Lady Mountagues house
at one George Watkinsons house
att Henry Gybbs his house
att Justice Crispes house
at Ran's house
in St. James's church-yard
in R. B. Sheridan's "Camp"
of my cousin Kavanagh's house
MADOX-E2-P2,116.23
MADOX-E2-P2,118.55
MADOX-E2-P2,128.126
BARRING,37.002.27
BARRING,42.005.67
BARRING,56.014.277
BARRING,83.033.678
BARRING,85.035.705
BARRING,90.041.785
BARRING,131.083.1479
BARRING,151.101.1727
BARRING,199.135.2328
BARRING,220.158.2752
BARRING,230.172.2954
BARRING,252.191.3423
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.62
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.71
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,132.C1.138
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.259
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C1.277
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.286
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.294
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,139.C2.324
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.327
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.332
JOTAYLOR-E2-P1,3,84.C1.226
JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89
FOX-E3-H,151.182
FOX-E3-H,151.192
FOX-E3-P1,92.72
FOX-E3-P1,161.346
FOX-E3-P1,164.415
FOX-E3-P2,106.62
FOX-E3-P2,107.97
FOX-E3-P2,108.115
FOX-E3-P2,114.270
FOX-E3-P2,116.344
ESSEX,103.025.652
(OKEEFFE-1826,1,22.230)
(OKEEFFE-1826,1,36.371)
(OKEEFFE-1826,1,38.418)
75
1826
187x
190x
BIOGRAPHY
DIARY
DIARY
in his mother's house
in Bishop Selwyn's palace
to the Master's Lodge
(OKEEFFE-1826,1,44.478)
(THRING-187X,237.677)
(BENSON-190X,128.722)
TABLE 3: Results PPCME elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1470
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
ROMANCE
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
at Saynt Albons
at Synt Mary Overeys
be syde Syn Jonys
at Syn Johnys
at Synt Mary Overes
at Synt Albonys
to Syn Gorgys
at Syn Poulys
at Syn Poulys
to Powlys
to Synt Mychellys
at Syn Donstonys
at Syn Albonys
at Syn Kateryns
from Syn Johnys
at Synt Albonys
at Synt Albonys
at Synt Mary Overeyes
to Synt Albonys
to Synt Albonys
at Poulys
CMMALORY,6.164
CMGREGOR,104.185
CMGREGOR,108.299
CMGREGOR,157.676
CMGREGOR,157.682
CMGREGOR,160.755
CMGREGOR,164.845
CMGREGOR,176.1113
CMGREGOR,180.1229
CMGREGOR,184.1308
CMGREGOR,184.1308
CMGREGOR,188.1391
CMGREGOR,188.1397
CMGREGOR,188.1404
CMGREGOR,191.1447
CMGREGOR,198.1576
CMGREGOR,203.1701
CMGREGOR,211.1901
CMGREGOR,211.1921
CMGREGOR,212.1923
CMGREGOR,230.2390
TABLE 4: Results PPCME non-elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1150
1225
HISTORY
RELIGIOUS
TREATISE
RELIGIOUS
TREATISE
to Sancte Berhtines minstre
ut of dines fader huse
(CMPETERB,50.253)
(CMVICES1,109.1317)
vt of tines fader huse
(CMVICES1,111.1328)
1225
76
1350
1387
1387
BIBLE
HISTORY
HISTORY
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1387
1425
1470
1470
1470
1475
1475
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
TRAVEL
ROMANCE
ROMANCE
ROMANCE
HISTORY
HISTORY
1475
1475
HISTORY
HISTORY
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
1475
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
HISTORY
in te halles of our Goddes hous
in erle Hunbaldus his hous
out of tat lost and corsede manis
hous
in erl Hunbald his hous
to Seynt Romayn his chirche
in Seint Peteris chirche
in Seynt Iohn his chirche
to Seynt Mary Chirche
at Seint Marye chirche
in Seint Clement his cherche
in his fader hous
to Seynt Gueroun his chirche
to Seint German his chirche
to Seynt Peter his cherche
in Seynt Peter his cherche
out of Seynt Martyns abbay
in hire faderes hows
at his faders lodgyng
within kynge Uriens londe
in kynge Pescheors house
in John Roetis Place
in the byschoppys place of
Durham.
in Synt Petrys chyrche
in the byschoppe ys place of
London
in Saynt Mary chyrche
at Synt Edmondys Bury
unto a marchaunte ys place
be-syde Clopton ys Place
in Wycham ys college
in hys fadyrs place
to the Kynges paly
with yn the kyngys palys
(CMEARLPS,163.7241)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,65.452)
(CMPOLYCH,69.481)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,71.491)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,145.1022)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,155.1117)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,181.1296)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,259.1883)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,327.2389)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2467)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2470)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,359.2616)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,387.2840)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,409.2998)
(CMPOLYCH,VI,419.3068)
(CMPOLYCH,VIII,93.3616)
(CMMANDEV,61.1520)
(CMMALORY,8.214)
(CMMALORY,31.997)
(CMMALORY,653.4404)
(CMGREGOR,96.20)
(CMGREGOR,96.40)
(CMGREGOR,128.554)
(CMGREGOR,158.713)
(CMGREGOR,161.783)
(CMGREGOR,188.1392)
(CMGREGOR,191.1462)
(CMGREGOR,192.1481)
(CMGREGOR,203.1707)
(CMGREGOR,204.1737)
(CMGREGOR,218.2079)
(CMGREGOR,221.2168)
TABLE 5: Results PCEEC elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1474-1488
1474-1488
LETTER
LETTER
at B. Pasmars
at Bornellys wyedows
CELY,17.013.197
CELY,26.022.426
77
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1569-1575
1569-1575
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
1569-1575
1610-1632
1610-1632
1610-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1675-1677
1675-1677
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
to Dankortys
by Thomas Kesteyns
at Sente Johnys
to Sent Tomers
at Sent Tomors
at Twyssulltons
at Robard Torneys
at Thomas Clarkys
at St. Symon's
(betwene Mr. Downes his howse)
and one Tilneye 's
at St. Andrew's
to the lordes
at Sir Edward Parhams
at my lord Treasurers
at Nurse Bedle's
Sir Thomas Barrington's
at Sir Gilbert Garrard's
at my brother Lytton's
at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's
at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's
to my brother Masham's
in Saint Gyles
at Sir Gilberd Garretts
at Sir Richard Evered's
at Sir Gilberte Garrett's
in St Giles
at Mr Martin's
at St Mary Overyes
at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's
From Mr Okelie's
at the stacioner's
at Sir Gilbert Garrard's
at nurse Birde's
at St James
from my Lord of Bedford's
at Mr Goodyer's
From Mr Charneck's
at Mrs Necton's
from his master's
unto theire master's
at Mr Neal's a Cooper
at one Corporall Gaskins
CELY,41.034.723
CELY,41.035.733
CELY,73.057.1225
CELY,98.077.1658
CELY,137.111.2436
CELY,143.114.2501
CELY,191.136.2992
CELY,191.136.2993
PARKHUR,161.029.519
PARKHUR,177.040.682
PARKHUR,216.061.1133
PORY,69.002.58
PORY,71.002.82
PORY,128.004.186
BARRING,54.012.233
BARRING,56.014.277
BARRING,73.025.556
BARRING,88.040.758
BARRING,97.049.915
BARRING,101.055.1009
BARRING,110.064.1170
BARRING,113.066.1191
BARRING,113.066.1193
BARRING,114.066.1211
BARRING,114.066.1214
BARRING,120.072.1313
BARRING,127.080.1407
BARRING,132.084.1496
BARRING,135.086.1527
BARRING,145.096.1652
BARRING,151.101.1724
BARRING,152.102.1741
BARRING,162.111.1852
BARRING,191.129.2226
BARRING,200.136.2341
BARRING,206.145.2465
BARRING,207.145.2468
BARRING,209.148.2508
BARRING,230.172.2954
BARRING,240.181.3150
ESSEX,68.013.351
ESSEX,68.013.352
78
TABLE 6: Results PCEEC non-elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1440-1476
1440-1476
1440-1476
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1474-1488
1573
1569-1575
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
MARCHAL,F263.004.102
MARCHAL,F73.008.182
MARCHAL,F49.011.248
CELY,23.018.357
CELY,54.046.1001
CELY,131.104.2324
CELY,167.126.2811
CELY,167.126.2811
HARVEY,20.001.306
PARKHUR,177.040.682
1569-1575
LETTER
1569-1575
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1628-1632
1675-1677
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
LETTER
in Seynt Bartholomewys Spytyll
at Seynt Bartolmews Spytyll
in my lordes plase
in the Dvke of Borgans londys
to my masterys plasse
at his faders place
be the Est Wache Howsse
be Sent Nycolas Chyrche
to Sir Thomas Smyths house
at one Mr. Frauncis Downes his
house of Tuddenham
betwene Mr. Downes his howse
(and one Tilneye 's)
in Christe 's Church
to his mother house
neere Lincolns Inne
at your worthie sonne his
lodgeing
at Sir Gilbert Gerard's house
att Sir Gilberd Garrett's howse
at Sir Gilbert Garrett his howse
at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house
at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house
in Mrs Scott 's house
at Mr Necton 's house
unto my brother William's house
to Mr Pickering's house
at Ran's house
PARKHUR,177.040.682
PARKHUR,215.061.1127
BARRING,37.002.27
BARRING,42.005.67
BARRING,56.014.277
BARRING,83.033.678
BARRING,85.035.705
BARRING,90.041.785
BARRING,131.083.1479
BARRING,151.101.1727
BARRING,199.135.2328
BARRING,220.158.2752
BARRING,230.172.2954
BARRING,252.191.3423
ESSEX,103.025.652
TABLE 7: Results PPCEME elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1582
1582
1582
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
at Besse Jenyns
at Robert Cavies
at M. Creswels
MADOX-E2-H,83.59
MADOX-E2-H,86.95
MADOX-E2-H,132.241
79
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1630
1630
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
1630
1630
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
at M. Fownds
at M. Fownds
at sherif Martens
at Mrs Lucars
at M. sherif Martons
at his brother Hudsons
at my cosyn Thomas
at Mrs Lucars
at M. Carleyls
at my cosyn Nycholas
