3. Middle English

3.1. A few generalizations

Let us begin by a quotation,

“Middle English” (in French) is the language which was spoken and written in Great Britain between 1150 and 1550 (...). These dates are only convenient mile stones: normally, there is no continuity solution for the evolution of a language. But if one compares the set of features caracterizing texts written during the “Middle English” period to those from the preceding period, one is struck by somes constant differences: a) vowels tend to get a standard tone (when they stil exist) e in (any) endings; b) a deep change and a great simplification of the inflection were determined by this levelling; c) as a consequence, there is a tendency (that has already begun in OE) to have recourse to analytic constructions or to prepositions instead of cases; d) finally, the lexicon has borrowed words from the French (consequences of the Norman conquest) or the Scandinavian languages (further to the Danelaw colonization) (note: ➳).

Compared to OE, the structure of the ME sentence is somewhat different, and tends to become the structure we know in CE. The main changes are:

Whereas in Old English, the order object-verb was very frequent, in particular in subordinate clauses and when the object was a pronoun, in Middle English this order became gradually less common, and ceased to show a correlation with clause type. (...) Another, probably related, Middle English change affected the position of particles relative to the verb. (...) such elements were also often preverbal in Old English. In the course of the Middle English period they gradually came to be restricted to postverbal position. In this case too, however, the older order continued to be used every now and then until the end of the Middle English period. (...) A further Middle English change involving verb position is the decline of the so-called `Verb-Second´ rule. (...) Verb-Second rapidly declined in the course of the last part of the fourteenth and in the fifteenth century, and saw a revival in the literary language in the sixteenth century ((21) ((21)): 82-3).

We can also quote Kroch & Taylor:

Pintzuk ((49), (50) and (51)) have shown that the transition from INFL- final to INFL-medial word order was a long-term trend characterizing the entire Old English period, so that its disappearance in Early Middle English can be taken as a continuation of Old English development rather than a break with it (...). [Early Middle English texts] exhibit all three of the base orders that have been proposed for Old English: INFL-final with an OV verb phrase, INFL-medial with an OV verb phrase, and the modern order – INFL-medial with a VO verb phrase ((38) ((38)):132-3).

These three base orders are the consequence of the different influences the ME dialects have been under. Still according to Kroch and Taylor,

Although we are not primarily concerned with the historical sociolinguistic dynamics that established the ME dialects, the sociolinguistic history of population contact and diffusion which underlie them is a matter of considerable interest (...). Specifically, we will see that the northern dialect of English most likely became a CP-V2 language under the extensive contact it had with medieval Scandinavian, contact that resulted from the Danish and Norwegian population influx into the North of England during the late OE period (...). The linguistic effect of this combination of population movement and population mixture was extensive ((39) ((39)) : 298-9).

Moreover,

The difference in the position to which the verb moves in different languages leads to subtle but clearly observable differences in the shape and distribution of verb second clauses. Most strikingly, while all V2 languages exhibit verb second order in main clauses, the two sub-types [IP-V2 and CP-V2] differ in the availability of this word order in subordinate clauses. The CP-V2 languages allow verb second order only in those embedded clauses that in some way have the structure of matrix clauses, either because the complementizer position is empty or because there is an additional complementizer position below the one that introduces the subordinate clause (the so-called `CP-recursion´). (...) The IP-V2 languages, on the other hand, show V2 order in a broad range of subordinate clauses. (...) We will further see that the southern dialect of ME preserves the V2 syntax of OE, despite having become, unlike OE, overwhelmingly I-medial and VO in basic order. In striking contrast to the southern dialect, however, the northern dialect of ME appears to have developed the verb-movement syntax of a standard CP-V2 language and hence to be similar in its syntax to the modern Mainland Scandinavian ((39) ((39)) : 297-8).

To sum up, we could say that the ME syntax still displays the OE syntactic order (V2 language), as well as the CE order, and that V2 rapidly declined from the end of the 14^th century.

3.2. Preterite presents

The members of this specific class of verbs are the same compared to OE, apart from one member. Like in Chapter 1, they all follow Mossé´s classification ((45) ((45)))  (note: ➳)

• Class 1 : WITEN “know”, OWEN (note: ➳)  “own, have”.

• Class 2 : DUGEN “be worth”.

• Class 3 : CUNNEN “can, be able to”, ÐURFEN “need”, DURREN “dare”.

• Class 4 : MON “ought” (only in the Northern dialect (note: ➳)), SCHULEN “should”.

• Class 6 : MOTEN “can, should, have to´.

• Non classified : MAGEN “be able to, can”.

• Anomal verb: WILLEN “will, want”.

MON was not part of the class in OE, and is no part of it in Early Modern English nor in CE.

We shall mainly base our analysis on the following texts: the Ormulum (?c1200; East Midlands: south-west of Lincolnshire), Ancrene Riwle (1225-1230; West Midlands) and Chaucer´s The Canterbury Tales (1380-91; East Midlands: Londres) (note: ➳), as well as other texts from the ME corpus ((37) ((37))) if we require more specific examples.

In the last chapter, we showed the existence of the functional heads C, T, Neg and v. Our analysis led us to add some more: a second Neg head, v_Modal for deontic preterite presents and Mood for epistemic preterite presents (which also hosts irrealis).

Similarly to OE, we also find the following structures: the ones where there is a lexical preterite present (i.e. followed by a direct object) and the ones where there is a semi-lexical preterite present (i.e. followed by an infinitive) base-generated under v_Modal).

(266)

&

tohh

he

it

nowwhar

funde

þær,

Ne

wollde

he

it

næfre

cunnenn,

...

&

although

he-SUJET

it-OBJET

nowhere

found-PRET

there,

NEG

voulut

il-SUJET

cela-OBJET

jamais

savoir,

...

and though he did not find it anywhere, he did not want to know, ... (CMORM, I,26.318)

(267)

ant	alle	aʒen	hire	in	an	eauer	to	halden.
and	all-SUJET	should	her-OBJET	in	an	ever	TO	observe.

and everyone should observe it always in the same way. (CMANCRIW,I.44.34)

(268)

...	ne	nenoteð	naut	his	wit	as	mon	ach	to	donne...
...	NEG	knows-NEG+PRES	NOT	his	mind-OBJET	as	homme-SUJET	ought	TO	do...