at M. Huntleys
at M. Gilburns
at Alderman Barns
at M. Hankins
at M. Greenes
to M. Burdens
to St. Ellyns
to St. Crosses
at M. Owtreads
at M. Dees
at M. Owtreds
at M. Onleys
at one Master Iohn Archibalds
to the Lord Marquesse of
Huntleys
at Sir William Sydleyes
at the Lord Woetons
to Rich: Johnsons
to ye Lord maiors
to Grace Barwickes
to Tho: Taylors
to Jane Milners
at Charles ffloydes
at James Merrickes
MADOX-E2-P1,92.61
MADOX-E2-P1,94.103
MADOX-E2-P1,95.110
MADOX-E2-P1,95.116
MADOX-E2-P1,95.121
MADOX-E2-P1,96.130
MADOX-E2-P1,98.164
MADOX-E2-P1,98.170
MADOX-E2-P1,98.179
MADOX-E2-P1,98.187
MADOX-E2-P1,99.196
MADOX-E2-P1,101.255
MADOX-E2-P1,101.258
MADOX-E2-P1,104.313
MADOX-E2-P1,107.363
MADOX-E2-P1,111.430
MADOX-E2-P1,112.443
MADOX-E2-P2,117.38
MADOX-E2-P2,117.45
MADOX-E2-P2,118.60
MADOX-E2-P2,118.73
MADOX-E2-P2,160.460
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,134.C1.168
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.261
JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89
JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,145.C1.96
FOX-E3-H,151.181
FOX-E3-H,156.298
FOX-E3-P2,107.82
FOX-E3-P2,108.118
FOX-E3-P2,114.259
FOX-E3-P2,114.262
FOX-E3-P2,116.343
TABLE 8: Results PPCEME non-elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1526
1526
1526
FICTION
FICTION
FICTION
to the gentylmannys place
to her faders house
out of her faders house
MERRYTAL-E1-P1,8.101
MERRYTAL-E1-P1,48.360
MERRYTAL-E1-P1,49.379
80
1526
1526
1582
1582
1582
1582
1582
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
1630
FICTION
FICTION
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
1630
1630
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
1630
TRAVEL
1630
1630
TRAVEL
TRAVEL
1630
TRAVEL
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
1672
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
to a prestes house
to a prestys house
at M. secretaries lodging
in my Lord chanselors lodging
St. Swythens Abbey
at M. Deas howse
M. Georg Powlets howse
to the Kings Palace
at his Maiestis Palace
at Master Iohn Gibb his house
to the Bishop of Murray his house
at one Master Iohn Stuarts house
to Master Iohn Acmootye his
house
at Master Iames Baylies house
at Master Nicholas Tempests
house
at his father in lawes (…) Sir
Robert Swifts house
at the Post-masters house
In S. Iacobs and in Saint
Katherines Churches
at Sir Warrham Saint Leigers
house
to Will Barnes his house
to other frendes houses
ye goalers house
Into Gerard Roberts house
by ye preists house
att Peter Hodgesons house
to ye Lady Mountagues house
at one George Watkinsons house
att Henry Gybbs his house
att Justice Crispes house
MERRYTAL-E1-P2,141.488
MERRYTAL-E1-P2,144.515
MADOX-E2-P1,96.128
MADOX-E2-P1,101.238
MADOX-E2-P2,116.23
MADOX-E2-P2,118.55
MADOX-E2-P2,128.126
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.62
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.71
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,132.C1.138
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.259
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C1.277
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.286
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.294
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,139.C2.324
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.327
JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.332
JOTAYLOR-E2-P1,3,84.C1.226
JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89
FOX-E3-H,151.182
FOX-E3-H,151.192
FOX-E3-P1,92.72
FOX-E3-P1,161.346
FOX-E3-P1,164.415
FOX-E3-P2,106.62
FOX-E3-P2,107.97
FOX-E3-P2,108.115
FOX-E3-P2,114.270
FOX-E3-P2,116.344
TABLE 9: Results PPCMBE elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1715-1716
1716
1716
1716
LAW
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
at St. Albans
to brother's
at Mr. Henry's
to brother's
STATUTES-171X,5,51.41
RYDER-1716,161.10
RYDER-1716,163.71
RYDER-1716,165.131
81
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1716
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1776
1826
1826
1826
1826
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
DIARY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
Came to brother's
to brother's
at brother's
to brother's
at Aunt Bickley's
to brother's
to Lord Molyneux's
at Bunkley's
to brother's
to brother's
to Mr. Bailey's
to brother's
to Mr. Whatley's
at Sue's
at his mother's
at John Dykes's
at Swan's
at Sir George's
at Mrs. Graham's
at Dr. Webster's
to Lady Colville's
at Sir George's
at Mr. Baron Maule's
at Sir George's
at Sir George's
at my father's
at Sir George's
at Sir George's
at my father's
at my father's
at Mrs. Boswell of Balmuto's
at my father's
at Mr. Donaldson the bookseller's
at Macqueen's
at my father's
at Mr. West's
At Lord Trimlestown's
At Mr. Stewart's
opposite this Captain Debrisay's
RYDER-1716,165.151
RYDER-1716,166.164
RYDER-1716,166.166
RYDER-1716,166.180
RYDER-1716,170.285
RYDER-1716,171.328
RYDER-1716,175.421
RYDER-1716,177.465
RYDER-1716,177.471
RYDER-1716,178.486
RYDER-1716,178.489
RYDER-1716,178.517
RYDER-1716,181.575
RYDER-1716,182.598
BOSWELL-1776,39.115
BOSWELL-1776,47.369
BOSWELL-1776,47.369
BOSWELL-1776,48.443
BOSWELL-1776,49.480
BOSWELL-1776,50.514
BOSWELL-1776,50.527
BOSWELL-1776,51.572
BOSWELL-1776,52.601
BOSWELL-1776,52.629
BOSWELL-1776,53.648
BOSWELL-1776,53.670
BOSWELL-1776,54.680
BOSWELL-1776,54.698
BOSWELL-1776,54.702
BOSWELL-1776,55.755
BOSWELL-1776,55.756
BOSWELL-1776,56.799
BOSWELL-1776,56.805
BOSWELL-1776,56.812
BOSWELL-1776,56.814
OKEEFFE-1826,1,2.35
OKEEFFE-1826,1,5.71
OKEEFFE-1826,1,32.339
OKEEFFE-1826,1,35.365
82
TABLE 10: Results PPCMBE non-elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1826
1826
1826
1826
187x
190x
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
BIOGRAPHY
DIARY
DIARY
in St. James's church-yard
in R. B. Sheridan's "Camp"
of my cousin Kavanagh's house
in his mother's house
in Bishop Selwyn's palace
to the Master's Lodge
(OKEEFFE-1826,1,22.230)
(OKEEFFE-1826,1,36.371)
(OKEEFFE-1826,1,38.418)
(OKEEFFE-1826,1,44.478)
(THRING-187X,237.677)
(BENSON-190X,128.722)
83
APPENDIX 2
RESULTS CORPUS RESEARCH: WEST-FLEMISH
TABLE 1: All results elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1273
OFFICIAL
bi hannekins henox
1290
OFFICIAL
1291
OFFICIAL
1295
OFFICIAL
1297
OFFICIAL
tusschen wouters van ombeke
ende wouters van reumste
tusschen reiners witleders (ende
ten straetkine)
tusschen pieter sagis ende wouters
van den houte
achter wouters soelslagers
1307
OFFICIAL
1310
OFFICIAL
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1273_3
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: mechelen_1290_4
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: mechelen_1291_3
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: mechelen_1295_4
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: mechelen_1297_3
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: antwerpen_1307_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: dordrecht_1310_3
1310
OFFICIAL
1312
OFFICIAL
(CHARTER)
1312
OFFICIAL
(CHARTER)
tusschen willem tays ende hughes
van Coudenberghe
1312
CHARTER
te sente gorex
1334
CHARTER
bi Claus Mynschards
1338
OFFICIAL
(CHARTER)
tuschen coppins schilts ende
willems kusers
1348
CHARTER
tuschen jan leins […] en_ jan caps
tusschen peters van der leyen
ende claus van hackendonc
tusschen meester wouter
bouwelings ende tusschen lams
van maldeghems
tusschen meester wouter
bouwelings ende tusschen lams
van maldeghems
bij sente godelen
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: dordrecht_1310_6
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brussel_1312_1
and
CRM14: Oorkonde P065p31201
Brussel, 1312
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brussel_1312_1
and
CRM14: Oorkonde P065p31201
Brussel, 1312
CRM14: Oorkonde O738r31201
Sint-Kwintens-Lennik of
omgeving, 1312
CRM14: Oorkonde P541r33401
Diest of omgeving, 1334
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: gouda_1338_1
and
CRM14: Oorkonde E209p33801
Gouda, 1338
CRM14: Oorkonde O245p34801
Sint-Martens-Lennik, 1348
84
1352
CHARTER
tot sente guerx
1362
OFFICIAL
bij sinte saluators
1370
OFFICIAL
1370
CHARTER
tusschen lodewijx van den
boemghaerde ende jans van den
bossche
by Ecberte vor-howens
CRM14: Oorkonde P065p35201
Brussel, 1352
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1362_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: oudenaarde_1370_1
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37001
Groningen, 1370
TABLE 2: All results non-elliptical locative possessive
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1266
OFFICIAL
bi smeiers huse
1266
OFFICIAL
bi smeiers lande
1269
OFFICIAL
bi heinekins longhe speis
1271
OFFICIAL
1279
OFFICIAL
tusschen hughe arlebouds lande
ende ghiselins kinder lande van
boyderwaen
tusschen heinrix waldax lant
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: gent_1266_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: gent_1266_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1269_14
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1271_2
1281
OFFICIAL
1281
OFFICIAL
1290
OFFICIAL
1290
OFFICIAL
1290
OFFICIAL
1290
OFFICIAL
1290
OFFICIAL
1293
OFFICIAL
1293
OFFICIAL
1296
OFFICIAL
tusschen Masins f basekins
wedewe lant ende gillis buys lant
[ove]r gherarts f gherarts kindre
lant
tusschen hughe bekelins lande
ende vermabelien dancards lande
tuschen pieter malins wedewe
lande ende […] tuschen den hus
lande van sinte marien
magdalenen
tusschen hannins f ghuters kindere
land
tusschen lysebetten warregarens
hofstede ende tusschen margrieten
jans witten dochter hofstede
tusschen erenbouds guters
hofstede ende ghyselins kindre
vanden moere hofstede
tusschen [hen]ric gheilincs Ende
den vorseiden erue
tusscen Gocens erue ende wouters
stoppers erue
up de hofstede dar ydier pots huus
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1279_2
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1281_26
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1281_26
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1290_12
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1290_15
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1290_8
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1290_9
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1290_9
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: dordrecht_1293_4
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: mechelen_1293_2
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: gent_1296_2
85
1296
OFFICIAL
1296
OFFICIAL
1296
OFFICIAL
1297
OFFICIAL
1299
OFFICIAL
naer dar jans vos cousemakers
huus
tusscen gherarts erue van welline
ende maes erue van comene
tuschen ians huuse van ypre (ende
den huus daer arnout martin nu in
woent)
tusscen wouters zacdragers erue
(ende daer dese vornomde ian de
weent woent )
bi heinriics woninge
1299
OFFICIAL
bi willems moure van den sveerde
1299
OFFICIAL
den moure symoens van arterike
1306
CHARTER
1307
OFFICIAL
1317
CHARTER
tuschen jacobs hofstede vern
mersende sone en_ tuschen hare_
jacobs hofstede van lichtenberch
tusschen peters huus vander leve
claus van ackendonc behouden
bi willams ? huse
1317
CHARTER
bi willams des ? huus
1317
CHARTER
1318
CHARTER
1324
CHARTER
1328
OFFICIAL
1328
CHARTER
1328
CHARTER
1330
OFFICIAL
1330
CHARTER
1330
CHARTER
tuschen mergrieten swreeden
ghelaghe ende ameloten huise
tuschen hofstede richaerds verren
oghen erfname […] (en_ tuschen
de Smede~steghe)
tuschen hofstede belen die
pelegrims wiif […] en_ tuschen
hofstede peters van + den putte
tusscen gherards lande van assche
ende machtelden lande ians honts
wedue
tuschen hofstede tideman
herboerds soens en_ amelijs siins
broeders
tuschen hofstede ioncvrouwe
ermegaerden van damasche […]
en_ ionghe wouters van
voerscoten onderdeel
tusschen den lande beatrise balch
ende tusschen den lande margriete
herlebouds
tuschen hofstede niclaes horaers
[…] ende tuschen hofstede
herwiichs van damasche
tuschen (hofstede der heren van
oudemu_st__ tutrecht) […] en_
tuschen hofstede hildegonden van
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: gent_1296_2
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: mechelen_1296_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: gent_1296_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: mechelen_1297_3
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: mechelen_1299_2
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: mechelen_1299_4
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: mechelen_1299_4
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p30601
Utrecht, 1306
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: antwerpen_1307_3
CRM14: Oorkonde E543r31702
Egmond-Binnen of omgeving,
1317
CRM14: Oorkonde E543r31701
Egmond-Binnen of omgeving,
1317
CRM14: Oorkonde O152p31701
Ninove, 1317
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p31801
Utrecht, 1318
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p32401
Utrecht, 1324
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: dordrecht_1328_1
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p32801
Utrecht, 1328
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p32801
Utrecht, 1328
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: ieper_1330_1
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33003
Utrecht, 1330
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33002
Utrecht, 1330
86
1333
CHARTER
hasenberch
tot wouters hofstede
1333
CHARTER
tot wouters hofstede
1333
CHARTER
tot wouters hofstede
1336
OFFICIAL
1336
OFFICIAL
1336
CHARTER
1339
OFFICIAL
1339
OFFICIAL
1341
OFFICIAL
1343
CHARTER
1343
CHARTER
1343
CHARTER
1344
CHARTER
tusschen clays spuuds lande […]
Ende den lande kanin lauwerins
tusschen jehan spuuds leene […]
Ende willems edewards land
tusschen hofstede bernds smeeds
[…] en_ tusschen hofstede
tydeman hasaerds
tusschen jehans van oost lande
[…] En jehan pradels lande
tusschen wouters van den walle
lande […] Ende willems van den
hille kindre lande
tusschen simons lande van scoten
[…] Ende jehan plateels lande
tusschen wycheers hofstede de
iacob ? ? beti_mert heeft […]en_
tusschen der stat steghe
(tusschen der stat strate ) en_
abraems hofstede van conpestelle
tusschen hofstede wouters
voerseyt […]en_ tusschen
hofstede wouters voerseyt
bi erve Jans quaden
1344
CHARTER
1345
CHARTER
1349
OFFICIAL
(CHARTER)
1350
CHARTER
1351
CHARTER
1351
OFFICIAL
1352
CHARTER
1352
CHARTER
tuschen peeters mersche van
meerehoutte (En_ vte den
voerghenoemden mersche)
tusschen hofstede mathies en_
auen voerseyt
tusschen claes hauics erue […]
ende peter leyts erue
tuschen h_en jans van machareus
goed
(tusschen der hofstede daer peter
de haen op + te woenen plach)
[…]ende tusschen hofstede iohans
swerten erfnamen
tusschen albrecht vechters soens
erue […] ende diric gherit soens
erue
bi heinrics erue van beerse van
eenre siden en_ ihans gheheyte_
lappers erue van der anderre siden
bi johans lande hokels
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33301
Utrecht, 1333
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33301
Utrecht, 1333
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33301
Utrecht, 1333
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: ieper_1336_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: ieper_1336_1
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33601
Utrecht, 1336
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: ieper_1339_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: ieper_1339_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: ieper_1341_1
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34302
Utrecht, 1343
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34302
Utrecht, 1343
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34301
Utrecht, 1343
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p34401
Lummen, 1344
CRM14: Oorkonde O652r34401
Ninove of omgeving, 1344
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34501
Utrecht, 1345
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: amsterdam_1349_1
and
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p34901
Amsterdam, 1349
CRM14: Oorkonde P565r35001
Brussel of omgeving, 1350
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35101
Utrecht, 1351
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: amsterdam_1351_1
CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35201
Oerle of omgeving, 1352
CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201
87
1352
CHARTER
tusschen . didderics lande van
ghelene (ende hams lande)
bi johans lande hokels
1352
CHARTER
1352
CHARTER
1353
CHARTER
1354
CHARTER
1354
CHARTER
1354
CHARTER
1354
CHARTER
1354
CHARTER
1356
CHARTER
1356
CHARTER
1356
CHARTER
tusscen ihans sgr?ne_ erue en_
wreynse_ erue van oerle
bi lant Johans soens beetsen van
waelhoven
tussche_ lant h_en merttijns van
loen Ridders […] end lant
sautaers sint_ cloes van velme
bi lant ghilis altb?eter
1356
CHARTER
bi lant sheylichs~ghees van lewe
1356
CHARTER
bi lant h_en mertijns van loen
1356
CHARTER
1356
CHARTER
1356
CHARTER
lant der kind_re welne lambrechs
van pa_brucge_
bi lant h_ mertijns van loen
vorgh_
an wouters coelen zoe_s la_t
1356
CHARTER
by hey_rics Didden raeue_s zoe_s
1358
CHARTER
1358
CHARTER
1358
CHARTER
1358
CHARTER
tusschen hofstede haren peters
vten hamme […] ende onser stat
strate
tusschen hofstede meyster
gheraerd dymbouts […] ende
tusschen hofstede mengde heynen
erfnamen
tusschen hofstede stevens van
groenenwoude […] ende tusschen
hofstede johans pots ende
gheraerds pots
tusschen hofstede stevens van
tusschen didderics lande van
ghelene (ende hams lande)
tuschen hughe slabbaerts huis en_
erue (en_ des proests steghe )
tusschen hofstede Elyaes gans
kindere […] en_ tusschen
hofstede hughe mouwers
mengde heynen sone )
tusschen ? peter mouwerkiins
kind_e […] (en_ ? der hofstede
daer dat steenhuys op staet)
tusschen hofstede johan rychaerd
soens / ? ? ? […] tusschen
hofstede ghisebrechts backers
tusscen iordaens erue van oerle
Sittard, 1352
CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201
Sittard, 1352
CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201
Sittard, 1352
CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201
Sittard, 1352
CRM14: Oorkonde E198p35301
Delft, 1353
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35401
Utrecht, 1354
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35401
Utrecht, 1354
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35401
Utrecht, 1354
CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35403
Oerle of omgeving, 1354
CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35403
Oerle of omgeving, 1354
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602
Groot-Loon, 1356
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602
Groot-Loon, 1356
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602
Groot-Loon, 1356
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602
Groot-Loon, 1356
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602
Groot-Loon, 1356
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602
Groot-Loon, 1356
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602
Groot-Loon, 1356
CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35601
Oerle of omgeving, 1356
CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35601
Oerle of omgeving, 1356
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802
Utrecht, 1358
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802
Utrecht, 1358
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802
Utrecht, 1358
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802
88
1358
CHARTER
1359
OFFICIAL
zulen wouters sone van coelen
[…] ende tusschen hofstede /
meyster aernouds voets
tusschen hofstede gherijts van
ameronghen […] ende onser stat
strate
bi Heinrycs Maghermans huus
1359
CHARTER
bi erve tshere_ van halbeke
1359
CHARTER
bi erve wouters hasen
1360
CHARTER
1362
OFFICIAL
1362
OFFICIAL
tuschen hughe slabbaerts huus
ende erue ende des proests steghe
naesteN heynrix braderix huuse
wilen
tote philips Rijnvischs lande
1362
CHARTER
1362
CHARTER
1365
CHARTER
1366
CHARTER
1366
OFFICIAL
1367
CHARTER
tussen Jans huyse van Mechlen
des Vleyshouwers […] ende den
huse dat Jans van Woude Heynric
Smoutkens sone plach te siin
bi erve willems va_ oesterhoven
1367
CHARTER
bi erve heyliven kindere Moens
1367
CHARTER
bi erve wouters eygrams
1367
CHARTER
1367
OFFICIAL
(CHARTER)
tusschen de goede Jans van
zotteghem En_ de goede den
ghasthuse van sente goedelen
tuschen den goede des selfs
Reyners […] en_ den goede joffr_
lijsbetten droeghboschs
1367
OFFICIAL
(CHARTER)
tusschen de goede willems van
aelst Ende de goede Jans
herdenacke
1367
OFFICIAL
(CHARTER)
tusschen de goede Gherats van
frazene tsloetmak_s […] En_ de
tusschen Scloesters land van
nieneue en_ des vorseids Jans
ysenbaerds meerssche
tusschen h_en Gherarts kynder
lande van boycholt […] ende
metten lande henekens dochter
van lomme
tusschen hofstede braems (vter
core_marct)
bi arnots Symons hoef
Utrecht, 1358
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802
Utrecht, 1358
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: breda_1359_1
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p35901
Lummen, 1359
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p35901
Lummen, 1359
CRM14: Oorkonde E198p36005
Delft, 1360
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1362_2
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1362_2
CRM14: Oorkonde O652r36201
Ninove of omgeving, 1362
CRM14: Oorkonde L771r36201
Venlo of omgeving, 1362
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p36501
Utrecht, 1365
CRM14: Oorkonde Q599r36601
Meerssen of omgeving, 1366
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: breda_1366_1
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p36701
Lummen, 1367
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p36701
Lummen, 1367
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p36701
Lummen, 1367
CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36703
Brussel, 1367
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brussel_1367_3
and
CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36706
Brussel, 1367
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brussel_1367_2
and
CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36704
Brussel, 1367
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brussel_1367_1
89
goede lijsbette_ van viluoerden
en_ Jans van Erpe ghehuuschen
1368
CHARTER
1368
OFFICIAL
1369
CHARTER
1370
CHARTER
tuschen jan vems huys en_
aechten jan pieters zoens huys
tuschen peter byens erue […]
ende jonghe jan comans kinds
erue
tuschen h_en willems huis van der
stripen (ende tuschen jden huis)
bi Elsebeen hues Menoldes
1370
CHARTER
bi Metten hues Rotgers
1370
CHARTER
1370
CHARTER
1372
CHARTER
1372
CHARTER
tusschen hofstede iohans erfnaem
van + den spieghel […] en_
tusschen hofstede roetaerds van +
der sterre en_ ? kiindere
tusschen jan boysts huus ende
erue […] ende pieters van oeten
bi erve godevaerts va_
wymeri_ghe_
bi erve beateren colen
1372
CHARTER
bi erve johan coex
1373
CHARTER
1374
CHARTER
1374
CHARTER
tusschen andryes huys (end
heylwige_ tijswijf )
bi erve joha_s kinder va_ der
eyken va_ wuestherke
bi erve ghylis van westerhove
1374
CHARTER
1375
CHARTER
tusschen willems van den
merssche huus ende erue […]
(en_ boudiin boyst an dander side
)
bi erve der joffrouwe_ va_ Mille
1375
CHARTER
bi erve johan coex
1375
CHARTER
bi erve johan claes
1375
CHARTER
bi erve clarissien va_ den venne
1375
CHARTER
bi erve vreedwiven zeelmekers
1375
CHARTER
bi erve reynken schuermans
1375
CHARTER
1375
CHARTER
1376
CHARTER
tusghen jans dobbelers huys […]
en_ Arnouts knoeps huys
tusschen h_en tydeman
blanckaerts husinghe […] (en_
fye voncken)
bi erve godevaerts va_ herla
and
CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36702
Brussel, 1367
CRM14: Oorkonde D002p36801
s-Gravenzande, 1368
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: breda_1368_1
CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p36901
Sittard, 1369
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37002
Groningen, 1370
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37002
Groningen, 1370
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p37002
Utrecht, 1370
CRM14: Oorkonde O061p37001
Aalst, 1370
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37201
Lummen, 1372
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37201
Lummen, 1372
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37201
Lummen, 1372
CRM14: Oorkonde Q601r37301
Valkenburg of omgeving, 1373
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37401
Lummen, 1374
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37401
Lummen, 1374
CRM14: Oorkonde O061p37401
Aalst, 1374
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502
Lummen, 1375
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502
Lummen, 1375
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502
Lummen, 1375
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502
Lummen, 1375
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502
Lummen, 1375
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502
Lummen, 1375
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37501
Lummen, 1375
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p37502
Utrecht, 1375
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37601
90
1376
CHARTER
1377
CHARTER
1377
CHARTER
1378
CHARTER
1379
CHARTER
1379
CHARTER
1379
CHARTER
1379
CHARTER
1380
CHARTER
1380
CHARTER
1381
CHARTER
1381
CHARTER
1381
CHARTER
1381
CHARTER
1381
CHARTER
1381
CHARTER
1381
CHARTER
1382
OFFICIAL
1382
CHARTER
1382
OFFICIAL
1382
CHARTER
1383
CHARTER
1383
CHARTER
1383
CHARTER
Lummen, 1376
bi erve katherinen va_ de_ leene
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37601
Lummen, 1376
bi sente mertens kerchoue
CRM14: Oorkonde P065p37704
Brussel, 1377
bi sente mertens kerchoue
CRM14: Oorkonde P065p37703
Brussel, 1377
bi Emelrikes steenhuze Willams
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37802
sone van Lyenden
Groningen, 1378
bi erve arnouts voers
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37901
Lummen, 1379
bi erve johans boghaerts arnouts
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37901
brueder voers_
Lummen, 1379
tusschen jans mersch voers_ (en_ CRM14: Oorkonde O652r37901
tskloesters mersch voerghenoemt) Ninove of omgeving, 1379
tusschen Arnolts Paresijs h?is […] CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p37901
(En_ Lynen br?nen)
Sittard, 1379
Tusschen lande des heren van
CRM14: Oorkonde E692r38001
abcoude […] (ende der heren
Utrecht of omgeving, 1380
stripe van oudemvnster)
tuschen des vurg_ ger_ borske_s
CRM14: Oorkonde Q613r38002
ho?e en_ henke_ moutz lande
Heerlen of omgeving, 1380
ende muylkens lande
after den hof . henric christians
CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101
van hendericke
Kuringen of omgeving, 1381
tusschen erve poelmans van loen
CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101
[….] (en_ Convent van graet)
Kuringen of omgeving, 1381
bij lant wout_ mersmans
CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38101
Donk, 1381
tusschen lant wouters va_ + den
CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38101
vynne en_ wout_s mersmans
Donk, 1381
bi dat erve rigart van millen
CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101
Kuringen of omgeving, 1381
after den hof . henric christians
CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101
van hendericke
Kuringen of omgeving, 1381
bi erve her ghijsbrecht van
CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101
brokem
Kuringen of omgeving, 1381
tuschen Wouters erve van
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250Berghen […] ende Jan Tierloets
1800: breda_1382_1
erve
tuschen Dierick Gruters erve […] CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250(ende Met Foyen erve)
1800: breda_1382_1
tuschen Willem Heynen soens
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250erve […] ende Rutten Sniders
1800: breda_1382_1
erve
by dat vu?rg_ h_en willems lant
CRM14: Oorkonde Q599r38201
Meerssen of omgeving, 1382
bi erve des h_en va_ lu_me_
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301
Lummen, 1383
bi erve jan smeets
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301
Lummen, 1383
bi erve tsh_en va_ lu_me_ voers_ CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301
Lummen, 1383
91
1383
CHARTER
1383
CHARTER
1383
CHARTER
bi erve godevaerts kind_e va_
incslaer
aen di denkens haghe bi erve
tsh_en van dyest
bi erve heinric kelbers
1383
CHARTER
bi erve dyderics va_ zanthove_
1383
CHARTER
bi erve spersoens va_ linckout
1383
CHARTER
1383
CHARTER
1383
CHARTER
1383
CHARTER
tusschen andere lant des cloest_s