... he does not know his mind as a man should... (CMANCRIW,II.48.447)

(269)

ʒef

ha

aʒen

tobeon

feor

from

alle

worldliche

men

hwet

hu

ancren

aʒen

to

hatien

ham

&

schunen,

...

if

they-SUJET

ought

TO+be

far

from

all

wordly

men-PL.

what

how

cloistered-SUJET PL.

ought

TO

call

them-OBJET

&

teach,

...

if they have to get away from all the worldly men, this is how the cloistered men ought to call and teach them, ... (CMANCRIW,II.67.721)

(270)

...	ase	hwa	se	þus	seide,	Ich	nolde	forto	þolien	deað	...
...	as	as	so	thus	said-PRET,	I-SUJET	NEG+would	FOR+TO	suffer	death-OBJET	...

as he then said, I did not want to suffer death... (CMANCRIW,II.76.889)

(271)

deað

me

ach

to

fleon

ase

forð

se

me

mei-PRES

∅

wið

uten

sunne.

death-OBJET

one-SUJET

ought

TO

as

in

as

one-SUJET

may

∅

with

out

sun.

you should flee from death as one may flee before the sun. (CMANCRIW,II.85.1029)

(272)

&

tærfore

hafe

icc

turrnedd

itt

Inntill

Ennglisshe

spæche,

Forr

þatt

I

wollde

bliþeliʒ

Þatt

all

Ennglisshe

lede

Wiþþ

ære

shollde

lisstenn

itt...

&

therefore

have-PRES

I-SUJET

translated-P.PASSE

it-OBJET

until

English

language,

for

that

I-SUJET

would-PRET

perfectly

that

all

English

people-SUJET

with

respect

should

listen

it-OBJET...

and I have therefore translated it into English because I wanted all the English people to listen to it respectfully... (CMORM,DED.L113.33)

(273)

Forþi	ach	þe	gode	habben	eauere	witnesse...
Therefore	ought	the	good-SUJET	have	ever	witness-OBJET...

Therefore good should always have a witness... (CMANCRIW,II.56.543)

Like in OE, we find occurrences of preterite presents used lexicaly, i.e. followed by an object either direct or indirect. Yet, if we have a closer look all the different texts, we can notice that only a small number of these verbs are used this way.

3.3. State and syntactic changes

Let us recall the OE sentence when a preterite present is displayed. We shall only mention the main functional heads. SOV Sentences can be CP-V2 (direct questions, sentences introduced by a negative element or by the adverbs þa and þonne) as in Example (274) or IP(TP)-V2 as in Example (275)

(274)

(275)

Whenever no preterite present is displayed, the structures remain identical.

Before going any further in our analysis, let us go back to the structures of preterite presents in OE when they are lexical: Pret.Pres. + THAT-clause and Pret.Pres. + (FOR)TO-infinitive. In both cases, the complement of the preterite present is a CP.

When the complement is a CP-infinitive, it has a PRO subject controlling the subject of the sentence. The preterite presents are then control verbs which assign a θ-role to the subject (unlike raising verbs which do not have an external argument and do not assign external θ-role: they are one argument-verb) and to its object, the internal argument of V. The subject is case-marked nominative in all personal constructions, and mainly case-marked dative in impersonal ones.

(276)

Lexical preterite presents are base-generated under V, they assign a θ-role to the subject base-generated under Spec,vP. The first phase is over. The subject then raises to Spec,TP to satisfy the EPP features of T and the preterite present satisfy its tense feature under T. C then assigns nominative case under government to the subject, and Agree is done through T: the second phase is over and can be spelled out.

We have also underlined that these very verbs were semi-lexical when followed by an infinitive and they were also raising ones. Moreover, the grammatical subject of the preterite present is the semantic subject of V. They are not base-generated under V but under v_Modal, the functional head we introduced in the last chapter. We recall their syntactic structure:

(277)

In late ME, we underlined that we could already talk about grammaticalisation (note: ➳) since we found examples taken from (19) ((19)) displaying epistemic-reading preterite presents. Moreover, we stressed the syntactic position Mood (above T within the domain of CP) corresponding to these preterite presents. Indeed, C is a periphrastic functional head which gives some more information about the sentence, about the relation established between a subject and its predicate. As far as epistemicity is concerned, it allows the speaker to voice an opinion reflecting his/her understanding or knowledge about this pre-established relation. So, Mood expresses the additional information brought by the speaker. Nevertheless, the epistemic preterite present is generated under T, and the phonological level, the [-deont] feature of Mood will “hop” to T, following the CE Affix Hopping (note: ➳). On a DM point of view, the morphemes of T and Mood merge, the two nodes remaining distinct.

As for the deontic-reading preterite presents, they are generated lower than T, under v_Modal within the domain of vP. We then obtain the following structure in OE, and specially in ME:

(278)

CP - MoodP - TP - v_ModalP - (vP) - VP - (CP) - (TP) - (VP).

In ME, things change syntactically. The examples to come illustrate the major value change of the parameters: ME is now an SVO language. NP subjects and objects do not have morphological endings for person anymore; the features impoverish, triggering a change of value of the parameters, hence the structure becomes rigid. Yet, some structures remain V2. Then this syntactic competition (SOV-SVO sentences), the appearance of the dummy DO, the grammaticalisation and the epistemic readings of the preterite presents (note: ➳) are partially responsible for the setting of grammaticalisation. As a consequence, we shall name modal a preterite present which underwent grammaticalisation, i.e. a lexical or semi-lexical item becomes a grammatical, or functional, item.

The following examples show the ME SVO structure. As for questions or sentences beginning by a negative element (or focus), their structure is CP-V2 as we underlined in the previous chapter.

(279)

Þeʒʒ	shulenn	lætenn	hæþeliʒ	Off	unnkerr	swinnc	lef	broþerr.
They-SUJET	shall	let	honourably	off	their	labour	beloved	brother.

Beloved brother, they shall let their labour go. (CMORM,DED.L53.21)

(280)

Þa

seʒʒde

Zacariass

þuss

Till

Godess

enngell

sone;

Þurrh

whatt

maʒʒ

icc

nu

witenn

þiss

Þatt

itt

me

muʒhe

wurrþenn?

Then

said

Zacharias

thus

till

God´s

angel

soon;

through

what

may

I-SUJET

now

know

this-OBJET

That

it-SUJET

me-OBJET

might

become?

Then Zacharias said to God´s angel: “Alors Zacharie dit à l´ange de Dieu : ” Through this, I can then know it, what might become of me?"` (CMORM,I,4.156)

(281)

ʒiff

þu

willt

wurrþenn

borrʒhenn,

Acc

nohht

onn

ane

wise

þohh,

Swa

summ

þe

boc-SUJET

uss-OBJET

kiþeþþ.

If

you-SUJET

will

be

born-P.PASSE,

But

NOT

on

one

way

then,

So

some

the

book

us

becomes known-PRES.

If you want to be backed in a different way, as the book makes it known to us. (CMORM,I,172.1423)

(282)

Heo	teacheð	al	hu	me	schal	beoren	him	wiðuten,	...
She-SUJET	teaches-PRES	all	how	one-SUJET INDEF	shall	bear	him-OBJET	out,	...