van orienten voers_ […] (en_ op
die straete daer men gheet ter
swertsmeren weert)
tuschschen gierkijn boerschijns
houe
t?ssche_ g?ede of lant bas?ns van
wijc
by g?et he_rics va_ Rode
1384
CHARTER
1384
CHARTER
1384
CHARTER
1384
CHARTER
1384
CHARTER
1384
CHARTER
1384
CHARTER
1385
CHARTER
1385
CHARTER
1386
CHARTER
aen katheline_ van + d_ rijst huys
[…] en_ Jan costers hof
in piet_ jacobs zoens steghe
1386
CHARTER
tot ? egbrechts erue
1386
CHARTER
bi ervenisse Renken thies
1386
CHARTER
1386
CHARTER
bi ervenisse johans van + der
warden
bi ervenisse henric papen neve
[…] en_ ervenisse henric
haghedorne en_ Johan der hase
tusschen jan ruuschen erue […]
en_ jan teten zoens erue
tusschen jan ruusschen erue op
die zuutzide en_ jan teten zoens
erue
by lande des he_en van duras […]
En_ lande der kindere van lille
tusschen lande johans van landen
[…] en_ des he_en van duras
voers_ en_ willems van meerhout
schepens sintruden
tusschen lande des goetsh?ys van
herkenroyde op […] en_ des
p_soens lande van wilre
tusschen lande godijns voers_
[…] en_ heyleven henrich godijns
wijf was
tusschen lande des Co_vents van
herkenroyde
bi henrikes steenhuze bygordele
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301
Lummen, 1383
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301
Lummen, 1383
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301
Lummen, 1383
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301
Lummen, 1383
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301
Lummen, 1383
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38301
Sint-Truiden, 1383
CRM14: Oorkonde Q613r38301
Heerlen of omgeving, 1383
CRM14: Oorkonde Q595r38301
Maastricht of omgeving, 1383
CRM14: Oorkonde Q595r38301
Maastricht of omgeving, 1383
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38403
Amsterdam, 1384
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38404
Amsterdam, 1384
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401
Sint-Truiden, 1384
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401
Sint-Truiden, 1384
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401
Sint-Truiden, 1384
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401
Sint-Truiden, 1384
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401
Sint-Truiden, 1384
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38501
Groningen, 1385
CRM14: Oorkonde P048p38501
Halen, 1385
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38605
Amsterdam, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38605
Amsterdam, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde Q001p38601
Zonhoven, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde Q001p38601
Zonhoven, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde Q001p38601
Zonhoven, 1386
92
1386
CHARTER
by Johans heme
1386
CHARTER
by henric clokes hues
1386
CHARTER
in sente Meertens kerke
1386
CHARTER
by Jarich Coppiins zoens erve
1386
CHARTER
by Hanneken Ydens hues
1386
CHARTER
by Berneers steenhues Solleders
1386
CHARTER
in sente Meertens kerke
1386
CHARTER
in sente Meertens kerke
1386
CHARTER
in sente Meertens kerspele
1387
OFFICIAL
1387
CHARTER
1388
CHARTER
1388
CHARTER
tusschen reynoud Jan minneboden
soene lande […] ende witte dirx
zoens lande
tusschen de goede Gielijs van
rode en_ waut_s quad_mans vloes
tot after an ysebrant claes zoens
wal
bi des spape_ lant van loen
1388
CHARTER
bi den land jans van miest
1388
CHARTER
bi den land jans van putsinghen
1388
CHARTER
1388
CHARTER
_ bi den land Arts van den
drijsche
bi den land jan mietellers
1388
OFFICIAL
1388
CHARTER
1389
OFFICIAL
1389
OFFICIAL
1389
CHARTER
tusschen die goide wilen Heinrics
vander meeren […] (ende een
strate aldair sijnde)
tusschen heeren Aernds Bynstroes
huysinghe was ende erve […]
ende Ghybe Fraays erve
alre~naest her Jacobs houe
1389
CHARTER
by Weringhers hofstede vors_
1389
CHARTER
1390
CHARTER
Oesterstrate by Kerstiaen Gelies
zoens steenhues
neven bosch Amelijs van lassheit
en_ arnouds va_ haesbroech vloes
tusschen mergrieten huse ende
herue vorseid […] ende jacops
correelmakers huse ende herue
by sanders hues des smedes
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38602
Groningen, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38604
Groningen, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603
Groningen, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603
Groningen, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603
Groningen, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603
Groningen, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603
Groningen, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603
Groningen, 1386
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603
Groningen, 1386
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: dordrecht_1387_1
CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38701
Donk, 1387
CRM14): Oorkonde E579r38802
Beverwijk of omgeving, 1388
CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801
Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388
CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801
Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388
CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801
Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388
CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801
Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388
CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801
Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: oudenaarde_1388_1
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38802
Groningen, 1388
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brussel_1389_3
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: breda_1389_1
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38903
Groningen, 1389
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38902
Groningen, 1389
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38902
Groningen, 1389
CRM14: Oorkonde P049p39001
Donk, 1390
93
1390
CHARTER
1390
CHARTER
1390
CHARTER
tusschen guede philips va_
basyelisbu?r
tuschen florijs poels hu?s (en_ jan
maselants zoens (onleesbaar) )
by Wermer Hilleghen erve
1390
CHARTER
by Arolt bloten erfname_ erue
1391
CHARTER
1391
CHARTER
1391
CHARTER
tusschen husinghe en_ hofstede
johan bonten emmelrics soen […]
(ende herristeghe)
tusschen husinghe en_ hofstede
mychiels voerscreuen […] (en_
wouter de ketellaer)
by her Jacops hof ,
1392
CHARTER
bij lant Johans van nyele vors_
1392
CHARTER
1392
CHARTER
1392
CHARTER
bij lant Johan vrancken van
voelen
bij lant der Abdissen van
herkenRode
achter Roes hoef
1392
CHARTER
bij lant Joha_s van nyele
1392
CHARTER
1392
CHARTER
bij lant Andries ver Penxten […]
en_ Robijn hoens lant va_
vrodelinghen
bij lant Govart melkartz
1393
CHARTER
tot pieter dirx zoens erue
1393
CHARTER
bi erve _ma_s
1393
CHARTER
bi erve reyners va_ Meensele
1393
CHARTER
1393
CHARTER
bi erve h_en Michghiels kind_e
en_ joha_nes nubeckers
bi erve sroeden kind_e
1393
CHARTER
bi erve d_ kind_ va_ de_ vinne
1393
CHARTER
1393
CHARTER
1393
CHARTER
1393
CHARTER
bi erve kerstinen enkens va_
attenrode
tusschen erve kenens droems en_
Johans cupers
tusschen erve desselfs heynens
lem_ens en_ henrics wouters
bi den lande willem loueneers
1393
CHARTER
by lant heinric bachuys
1394
CHARTER
alre~naist wouters dircx zoens
CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39001
Maastricht, 1390
CRM14: Oorkonde D002p39002
s-Gravenzande, 1390
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39003
Groningen, 1390
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39001
Groningen, 1390
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p39103
Utrecht, 1391
CRM14: Oorkonde E192p39103
Utrecht, 1391
CRM14): Oorkonde C108p39101
Groningen, 1391
CRM14: Oorkonde Q656r39202
Borgloon of omgeving, 1392
CRM14: Oorkonde Q656r39202
Borgloon of omgeving, 1392
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201
Groot-Loon, 1392
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201
Groot-Loon, 1392
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201
Groot-Loon, 1392
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201
Groot-Loon, 1392
CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201
Groot-Loon, 1392
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39301
Amsterdam, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301
Lummen, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301
Lummen, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301
Lummen, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301
Lummen, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301
Lummen, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301
Lummen, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde P057p39301
Kuringen, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde P057p39301
Kuringen, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde P112p39301
Zoutleeuw, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde P112p39301
Zoutleeuw, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde E198p39401
94
1394
CHARTER
hws en_ erue
bi hof Jan bogarts
1394
CHARTER
bi lant Joh_es sprute
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
tusschen guede Goedards
haerewerck […] en_ guede dyerix
van haren
tusschen huyse kenen vetters ende
henrics van tongren
tusschen huyse Johans
van~eelsrake ende willems van
vor~de
tusschen erve des~selfs Johans
(ende willems culsers wijf)
tusschen (erve der beghinen van
hasselt) ende Melis abraens
tusschen gu?ede Reyners walne
van herborch […] en_ guede
Geyelijs des scheres
tusschen dat steynen huys .
katherinen . en_ philips . van der
oyen
tusschen de goede Pet_ Jans
voirs_ henrics beetsen en_
henrics va_ lare tsIonxstes
tusschen eerve meester Laureys
voers_ […] en_ jans kempeners
tusschen husinge des voers_
laureys en_ siinre geerve_ en_
jans kempeners
achter huys willems
1395
CHARTER
1395
CHARTER
1395
CHARTER
1395
CHARTER
1395
CHARTER
1395
CHARTER
1395
CHARTER
1395
CHARTER
1396
CHARTER
1397
CHARTER
van baernt claes zoens tv?ne tot
heynric dirx zoens lande
tot an aernt dirx zoens lijnbane
tot vrederic gherijts zoens
viuersloete toe
van baernt claes zoens tv?ne tot
heynric dirx zoens lande toe
bi der zuste_n houe
tusschen guede Ger?iggen […]
en_ guede Metten suydeweynds
totter schueren h_en willems va_
Eyne_berch Ridders
/tusschen den gu?ede peter
ghewante des volres […] en_ den
gu?ede belen bu?sscops
by Ecberd Ketelhodes steenhues
alre~naist willem harmans zoens
hws en_ erue
Delft, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P175p39401
Gingelom, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P175p39401
Gingelom, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde Q595r39401
Maastricht of omgeving, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401
Hasselt, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401
Hasselt, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401
Hasselt, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401
Hasselt, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39404
Maastricht, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39402
Sint-Truiden, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P049a39401 ,
1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401
Sint-Truiden, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401
Sint-Truiden, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401
Sint-Truiden, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39502
Amsterdam, 1395
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39505
Amsterdam, 1395
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39501
Amsterdam, 1395
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39502
Amsterdam, 1395
CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39502
Amsterdam, 1395
CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39503
Maastricht, 1395
CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39502
Maastricht, 1395
CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39502
Maastricht, 1395
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39602
Groningen, 1396
CRM14: Oorkonde E198p39701
Delft, 1397
95
1397
CHARTER
1397
CHARTER
tuschen guede jacobs des ckers
[…] en_ guede Arnolds des
(onleesbaar)
by Egberd wilghen steenhues
1398
CHARTER
tot an ludolf oedwijns soen
1398
CHARTER
1398
CHARTER
1398
CHARTER
1398
CHARTER
1398
CHARTER
tuschen gu?ede Mathijs van
byecht des beckers […] en_
tpanhuys leonards walne van
lyechtenburch
tusschen den gueden Johans
stru?euers voers_ […] En_ den
gu?eden Gerarts van Coelen
tusschen erve margrieten
grauwerocs (ende keuens
kind_en)
tusschen erve en_ houz willem
vleminx […] (en_ hueveners
steghe )
by Egberd wilghen erue
1398
CHARTER
by wicboldes erue
1398
CHARTER
by senter Claes proffien kercken
1398
CHARTER
by senter Claes proffien kercken
1399
CHARTER
bi die lande henrix van willene
1399
CHARTER
1399
CHARTER
1399
OFFICIAL
1399
CHARTER
tusschen erve Costins van Ranst
[…] (en_ die ghemein beemde
va_ zelke)
tusschen lant aelbrecht kiins […]
en_ lant henr_ van eltre
tusschen jan jans soens lande […]
(ende den lande dat willem aernt
lycle soens sone daer legghende
hadde )
by berneer solleders steenhues
1399
CHARTER
by ghebbe smedes erue
1400
CHARTER
by Coppeken erue
1408
OFFICIAL
1408
OFFICIAL
1410
OFFICIAL
tusschen Monrijs Gheraetszoens
des marsmans huse […] ende
Gheraet Kemp Gheraetszoens
huse
tusschen Henric des sniders huse
[…] (ende der loeve die brueder
jan Boeye die Augustijn
toebehoert)
tusschen Dirc janszoens erue […]
CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39702
Maastricht, 1397
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39701
Groningen, 1397
CRM14: Oorkonde E579r39802
Beverwijk of omgeving, 1398
CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39801
Maastricht, 1398
CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39802
Maastricht, 1398
CRM14: Oorkonde P120p39801
Alken, 1398
CRM14: Oorkonde Q165p39801
Hopmaal, 1398
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39801
Groningen, 1398
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39802
Groningen, 1398
CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39802
Maastricht, 1398
CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39802
Maastricht, 1398
CRM14: Oorkonde P225p39901
Korsworm, 1399
CRM14: Oorkonde P048p39902
Halen, 1399
CRM14: Oorkonde P048p39901
Halen, 1399
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: dordrecht_1399_1
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39903
Groningen, 1399
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39901
Groningen, 1399
CRM14: Oorkonde C108p40003
Groningen, 1400
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: dordrecht_1408_2
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: dordrecht_1408_2
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 125096
1430
OFFICIAL
1439
OFFICIAL
1439
OFFICIAL
1455
OFFICIAL
1455
OFFICIAL
1455
OFFICIAL
1472
OFFICIAL
1492
OFFICIAL
ende Claes peter clenerts zoens
erue
tusschen wouter willems soens
erue […] ende dirc gherijts zoens
erue
tusschen Willem cuper die
wantsnyders erue […](ende sinte
Johansstrate voirnoemt)
tot an alijdt gherijt deymans
weduwe ende hoirre kinderen
steynen camer ende erue toe
tot an willem die cupers after erue
toe
tusschen godeuairt willems zoens
erue […] ende ruusche albert
diers zoens erue
tot an adam die sale jans zoens
erue
tuschen meester willem bouwijns
zoen […] (die heylige geest)
naer Sente Jacops costerie
1492
OFFICIAL
naer Sente Niclaus costerye
1800: amsterdam_1410_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: amsterdam_1430_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: amsterdam_1439_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: amsterdam_1439_1
CHN): ambtelijke teksten 12501800: amsterdam_1455_3
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: amsterdam_1455_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: amsterdam_1455_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: haarlem_1472_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: gent_1492_1
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: gent_1492_1
TABLE 3: Results intermediate stage following ‘tussen’
Date
Genre
Result
Corpus File
1268
OFFICIAL
1307
OFFICIAL
1309
CHARTER
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: brugge_1268_4
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: antwerpen_1307_2
CRM14: Oorkonde E692r30901
Utrecht of omgeving, 1309
1370
CHARTER
1378
OFFICIAL
1381
CHARTER
1384
CHARTER
1384
CHARTER
tuschen heinrix lande van den
poele ende outfards van der mude
tusschen Pieters huus van der
Leye ende Claus van Ackendonc
tuschen vern alide lant vrouwe
van den bosche en_ egbrechts
hoers soens
tusschen jan boysts huus ende
erue […] ende pieters van oeten
tusschen jehan lauwerins […]
Ende den lande der voorseider
catelinen
tusschen lant wouters va_ den
vynne en_ wout_s mersmans
tusschen erve des g_ve_ va_ loen
van veghtmale en_ Johan hulkens
des Jonghen
tusschen lande der scholire van
leuwe […] en_ godijns van wilre
voerschreven
CRM14: Oorkonde O061p37001
Aalst, 1370
CHN: ambtelijke teksten 12501800: ieper_1378_1
CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38101
Donk, 1381
CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p38401
Hasselt, 1384
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401
Sint-Truiden, 1384
97
1384
CHARTER
1384
CHARTER
1393
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
1394
CHARTER
tusschen (lande des Co_vents van
herkenroyde) […] en_ johans
populers
tusschen (lande des co_vents van
herkenroyde) […] en_ henrich
borghers
tusschen erve kenens droems en_
Johans cupers
tusschen huyse kenen vetters ende
henrics van tongren
tusschen huyse Johans
van~eelsrake ende willems van
vor~de
tusschen (erve der beghinen van
hasselt) ende Melis abraens
tusschen dat steynen huys .