She teaches all about how to bring him forth, ... (CMANCRIW,I.42.17)

(283)

...	þet	ich	mote	blisfulliche	grete	þe	in	heouene.
...	that	I-SUJET	might	blissfully	greet	him-OBJET	in	heaven.

... that I might greet him in heaven. (CMANCRIW,I.72. 277)

(284)

ʒef

ani

seið

wel

oðer

deð

wel,

ne

maʒen

ha

nan

loken

þiderwart

wið

richt

echʒe

Of

god

heorte.

if

any-SUJET

says-PRES

well

or

does-PRES

well,

NEG

may

he-SUJET

none

look

thither

with

right

eye

of

good

heart.

if anyone says or does something good, he cannot look there with a rightful eye. (CMANCRIW,II.157.2133)

(285)

ant	þu	schalt	finden	in	ham	gretunges	fiue.
and	you-SUJET	shall	find	in	him	greetings-OBJET PL	five.

and you shall find five greetings in him. (CMANCRIW,I.74.290)

(286)

Þe

vres

of

þe

Hali

Gast,

ʒef

ʒe

ham

wulleð

seggen,

seggeð

bifore

Vre

Lauedi

tiden.

The

hours-SUJET PL

of

the

holy

Spirit,

if

you-SUJET

them-OBJET

will

say,

say-IMP

before

our

Lady

time.

If you want to say the hours of the Holy Spirit, say them before our Lady´s time. (CMANCRIW,I.74.297)

(287)

And	with	this	swerd	shal	I	sleen	envie.
And	with	this	sword	shall	I-SUJET	kill	envy-OBJET.

And I shall kill envy with this sword. (CMASTRO,662.C2.24)

(288)

For

certes,

al

the

sorwe

that

a

man-SUJET

myghte

make

fro

the

bigynnyng

of

the

world...

For

certain,

all

the

sorrow

that

a

man-SUJET

might

make

from

the

beginning

of

the

world...

For sure, all the sorrow that a man might cause from the beginning of the world... (CMCTPARS,291.C2.133)

(289)

For

certes,

the

derke

light-SUJET

that

shal

come

out

of

the

fyr

that

evere

shal

brenne

shal

turne

hym

al

to

peyne

that

is

in

helle...

For

certain,

the

dark

light-SUJET

that

shal

come

out

of

tha

fire

that

ever

shall

burn

shall

transform

him-OBJET

all

to

pain

that

is-PRES

in

hell...

For sure, the dark light that shall come out of the everburning fire shall transform him into all the pain that exists in hell... (CMCTPARS,291.C2.137)

(290)

And

in

this

same

wise

maist

thow

knowe

by

night

the

altitude

of

the

mone

or

of

brighte

sterres.

And

in

this

same

way

may

you-SUJET

know

by

night

the

altitude-OBJET

of

the

moon

or

of

bright

stars-PL.

By night, you can likewise know the altitude of the moon or the bright stars. (ID CMASTRO,669.C2.211)

(291)

...

for

thou

scholdest

knowe

that

the

mowynge

of

schrewes,

whiche

mowynge

the

semeth

to

ben

unworthy,

nis

no

mowynge;

...

for

you-SUJET

should

know

that

the

ability-SUJET

of

tyrants-PL,

which

ability

you-OBJET

seems-PRES

TO

be

unworthy-OBJET,

NEG+is-PRES

no

ability-OBJET;

... for you should know that the capacity of tyrants, which seems to be unworthy to you, is not one; (CMBOETH,448.C1.398)

If the examples have an epistemic reading, their syntactic structure is,

(292)

and if they have a deont reading, the structure is,

(293)

In a Section to come, we shall go back to these different structures to analyze them more accurately.

3.4. Grammaticalisation

The word grammaticalisation can be defined as followed ((62) ((62)): 6):

The term grammaticalisation was first introduced by Meillet (1912) to describe the development of new grammatical (functional) material out of `autonomous´ words. [...] As Hopper and Traugott (1993: 1-2) point out, the term `grammaticalisation´ can be used to either describe the framework that considers “how new grammatical forms and constructions arise” or “the processes whereby items become more grammatical through time”.

Another definition would be (from (44) ((44))):

The process by which, in the history of a language, a unit with a lexical meaning changes into one with grammatical meaning(note: ➳).

Concerning modal verbs, the preterite presents, which were lexical and semi-lexical items, have become grammatical items, i.e functional words. This process of grammaticalisation can be seen through the syntax of the ME sentence, as a consequence of a morphological impoverishment (especially the loss of the irrealis endings) and the setting of new values to the existing parameters (such as the grammaticalisation of the preposition TO or the gradual appearance of the dummy DO) during that period. Nevertheless, this process took place gradually, as can be shown with the examples we are to analyze.

3.4.1. Consequences on the preterite presents

Until the ME period, preterite presents are semi-lexical verbs belonging to a specific class of verbs, hence behaving differently in syntactic terms. Whether epistemic or deontic, they are now raising verbs. Epistemic modals are base-generated under T and governed by MoodP; root modals are still base-generated under v_Modal and then raise to T, since they are grammatical, unlike lexical verbs.

In ME, they can still be used as lexical verbs (specially WILLEN, DURREN and CUNNEN), but the great majority of them tend to be followed by an infinitive which either has an epistemic or deontic reading.

This statement is very interesting: if there is an ambiguity between epistemic and root readings, it implies that these verbs indeed grammaticalize. (note: ➳)

We assume the ambiguous readings reflect the grammatical change of these verbs: from lexical items to grammatical items. The impoverishment of the verbal morphology, the rarer use of V2, a more rigid syntax and its relation to negation (which now does not precede the finite verb), and semantics (there are some shifting meanings for the preterite presents from the OE to the ME periods) are the reflection of the change of status of these verbs.

This grammaticalisation can also be seen morphologically: even if some forms still bear number and person, and specially 2^nd person singular present or past, these verbs now only have a present and a past form. The present form is different from the form for lexical verbs since they possess the 3^rd person singular in the present, as for the past form, there are no more differences between the irrealis endings.

How can grammaticalisation be visible? Within the phase theory, the chosen items from the lexicon are already inflected and they satisfy a set of features with functional heads. Within (31) ((31))´s Distributed Morphology, each morpheme corresponds to one functional head whose uninterpretable features are identical to the morphemes´s. So, when there is impoverishment, some features of the morphemes disappear, reducing then the competition between lexical items. Let us take an example: in OE, we have canst, the present form (2^nd person singular) of the preterite present CUNNAN. If we use a tree structure to represent it, we obtain:

(294)

But we can also provide another morphological analysis of it. We can consider each morpheme on its own and say that a functional projection correponds to each of them. The structure we then get is not very different from the previous one. The main change is the status of the root <cαn> which is now one of the morpheme constituting the paradigm canst. The structure would be:

(295)

The V^-1 notation is borrowed from (35) ((35)); it underlines that can is now a root, and it is the sum of all the morphemes which builds up the verb canst. This approach is different from Minimalism where the verb is chosen from the lexicon fully inflected. Yet this approach is not incompatible with it for it can reflect the grammaticalisation of the preterite presents in ME. Indeed, if these verbs are to be considered as paradigmas made of a root and a set of features, this phenomenom (i.e. grammaticalisation) leads to the loss of the endings and the vowel alternation (in the present indicative) of the preterite presents, that is, the morphosyntactic features of these lexical items are deleted. And it further leads to the deletion of some other features from other morphemes (what is called delinking in DM: when this delinking occurs, it entails the delinking of features which are dependent on them (the change is always from the more marked to the less marked value).