katherinen . en_ philips . van der
oyen
tusschen de goede Pet_ Jans
voirs_ henrics beetsen en_
henrics va_ lare tsIonxstes
tusschen eerve meester Laureys
voers_ […] en_ jans kempeners
tusschen husinge des voers_
laureys en_ siinre geerve_ en_
jans kempeners
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401
Sint-Truiden, 1384
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401
Sint-Truiden, 1384
CRM14: Oorkonde P057p39301
Kuringen, 1393
CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401
Hasselt, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401
Hasselt, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401
Hasselt, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39402
Sint-Truiden, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P049a39401 ,
1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401
Sint-Truiden, 1394
CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401
Sint-Truiden, 1394
98
APPENDIX 3
SURVEY: LOCATIVE POSSESSIVES IN WEST-FLEMISH
TABLE 1: Personal nouns
Occurrences
Construction
Occurrences
Construction
11
11
10
k ga naar Rogers
k ben/zin bi Rogers
k ben/zin to Rogers
10
9
9
k ga naar Georges
k ben/zin bi Georges
k ben/zin to Georges
0
1
1
k ga naar Georgens
k ben/zin bi Georgens
k ben/zin to Georgens
10
10
7
k ga naar Frans
k ben/zin bi Frans
k ben/zin to Frans
1
1
3
k ga naar Fransens
k ben/zin bi Fransens
k ben/zin to Fransens
10
10
10
k ga naar Jeannes
k ben/zin bi Jeannes
k ben/zin to Jeannes
11
11
11
k ga naar Maries
k ben/zin bi Maries
k ben/zin to Maries
11
11
Hij woont daar aan Rogers
Hij woont daar aan Maries
TABLE 2: Nouns denoting kinship
Occurrences
Construction
6
6
k ga naar min broers
k ben/zin bi min broers
99
5
6
k ben/zin to min broers
hij woont daar aan min broers
9
9
8
9
k ga naar min zusters
k ben/zin bi min zusters
k ben/zin to min zusters
hij woont daar aan min zusters
10
10
9
k ga naar memes
k ben/zin bi memes
k ben/zin to memes
10
10
9
k ga naar pepes
k ben/zin bi pepes
k ben/zin to pepes
9
9
8
k ga naar min cozins
k ben/zin bi min cozins
k ben/zin to min cozins
7
7
7
k ga naar min nunkels
k ben/zin bi min nunkels
k ben/zin to min nunkels
7
7
7
k ga naar min tantes
k ben/zin bi min tantes
k ben/zin to min tantes
TABLE 3: Nouns denoting professions
Occurrences
Construction
0
0
0
6
k ga naar den coiffeurs
k ben/zin bi den coiffeurs
k ben/zin to den coiffeurs
hij woont daar aan den coiffeurs
0
1
1
6
k ga naar de coiffeuzes
k ben/zin bi de coiffeuzes
k ben/zin to de coiffeuzes
hij woont daar aan de coiffeuzes
100
1
0
0
6
k ga naar den kosters
ben/zin bi den kosters
k ben/zin to den kosters
hij woont daar aan den kosters
2
1
1
6
k ga naar den pasters
k ben/zin bi den pasters
k ben/zin to den pasters
hij woont daar aan den pasters
0
0
0
6
k ga naar den beenhouwers
k ben/zin bi den beenhouwers
k ben/zin to den beenhouwers
hij woont daar aan den beenhouwers
0
0
0
k ga naar den gendarms
k ben/zin bi den gendarms
k ben/zin to den gendarms
0
0
0
k ga naar de verpleegsters
k ben/zin bi de verpleegsters
k ben/zin to de verpleegsters
0
0
0
k ga naar de vroedvrouwes
k ben/zin bi de vroedvrouwes
k ben/zin to de vroedvrouwes
0
0
k ben/zin to den tantists
k è t to den tantists gehoord
0
3
k ben/zin to den doktoors
k è t to den doktoors gehoord
0
0
k ben/zin to den remplacants
k è t to den remplacants gehoord
1
1
k ben/zin to den boers
k è t to den boers gehoord
1
1
k ben/zin to den melkboers
k è t to den melkboers gehoord
0
2
k ben/zin to den bakkers
2 k è t to den bakkers gehoord
101
TABLE 4: Complex noun phrases
Occurrences
Construction
2
2
1
k ga naar min odsten cozins
k ben/zin bi min odsten cozins
k ben/zin to min odsten cozins
4
4
4
k ga naar min jongste zusters
k ben/zin bi min jongste zusters
k ben/zin to min jongste zusters
1
1
1
k ga naar min groten broers
k ben/zin bi min groten broers
k ben/zin to min groten broers
0
0
0
k ga naar min zieke groovaders
k ben/zin bi min zieke groovaders
k ben/zin to min zieke groovaders
0
0
0
k ga naar den nieuwen melkboers
k ben/zin bi den nieuwen melkboers
k ben/zin to den nieuwen melkboers
0
0
0
k ga naar den rosten bakkers
k ben/zin bi den rosten bakkers
k ben/zin to den rosten bakkers
0
0
0
k ga naar den ouden pasters
k ben/zin bi den ouden pasters
k ben/zin to den ouden pasters
TABLE 5: Complex noun phrases with different types of possessives
Occurrences
Construction
10
7
2
Meme ze kabaa
Meme eurne kabaa
Memes kabaa
102
10
7
2
Ma ze sjaal
Ma eurne sjaal
Mas sjal
10
8
1
Christine zen auto
Christine eurnen auto
Christines auto
0
10
1
Marie ze chacosse
Marie eur chacosse
Maries chacosse
3
2
3
k ben/zin to Rogers moeders
k ben/zin to Roger se moeders
k ben/zin to Roger zen moeders
0
0
0
k ben/zin to den doktoors remplacants
k ben/zin to den doktoor se remplacants
k ben/zin to den doktoor zenen remplacants
1
0
2
k ben/zin to de pasters zusters
k ben/zin to de paster se zusters
k ben/zin to de paster zen zusters
TABLE 6: Postmodification
Occurrences
Construction
7
0
k ben/zin to min zusters in Gent
k ben/zin to min zuster in Gents
2
0
1
k ben/zin to men juffrouws
k ben/zin to men juffrouws van Frans
k ben/zin to men juffrouw van Fransens
4
0
1
k ben/zin to de meesters
k ben/zin to de meesters van Frans
k ben/zin to de meester van Fransens
103
TABLE 7: Pronouns
Occurrences
1st person PL
8
8
7
8
2nd person PL
8
8
7
8
3rd person PL
8
7
8
1st person SG
0
0
0
2nd person SG
0
0
0
3rd person SG
0
0
0
Construction
hij komt naar toenzens
hij is toenzens
hij is to toenzens
hij is bi toenzens
k ga naar tjunders / tulders
k ben/zin tjunders / tulders
k ben/zin to tjunders /tulders
k ben/zin bi tjunders / tulders
k ga naar tunders
k ben/zin to tunders
k ben/zin bi tunders
k ga naar tminnes
k ben/zin to tminnes
k ben/zin bi tminnes
k ga naar tjonnes
k ben/zin to tjonnes
k ben/zin bi tjonnes
k ga naar de zins
k ben/zin to de zins
k ben/zin bi de zins
104
APPENDIX 4
BNC RESEARCH: LOCATIVE POSSESSIVES IN MODERN BRITISH ENGLISH
TABLE 1: Proper nouns
Query
at John’s/
to John’s
Nr.
6
at Mary’s/
to Mary’s
1
at Ann’s/
to Ann’s
1
Result
Corpus File
At John’s
I don't, cos he's naughty at John's.