Let us take again the example þu canst and compare it with its contemporary equivalent you can (this form will be found in ME). We can note that the morphological mark of second person has disappeared and there is no longer vowel alternation (in OE, CUNNAN → can; in ME CUNNEN → can but CAN → can in CE).

(296)

We shall refer to this structure further on in our work, but correct it because after grammaticalisation modals are no longer semi-lexical but they are grammatical items.

Let us now go back to Examples (279) to (291), which allow us to underline the following important points for our analysis.

1. We have an SVO surface order, even if morphology is still visible on modals for the 2^nd person singular and plural (Examples (285), (286) and (290)). Our hypothesis is that these morphological marks on modals (tense, person and number) and thou/ ʒe subjects (2^nd person singular and plural) do not have any influence on the SVO structure.

2. We still find CP-V2 structures illustrating OE SOV structures. They can either be introduced by a negative element (Example (284)) or a topic (Examples (287), (290) and (291)).

3. In Examples (280) and (286) (but there are many others), we can question the strusture: is it SOV, hence OE, or SVO, for the object is found inbetween the subject and the finite verb, as we have considered so far that the object is the internal argumant of vP.

4. Finally, Examples (279), (282), (283), (288) and (289) display the ME SVO structures where cases are no longer morphologically visible (specially NOM and ACC, which freezes the structure), as person and number are on modal verbs.

With the coexistence of these two structures in ME, we also question the existence of the fuctional head reflecting this grammaticalisation. This point has been introduced in the previous chapter where we stessed the functional head v_Modal for semi-lexical preterite presents. This functional head still exists in ME, as Mood which has been introduced for epistemic modals and irrealis in OE. These two heads reflect two main types of modality in English: epistemic modality and deontic modality, even if according to (19) ((19)), epistemic readings of modals are less common than deontic readings. We could sum up this established fact saying that in the tree structure everything under T, that is v_Modal, is semi-grammaticalised and everything above T, that is Mood, is grammaticalised. T then marks the boundary between these two states, which means that the modal is or is not within the semantic scope of T. If it is not, the evaluation of the predicative relation is at the tense of the utterance; then it has an epistemic reading (belonging to the irrealis sphere) and the morphological past has no time value. But if tense scopes on the modal, it is deontic.

In the next sections, we shall analyze the preterite presents in relation to modality, underlining that both epistemic and deontic modals have the same syntactic structures, the only difference being that epistemic modals are base-generated under T and deontic modals under v_Modal. For deontic modals in particular, we shall draw a parallel with causative structures. We shall also sketch the analysis of the grammaticalisation of the preposition TO (followed by an infinitive) to relate it to the grammaticalisation of modal verbs. And we shall also go back to the notion of perfective aspect, as well as to the syntactic structure of causative verbs.

3.5. Infinitive structures: general points

In the previous chapter, we saw that according to whether we were dealing with preterite present or lexical verbs, the infinitive structure was different. Is it the same in ME? Let us recall that OE infinitives have a particular ending -an, whatever the verb. In ME, we still find this ending -en, but a great number of infinitives are now bare for the morphological mark has disappeared. But this morphological loss(note: ➳) is also responsible for the grammaticalisation of preterite presents, among other things.

Concerning lexical verbs, we can note different types of structures:

1. The finite verb is followed by an inflected infinitive with TO,

   (297)

   that	alle	schrewes	ne	ben	worthy	to	han	torment?
   that	all	tyrants-SUJET	NEG	are-PRES	worthy	TO	have	torment-OBJET?

   that all tyrants are unworthy to be tormented? (CMBOETH,448. C2.421)

2. The finite verb is followed by an infinitive introduced by FORTO,

   (298)

   ...

   he

   shall

   cumenn

   efft

   To

   demenn

   alle

   þede-OBJET,

   &

   forr

   to

   ʒeldenn

   iwhillc

   mann

   Affterr

   hiss

   aʒhenn

   dede.

   ...

   he-SUJET

   shall

   come

   often

   TO

   judge

   all-OBJET

   country-OBJET,

   &

   FOR

   TO

   give back

   each-OBJET

   man-OBJET

   after

   his

   own

   death.

   ... he shall often come to judge all the country and give each man back after his death. (CMORM,DED.L171.39)

   (299)

   Prudence,	his	wyf,	(...)	bisoghte	hym	of	his	wepyng	for	to	stynte.
   Prudence,	his	wife,	(...)	implored-PRET	him-OBJET	of	his	tears	FOR	TO	stop.

   His wife Prudence implored him crying to stop. (CMCTMELI,217.C1b.10)

3. the finite verb is followed by an infinitive without TO,

   (300)

   Whan

   Prudence

   hadde

   herd

   hir

   housbonde

   avanten

   hym

   of

   his

   richesse

   and

   of

   his

   moneye,

   ...

   When

   Prudence-SUJET

   had-PRET

   heard-P.PASSE

   her-SUJET

   husband-SUJET

   boast

   him-OBJET

   of

   his

   wealth

   and

   of

   his

   money,

   ...

   When Prudence had heard her husband boast about his wealth and money, ... (CMCTMELI,232.C2.601)

   (301)

   ...	Ne	munnde	he	næfre	letenn	himm	Þurrh	rodepine	cwellenn;
   ...	NEG	remembered	he-SUJET	never	let	him-SUJET	through	the torment of the cross	kill;

   ... He never remembered that he had let him be executed on the cross; (CMORM,I,68.612)

4. Finally, infinitive structures whose finite verb preceding them is let,

   (302)

   þach	he	seo	þt	heo	him	mis paiʒe	he	let	hire	ʒete	iwurden.
   although	he-SUJET	sees-PRES	that	she-SUJET	him-OBJET	dislikes	he-SUJET	lets-PRES	she-SUJET	yet	be.

   although he realizes he dislikes her, he lets her be as she is. (CMANCRIW,II.161.2223)

Let us now give examples of infinitive structures introduced by modals:

(303)

But

nathelees,

men

shal

hope

that

every

tyme

that

man

falleth,

be

it

never

so

ofte,

that

he

may

arise

thurgh

Penitence...

But

nevertheless,

men-SUJET PL

shall

hope

that

every

time

that

one-SUJET

falls-PRES,

is-PRES

it-SUJET

never

so

often,

that

he-SUJET

may

arise

through

penitence...

Nevertheless, men shall hope that whenever one falls (be it rarely), he can arise through penitence... (CMCTPARS,288.C2b.21)

(304)

First	a	man	shal	remembre	hym	of	his	synnes;
First	a	man-SUJET	shall	remember	himself	of	his	sins-PL;

A man must remember his sins; (CMCTPARS,290.C1.75)

(305)

...	whil	that	iren	is	hoot,	men	sholden	smyte...
...	while	that	iron-SUJET	is-PRES	hot,	one-SUJET	should	smite...

... one should strike while the iron is hot... (CMCTMELI,219.C1.82)

(306)

And

therfore,

er

that

any

werre

bigynne,

men

moste

have

greet

conseil

and

greet

deliberacion.

And

therefore,

before

that

any

war-SUJET

begins-PRES,

one-SUJET

must

have

great

advise

and

great

deliberation.

And therefore, before any war begins, a meeting should be held to deliberate. (CMCTMELI,219.C2.90)

(307)

Forr

whase

mot

to

læwedd

follc

Larspell

off

Goddspell

tellenn,

He

mot

wel

ekenn

maniʒ

word

Amang

Goddspelless

wordess.

For

whoever

must

to

simple

people

sermon-OBJET

of

Gospel

tell,

he-SUJET

must

well

develop

many

word-OBJET

among

Gospel

words-PL.

For, whoever must say a sermon from the gospel to the ignorant people has to explain many words from it. (CMORM,DED.L53.16)

(308)

Þa

Goddspelless

alle

þatt

icc

Her

o

þiss

boc

maʒʒ

findenn,

Hemm

alle

wile

icc

nemmnenn

her

Bi

þeʒʒre

firrste

wordess.

The

gospels-PL

all

that

I-SUJET

here

in

this

book

may

find,

them-OBJET

all

FUTUR

I-SUJET

name

here

by

their

first

words-PL.

All the gospels I can find here in this book, I will name them using their first words. (CMORM,DED.L335.65)

(309)

For	uh	an	schal	halde	þuttere...
For	each	one-SUJET	shall	hold	other...

Because each one must hold the other... (CMANCRIW,I.44.26)

(310)

&	heo	schal	habbe	leaue	to	gladien	hire	fere,	...
&	she	shall	have	love	TO	rejoice	her	power,	...

& she shall have (enough) love to rejoice her power, ... (CMANCRIW,II.57.552)

(311)

and	ye	shal	fynde	refresshynge	for	youre	soules.
and	you-SUJET	shall	find	refreshment-OBJET	for	your	souls-PL.

and you shall find refreshment for your souls. (CMCTPARS,288.C1b.10)

The common change to all these verbs is that the infinitive can take en or be bare.

With AGEN, the infinitive structure is identical to that of lexical verbs for it is also introduced by TO, which reflects the grammaticalisation of this verb (note: ➳), and the parallel that can be drawn with the grammaticalisation of TO.

These different examples (modals and lexical verbs) are interesting from a morphological point of view since we have a “competition” between the two structures:

1. on the one hand, modal + INFINITIVE-en and verb + TO+ INFINITIVE-en, and

2. on the other hand, modal + INFINITIVE-∅ and verb + TO + INFINITIF-∅.

In Section 2.5.1, we analyzed the difference between the infinitive structure of modals and lexical verbs:

- [v_Modal Preterite present [_vP subject Infinitive]] and,

- [_VP V_Lexical[_CP [_C ∅ [_TP PRO [_T (TO) [_VP Infinitive]]]]]] ou [_VP V_Causative [_TP (TO) Infinitive]].

So, do these structure change when the infinitives become bare, i.e. uninflected? In other words, does this morphological loss have an influence on syntax, and more accurately on the preterite presents and TO?

In (62) ((62)): 112-9, the authors claim that the loss of the subjunctive and the inflection of infinitives plays an important role in the grammaticalisation of TO (the modal content of the subjunctive ending being transferred to TO), by supposing that mood features are now realized in a higher position, and not by the ending anymore. So, they consider the verbal forms of infinitive constructions introduced by TO as “subjunctives”: they are morphologically identical and, according to the authors, the increase of this kind of structure in ME is due to the decrease of subjunctive clauses displaying a marked morphology. Even if we do not follow their analysis of the TO particle, the morphological loss of the -en ending of infinitives and the -e/-en endings of the subjunctive is part of the grammaticalisation of some items such as the preterite presents or TO. As seen previously, the preterite presents and TO particle behave syntactically the same in relation to the ellipsis of the non finite verb. We can find this fact in ME.

(312)

and

gief

he

hadde

werred

wið

god

alse

þe

deuel

him

to

∅

eggede...

and

if

he-SUJET

had-PRET

fought-P.PASSE

with

god

also

the

devil-SUJET

him-OBJET

TO

∅

approached-P.PASSE

...

and if he had fought God, and that he had been appraoched by the devil ... (CMTRINIT,195.2699)

(313)

to	speke	that	thou	woldist	not	∅...
TO	speak	that	you-SUJET	would	NOT	∅...

say what you would not ... (CMAELR4,3.64)

3.5.1. Causative structures

Compared to what we have found in OE, causative verbs in ME do not have the same structure: they now have a VP complement like preterite presents and not a TP complement anymore. It would imply that these verbs do have a different syntactic position. In OE, we showed these verbs were lexical Vs; in ME, we assume they are semi-lexical verbs for their structure is identical to the CE one, that is operator verbs, and that they are vs. We voice the hypothesis they are now base-generated under v. The grammaticalisation of causative verbs would justify the grammaticalisation of deontic modals:

(314)

(314.a)

causative verb: lexical (V) ⟶ semi-lexical (v),

(314.b)

deontic modal: semi-lexical (v_Modal) ⟶ grammatical (v_Modal: the position grammaticalised; in DM, v_Modal and T fuses.

Let us give some examples.

(315)

þu	habbe	heo	idon	mid	þe	licome...
you-SUJET	have-PRES	them-OBJET	do	with	the	flesh...

you have them do with flesh... (CMLAMBX1,21.242)

(316)

uor	uirtue	makeþ	wynne	heuene,	and	onworþi	þe	wordle...
or	virtue-SUJET	makes-PRES	win	heaven,	and	be worth	the	world...

or virtue makes us grant paradise and deserve the world... (CMAYENBI,84.

1630)

(317)

(they	sholden)	at	the	last	maken	hem	lesen	hire	lordshipes...
(they	should)	at	the	last	make	them-SUJET	lose	their	powers-PL...

at last, they should make them lose their powers... (CMCTMELI,231.C1.532)

Syntactically, it implies that they do not have the same position: they change from lexical to semi-lexical verb, whereas modals change from semi-lexical to grammatical verb, as shown in Example (314) (for deontic modals).