Bleary-eyed, at the appointed hour I loaded the
car at John's with two large display cases,
posters, boxes of lead, a bag of pre-decimal
coinage, two folding chairs, a roll of velvet
material — and the kitchen sink!
She'll be round on Friday afternoon or Saturday
some time I said we'd be here from four o'clock
on Friday so I'll take it down to John's today
then it's away to work I've got the rubbish in the
bins right?
See when I go down to John's now I'm out like a
light there.
He realizes he left it behind because he doesn't
really want to go to John's.
I could see Dad was worried so after a couple of
hours of hanging about I offered to return to
Mary's.
It's The Match on ITV, and Tommy and Iain
decide to watch it at Ann's.
KC0 921
KCT 7000
G2Y 286
KDN 12
KDN 5451
HGU 441
CDM 1843
FBM 3176
TABLE 2: Nouns denoting kinship
Query
at my brother’s/ to
my brother’s
Nr.
2
Result
Corpus File
For instance when he visited Manchester in 1814 B3H 228
he wrote 9th September — an exceedingly
pleasant ride all the way from Leicester to
Manchester…we found my poor mother
(actually his step-mother) surprisingly well for a
person of 80 — dined at Brother's and drank tea
with my mother and Aunt Weston
‘Thomas, that night in the car, when you drove
FNT 1109
me to my brother's, you showed me your…’
105
at my sister’s/ to my
sister’s
5
at my nan’s/ to my
nan’s
1
at my granddad’s/ to
my granddad’s
1
at my cousin’s/ to my
cousin’s
2
at my uncle’s/ to my
uncle’s
at my aunt’s/ to my
aunt’s
0
1
At half-past twelve, Mum and Dad will be on
their way to my sister's in Ipswich.
I'd like just to pop round to my sister's — that
sort of thing…;
My sister and me are very close, so this woman
gave me a giro to go to my sister's — they took
me to the station and put me on the train.
I went to the shop yesterday, I was at my sister's
but I, oh!
Oh I had really good time at my sister's
When I stayed overnight at my nan's, which I
often did, I actually slept in a room next to
where the old monastery used to be.
stay at granddad's for a little while, while daddy
watches that film and then go and see other
nanny for a little while, cos you've got no
playschool tomorrow so you haven't got to get
up early have you?
No we're stopping at my cousin's.
Erm er, no we're going to my cousin's.
AT3 227
‘I'm going to my aunt's for tea.’
HGN 581
EBR 1498
EG0 457
KDV 148
KDY 1158
CHE 402
KD1 1606
KBC 467
KBC 406
TABLE 3: Nouns denoting professions
Query
at the hairdresser’s/
to the hairdresser’s
Nr.
11
Result
Corpus File
Before leaving London that morning she had
spent time at the hairdresser's.
I have even seen him at the hairdresser's,
supporting her head as her hair is washed.
I should just about have finished at the
hairdresser's by then.
The big dyeing job was done twice a year at the
hairdresser's, but every month or so in between,
Mrs Wormwood used to freshen it up by giving
it a rinse in the washbasin with something called
PLATINUM BLONDE HAIR-DYE EXTRA
STRONG.
Last night I dreamed I used a chair at the
hairdresser's as a toilet and Maggie Smith was in
the next chair.
Last time I went to the hairdresser's I was so
crippled with period pains I drank three instant g
& t's on the bus.
HNK 1608
G2V 2197
G1W 1034
CH4 626
H9Y 2566
A0L 1050
106
at the priest’s/ to the
priest’s
at the vicar’s/ to the
vicar’s
at the butcher’s/ to
the butcher’s
at the baker’s/ to the
baker’s
‘The latest idea is to actually take them out to
the hairdresser's or shopping, so that happens
every month without fail, sometimes more often.
During a visit to the hairdresser's I realized that
we women are prepared to put ourselves through
the most extraordinary practices in order to
improve our image.
A double line of parked cars ran parallel to the
pavements from the paper shop to the pub and
the grocer's to the hairdresser's.
He did not resent her visit to the hairdresser's.
When I came back, cos I went in on the way to
the hairdresser's, to find out about it, and I
thought I'd buy him on the way back, when I
went back it was still sitting in the same place
with its tail hanging out
B32 2416
‘She leads him a right dance,’ the nans would
say, during their daily exchange of news and
analysis in the queue at the butcher's, until
finally she danced off for good and all and left
him with his mother and his clapped-out BSA
and his jars of Brylcreem and his collection of
78 records and a lifetime's cumulation of
unarticulated resentments.
I saw her at the butcher's this morning.
At the butcher's.
Across the road to the butcher's where they
looked in the window to see back at the
reflection of Hogan's Outfitters and realise that
Sean Walsh had gone back inside to the empire
that would one day be his.
At the baker's I offered to exchange my leather
gloves for a small cake, but the baker's wife
looked at my dirty clothes and said, ‘I'm sorry,
but how do I know you haven't stolen them?
I sent Peggy down to the village for yeast and
old Meg was at the baker's, first time in months,
and she says her master's back.
Got these at the baker's for next to nothin', by
the by.’
That was next door next door to the baker's
On Saturdays as a special treat Granpa would
allow me to go along with him to the early
morning market in Covent Garden, where he
would select the fruit and vegetables that we
would later sell from his pitch, just opposite Mr
Salmon's and Dunkley's, the fish and chippy that
stood next to the baker's.
F9C 3156
CCN 111
CDB 98
G1W 1077
KBK 4243
0
0
4
5
FRJ 788
G0Y 1333
CCM 1141
FR6 2117
H8X 2878
H8Y 1578
FYE 40
K8T 32
107
at the fishmonger’s/
to the fishmonger’s
at the officer’s/ to the
officer’s
at the nurse’s/ to the
nurse’s
at the dentist’s/ to the
dentist’s
at the doctor’s/ to the
doctor’s
0
0
0
5
20
It was around this time that Seth began a new
romance, with Susan Schilling, a preacher's
daughter he met at the dentist's.
Back at the dentist's the waiting-room was
packed.
Where's the scruffy page I tore out of that
magazine at the dentist's?
MAX: She should be at the dentist's all day
tomorrow.
‘You don't go to the dentist's because you've got
toothache any more.’
at the doctor’s;
So beware at the doctor's.
Jokes not to tell at the doctor’s;
Don't be worried if you have to have an injection
at the clinic or at the doctor's , because the
syringes they use are sterilised and used only
once.
This says I was good at the doctor's today?
You probably felt it today because you were up
and about at the doctor's.
I always cry at the doctor's, have done for years.
At the doctor's I generally last four minutes
before collapsing whilst trying to describe the
muscle pain which he knows is a muscle pain
but which I know he's only saying is a muscle
pain to disguise the seriousness of his true
diagnosis.
She's always at the doctor's with her leg.
‘I'll pop in at the doctor's when I go down for
my shopping,’ Mrs Hellyer said.
‘I saw it at the doctor's on the board — an’ I
wrote it down after last week — I didn't know
what else to do.
How did you get on at the doctor's?
He collapsed at Debbie's on Wednesday night,
well he fell, bumped his head sort of fall down
so the doctor come yesterday, tt, and he had to
stop in bed two or three days and go at the
doctor's for ten minute appointment and he
bloody test and to see why he's lost so much
weight cos his legs are like that.
Many children don't look forward to a visit to
the doctor's — not surprising, as they may
associate it with illness or injections.
ABS 1215
ABX 1182
BMS 112
FRH 799
A73 1427
CHR 196
CHR 205
CHR 432
CJ9 2252
GYD 270
H9H 1611
H9Y 494
H9Y 1366
HH9 243
HH9 249
HJH 1677
KC5 361
KRO 28
CB8 3288
108
But you couldn't go to the doctor's until surgery
time, that were six o'clock you see.
I took I went to the doctor's and he gave me
medicinal duty.
And er I remember going to the doctor's with me
Mother and where as we sat in the surgery which
was packed, eventually the old doctor come out
of the door
I never know what it was to,not do anything, go,
go to the doctor's and be bad or anything like
that.
Anyhow, my father's just taken her to the
doctor's, so I thought I'd give you a ring.
Claire said: ‘I had to take Rachel to the doctor's
because she was so poorly.
at the farmer’s/ to the
farmer’s
FY1 468
FYE 331
FY1 491
G4R 136
JY1 619
K54 2819
0
TABLE 4: Complex noun phrases
Query
at my eldest
cousin’s/ to my
eldest cousin’s
at my little sister’s/
to my little sister’s
at my late
grandfather’s/ to my
late grandfather’s
at my sick
grandmother’s/ to my
sick grandmother’s
at the tall baker’s/ to
the tall baker’s
at the old priest’s/ to
the old priest’s
at John’s mother’s/
to John’s mother’s
at my friend’s sisters/
to my friend’s
sister’s
at my French
teacher’s/ to my
French teacher’s
Nr.
Result
Corpus File
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109