Thanks to these different examples (except the ones illustrating the causative verbs “have” and “make”), we have shown that modals and TO syntactically behave the same way with respect to the ellipsis of the non finite verb. Then, there exists a parallel between the evolution of the preterite presents and the evolution of TO. This is why Roberts and Roussou´s idea is attractive, and we can apply it to the preterite present verbs: with the loss of the infinitive and subjunctive endings, these verbs can undergo a grammatical change. They grammaticalise, and this can be seen through a great number of forms of should and would which belong to the irrealis sphere, i.e. conditional (note: ➳). But we shall deal with this later on in our work.

3.6. Modality

3.6.1. Epistemicity and deonticity

Contrary to OE, epistemic and deontic readings are easier to notice in ME because of the morphological impoverishment and semantic shifts of the preterite present verbs which trigger their grammaticalisation. The notions charaterizing them (possibility, necessity and obligation) are clearer. Moreover, some verbs like SCULEN and WILLEN are more and more used to express the future (which was already the case in OE but to a lesser extent), and the conditional.

Let us take some examples of deontic modals,

(318)

ʒho	þa	shollde	ben	þurrh	Godd	Off	Haliʒ	Gast	wiþþ	childe.
you-SUJET	then	CONDITIONAL	be	through	God	of	Holy	Spirit	with	child.

you should bear a child from the Holy Spirit. (CMORM,I,67.609)

(319)

ʒe	ne	schulen,	ic	segge,	makie	na	ma	uuz	of	feste	biheastes.
you-SUJET	NEG	FUTURE,	I-SUJET	say-PRES,	make	no	more	use-OBJET	of	feast	promises-PL.

I say that you will not use the promises of feast anymore. (CMANCRIW,I.46.53)

(320)

...	yet	thar	ye	nat	accomplice	thilke	ordinaunce	but	yow	like.
...	yet	need	you-SUJET	NOT	accomplice	this	decree	unless	you-OBJET	like-PRES.

... yet, you do not need to enforce this decree, unless you want it. (CMCTMELI,220.C2.127)

then epistemic modals,

(321)

Acc	þu	shallt	findenn	þatt	min	word,	...
But	you-SUJET	FUTUR	find	that	my	word-SUJET,	...

But you shall find that my word, ... (CMORM,DED.L23.14)

[here the reading of SHALL is epistemic: I know that you will realize that...]

(322)

...

michte

for

te

serui

þe,

wisdom

for

to

queme

þe,

luue

ant

wil

to

don

hit;

mihte,

þet

ich

maʒe

don,

wisdom,

þet

ich

cunne

don,

luue,

þet

ich

wulle

don

al

þet

þe

is

leouest.

...

might

FOR

TO

serve

you-OBJET,

wisdom

FOR

TO

satisfy

you-OBJET,

love

and

will

TO

do

it-OBJET;

power,

that

I-SUJET

can

do,

wisdom,

that

I-SUJET

can

do,

love,

that

I-SUJET

will

do

all-OBJET

that

this-OBJET

is-PRES

beloved.

... the might to serve you, the wisdom to satisfy you and the love and will to do it; the power I can use, the wisdom I can have, and love (which is everything) I want to give. (CMANCRIW,I.62.200)

(323)

The

yeer

of

oure

Lord

1391,

the

12

day

of

March

at

midday,

I

wolde

knowe

the

degre

of

the

sonne.

The

year

of

our

Lord

1391,

the

12

day

of

March

at

midday,

I-SUJET

CONDITIONAL

know

the

degree

of

the

sun.

In the year 1391 of our Lord, the twelfth day of March at midday, I woudl know the degree of the sun. (CMASTRO,669.C1.189)

(324)

I	wolde	seye,	that	he	wolde	geten	hym	sovereyn	blisfulnesse;
I-SUJET	CONDITIONNEL	say,	that	he-SUJET	CONDITIONNEL	obtain	him-OBJET	soverein	blissfulness-OBJET;

I would say that he would gain a soverein blissfulness; (CMBOETH,430.C1.82)

These examples allow us to show two things: 1) the process of grammaticalisation is set once and for all and 2) it is illustrated by the morphology of the modals which is to influence their meaning, that is past morphology but irrealis meaning (= conditional) (note: ➳).

Indeed, if we recall Structure (295) with the paradigm canst, we considered <cαn> to be its root which was in its turn not considered strictly speaking as a verb. From a semantic point of view, it does not imply the absence of meaning, since it means “know, be able”. But if we consider the root <cαn> as a V^-1, we could be led to think it has less meaning than V but not that it has no meaning at all. Nevertheless, by becoming a V, and then a time element after grammaticalisation, the meaning is to stabilize (see (64) ((64)) for the change between OE an ME).

We shall add some more examples of epistemic modals also taken from (19) ((19)): 298-303. Examples (325) to (330) display a visible subject, Examples (331) to (339) do not.

(325)

sone hit mæi ilimpen.

Soon it may happen. (a1225(?a1200) Lay.Brut 2250)

(326)

And if þou wynus it mai not be Behald þe sune, and þou mai se.

And if you think it may not be behold the sun and you may see. (a1400(a1325) Cursor 289)

(327)

Vr	neghburs	mai	þam	on	vs	wreke.
Our	neighbours	may	themselves	on	us	avenge.

Our neighbours may avenge themselves on us. (a1400(a1325) Cursor 11963)

(328)

Sen þou ert both ong and fayre, þou mai haue childer to be þine aire.

since you are both young and fair you may have children to be your heir(s). (a1425(?a1350) 7 Sages(2) 2843)

(329)

þough þe fflame of the ffyre of love may not breke out so þat it may be seyn, ... (1472 Stonor 123 I 126.36)

(330)

Þe

enbatelynge

aboute...

mai

well

be

her

feyned

holynesse

wherbi

þei

colouren

al

ere

euele.

The

battlements

around...

may

well

be

their

feigned

holiness

by means of which

they

disguise

all

their

evil.

the battlements around ... may well be their feigned holiness by which they disguise all their evil. (?c1425(?c1400) Loll.Serm. 1.168)

(331)

grisen	him	mahte	þet	sehe	hu...
feel horror	him-OBL	might	that	saw	how...

He who saw how ... might feel horror. (c1225(?c1200) St.Juliana(Bod) 51.551)

(332)

ne	schal	him	þurste	neuere.
NEG	shall	him-OBL	thirst	never.

it shall never appease his thirst. (a1300 Þo ihu crist 85.24)

(333)

Vs	shal	euer	smerte.
us-OBL	shall	always	feel pain.

we shall always feel pain. (a1300 Sayings St.Bede(Jes-O) 83.336)

(334)

hym	shall	not	gayne.
him	shall	NOT	gain.

it will do him no good. (a1500(?a1300) Bevis(Cmb) p.83, textual note to 1583-1596)

(335)

Ne	þurhte	þe	neuer	rewe,	myhtestu	do	þe	in	his	ylde.
NEG	needed	you-OBL	never	rue,	might you	put	tourself	in	his	protection.

You would never need regret putting yourself in his protection. (a1300 A Mayde Cristes(Jes-O) 96)

(336)

Mai

fall

sum

gast

awai

him

ledd,

And

es

vnto

þe

felles

fledd.

may

fall

some

spirit

away

him

led,

and

is

into

the

hills

fled.

Maybe some spirit led him away and he(?) has fled into the hills. (a1400(a1325) Cursor 17553)

(337)

Hym	thar	not	nede	to	turnen	ofte.
him-OBL	need	NEG	necessarily	TO	turn	often.

He need not necessarily turn often. (c1450(1369) Chaucer BD 256)

(338)

Him	may	fulofte	mysbefalle.
him-OBL	may	very often	suffer misfortune.

he may very often suffer misfortune. ((a1393) Gower CA 1.457)

(339)

Hym	wolde	thynke	it	were	a	disparage	To	his	estate.
him-OBL	would	seem	it	was	a	disgrace	to	his	estate.

It would seem to him a disgrace to his estate. ((c1395) Chaucer CT.C1. IV.908)

These examples underline the fact that epistemic readings increase at the ME period.

These examples also stress out the setting of the grammaticalisation of modals. This process has a very strong influence on syntax: as we have already said, the syntactic positions which are higher than T are grammaticalised, unlike the positions above T. Modals are still generated under v_Modal but before Vocabulary Insertion, v_Modal fuses with T. In the previous chapter, we underlined that Mood was “grammaticalised”; but, during the ME period v_Modal is to grammaticalise as well: deontic modals are grammatical items. And both epistemic and deontic modals are raising verbs.

3.6.2. Modality and syntax

Let us recall the structure of epistemic and deontic modals:

(340)

(340.a)

In Section 3.6.1, we stressed the existence of four functional heads Mod (according to Cinque: Mod_Necessity, Mod_Possibility, Mod_Volition and Mod_Obligation. So there seems to exist functional heads for modals in ME whether they are epistemic or deontic. However, we shall not adopt Cinque´s multiplicity of functional heads, but two modal functional heads Mood and v_Modal. Both have the following features: [±deont], [±past], [±realis], but v_Modal will have a [+deont] feature and Mood a [-deont] one. The [±past] feature depends on the nature of the infinitive clause, that is whether it is a present or a past infinitive; the [±realis] is context-dependent. For each form, let us give a table where the italicized vowel represents the root and the bold morpheme the verbal (dental) inflection.

(341)

Infinitive	[-past] [±irrealis]	[+past] [±irrealis]
MOTEN	mot	moste
OWEN	owe	ahte
WILLEN	wil	wolde
CUNNEN	can	cuþe
DURREN	dar	dorste
MOWEN	mai	mighte
SCULEN	shal	sholde
ÐURFEN	þarf	þorfte
UNNEN	an	uþe
WITEN	wot	wiste

Let us take CUNNEN: with the form can, we know we have chosen a [-past] form (because of the root vowel <a>); with the form cuþe, we know we have a past form thanks to the root vowel <u> and the dental suffix <þe> indicating the [+past] tense. Both forms can be [±realis].

3.6.3. Modal functional heads and infinitive structures

In the previous chapter, we defined two functional heads corresponding to each reading – epistemic or deontic – that could be made of the preterite present verbs.

According to the ME examples we have just analyzed in Section 3.6.2, the head v_Modal governs deontic modals and the Mood epistemic ones. As far as negation is concerned, we still find ne which no longer merges onto modals, and we more and more find not.

(342)

&	þach	þurch	me	ne	schulde	hit	neauer	beon	iupped.
&	then	because	me	NEG	should	it-SUJET	never	be	open-P.PASSE.

and then, becuase of me, it should never be opened. (CMANCRIW,II.70.795)

(343)

Certes,

quod

she,

the

wordes

of

the

phisiciens

ne

sholde

nat

han

been

understonden

in

thys

wise.

Certainly,

said-PRET

she-SUJET,

the

words-SUJET PL

of

the

physicians-PL

NEG

should

NOT

have

been-P.PASSE

understood-P.PASSE

in

this

way.

Certainly, she said, the words of the physicians do not have to be understood this way. (CMCTMELI,226.C2.360)

(344)

And

therfore

seith

Salomon,

“The

wratthe

of

God

ne

wol

nat

spare

no

wight-OBJET...”

And

therefore

said-PRES

Salomon-SUJET,

“The

wrath

of

God-SUJET

NEG

will

NOT

spare

no

creature...”

And Salomon then said: “The wrath od God will not spare any creature...” (CMCTPARS,291.C1.119)

(345)

ne	a	more	worthy	thing	than	God	mai	not	ben	concluded.
nor	a	more	worthy	thing-SUJET	than	God	may	NOT	be	concluded-P.PASSE

A more worthy thing than God cannot be concluded. (CMBOETH,433.C1.178)

(346)

The

serpent

seyde

to

the

womman,

“Nay,

nay,

ye

shul

nat

dyen

of

deeth.”

The

serpent-SUJET

said-PRET

to

the

woman,

“No,

no,

you-SUJET

shall

NOT

die

of

death.”

The serpent said to the woman: “No, no, you shall not die.” (CMCTPARS,296.C2b.

362)

We are then confronted with two types of examples: examples where the main negation of the sentence is the negative adverbial particle ne, either used alone or conjointly with another negative element like not. In this case, ne is the head of Neg₁P and not belongs to a second negative projection Neg₂P which is lower in the structure (Neg₁P-T-Neg₂P) and where the head Neg is not realized but controlled by ne: negative concord then applies. Other examples display the structure where the main negation is not (note: ➳) which remains base-generated under Spec,Neg₂P. As for Neg, it is not realized and controlled by ne anymore since it has disappeared. The grammaticalisation of modals and predominancy of not over ne then seem to be linked: in terms of Distributed Morphology, the head Neg₂ is adjacent to T which merges with v_Modal. As a consequence, the linearization of the inserted lexical items is [T - NOT - v_Modal]; and yet, within the ME corpus, the main negation not does not precede the finite verb, whatever the type of verb.

It implies an impoverishment of some sort: with the disappearence of the functional node Neg₁, there is the delinking of the second functional node; as it is positioned in between T and V, V can no longer be c-commanded by the T morpheme since there is no more adjacency of V and T: Fusion cannot be done, hence the disappearance of V2 sentences with lexical verbs.

During the ME period, we have underlined that two functional heads for modals coexist. Examples from the corpus have allowed us to note the [+neg] feature to be weaker since the cliticization of ne could also happen on lexical verbs (and not only modal verbs): we have found examples in all texts (except in Chaucer) and cliticization always happens when the verb begins by a vowel. This feature is also less strong because not tends to replace the negative adverbial particle ne which immediately preceded the finite verb (we refer the reader to Section 3.7).

(347)

ne	Preche	ʒe	to	nan	mon	ne	naske	ʒe	of	counseil.
NEG	preach-IMP	you-SUJET	to	no	man	nor	NEG+ask-IMP	you-SUJET	of	advice.

do not preach to any man nor ask for advice. (CMANCRIW,II.58.569)

(348)

...	Þatt	tu	ʒet	nunnderrstanndesst	nohht,	Forr	þatt	tu	narrt	nohht	fullhtnedd,
...	that	you-SUJET	yet	NEG+understand-PRES	NOT,	for	that	you-SUJET	NEG+is-PRES	NOT	encouraged-P.PASSE...

... the one that you do not understand yet because you are not encouraged... (CMORM,II, 241.2494)

Let us take some examples of epistemic and deontic modals again and analyze them.

Examples (349) and (350) are epistemic, Examples (351) and (352) are deontic.

(349)

And

if

þou

wynus

it

mai

not

be

Behald

þe

sune,

and

þou

mai

se.

et

si

tu

penses

cela

peut

NOT

être

Regarde

le

soleil,

et

tu

pourras

voir.

And if you think it may not be behold the sun, and you may see. (a1400(a1325) Cursor 289)

(350)

Vr	neghburs	mai	þam	on	vs	wreke.
Our	neighbours	may	themselves	on	us	avenge.

Our neighbours may avenge themselves on us. (a1400(a1325) Cursor 11963)

(351)

Acc

þu

shallt

findenn

þatt

min

word,

Eʒʒwhær

þær

itt

iss

ekedd,

...

But

you-SUJET

shall

find

that

my

word-SUJET,

everywhere

there

it-SUJET

is-PRES

developed-P.PASSE,

...

But you shall find that my word, wherever it is developed, ... (CMORM, DED.L23.14)

(352)

And

for

he

shal

be

verray

penitent,

he

shal

first

biwaylen

The

synnes

that

he

hath

doon...

And

for

he-SUJET

shall

be

very

penitent-OBJET,

he-SUJET

shall

first

wash

the

sins-OBJET PL

that

he-SUJET

has-PRES

done...

And because he must be penitent, he shall wash his sins away... (CMCTPARS,288.C2b.17)

Let us first focus on the structure of infinitive clauses when the modal is epistemic with Example (349):

(353)

The semantic subject of be raises to Spec,TP to become the grammatical subject of mei, which has an epistemic reading. The modal is base-generated under T and satisfies its [-deont] feature with Mood within the domain of CP. On a semantic ground, this does not question the subject-predicate relation, it only questions the truth/falsehood of this relation.

Before giving the structure of deontic modals again, let us give some more examples which will help us to demonstrate that they are indeed raising verbs. In these examples, the object between square brackets.

(354)

and	yf	they	knewen	that	thei	shuld	[no	thinge]	resceyue...
and	if	they-SUJET	knew-PRET	that	they-SUJET	should	no	thing-OBJET	receive...

and they knew they should not receive anythinge... (CMAELR4,3.49)

(355)

for	eauer	me	schal	[þe cheorl]	polkin	&	pilien.
fro	ever	one-SUJET	shall	the slave-OBJET	rob	&	plunder.

because the slave shall always be robbed and plundered. (CMANCRIW,II.69.773)

(356)

Þis

zenne

him

to-delþ

and

spret

ine

zuo

uele

deles

þet

onneaþe,

me

may

[hise]

telle.

This

sin-SUJET

him-OBJET

distributes-PRES

and

spreads-PRES

in

so

well

parts-PL

that

with difficulty,

one-SUJET

may

theirs-OBJET

tell.

This sin distributes and spreads him so that it is difficult to recognize theirs. (CMAYENBI,17.251)

(357)

ʒif

þei

wolde

not

be

chastised,

þei

schulde

[his

loue]

lese

for

euermore.

if

they

would

NOT

be

chatised-P.PASSE,

they-SUJET

they

should

his

love

lost

for

ever more.

if they had not been chastised, they should not have lost his love for ever. (CMBRUT3,3.40)

(358)

for	they	ne	kan	[no	conseil]	hyde.
for	they-SUJET	NEG	can	no	secret-OBJET	hide.

because they cannot hide any secret. (CMCTMELI,224.C1.281)

(359)

...	þat	he	loueþ	or	scholde	[him]	seruen.
...	that	he-SUJET	loves	or	should	him	serve.

... that he loves or should serve him (CMEDVERN,248.363)

(360)

þt	me	schulde	[katerine]	bringe	biuoren	him.
that	one-SUJET	should	Catherine-OBJET	bring	before	him.

that Catherine should be brought before him. (CMKATHE,35.260)

These examples show that all these objects are semantically bound to the finite verbs, which proves that deontic modals are raising verbs like epistemic ones.

3.6.4. Consequences on the functional heads T and Mood

We do not really know whether the grammaticalisation of modal verbs and TO) took place before or after the loss of verbal morphology in ME, or whether this loss triggers the grammaticalisation of modals and TO. Yet, let us recall that CE still has the subjunctive mood, even if it has become rarer. Moreover, we have underlined that the loss of the -en morpheme both for infinitives and subjunctives has triggered the grammaticalisation of the particle TO (and preterite present verbs) which could play the role of modal head, that is “mood”, for the subjunctive, according to (62) ((62))´s analysis. So, some modals like SCULEN and WILLEN can have a past form but a conditional value, placing them within the irrealis sphere (note: ➳). Then, if a dissociation exists between morphological tense and syntactic tense, there is grammaticalisation of these very forms, where the morphological form becomes a modal form. Let us check if these examples confirm this statement.

(361)

“Though

I

wiste

that

neither

God

ne

man

ne

sholde

nevere

knowe

it,

yet

wolde

I

have

desdayn

for

to

do

synne.”

“Though

I-SUJET

know-PRES

that

neither

God

nor

man

NEG

should

never

know

it-OBJET,

yet

would

I-SUJET

have

disdain-OBJET

FOR

TO

do

sin-OBJET.”

“Although I know that neither God nor man should ever know it, Bien que je sache que ni Dieu ni l´homme ne devra jamais le savoir, however, I would never despise to sin.” (CMCTPARS,290.C2.94)

[“Although” takes roots in the irrealis, so sholde and wolde both belong to the irrealis sphere, their morphological forms are no longer a past one.]

(362)

And

for

as

muche

as

a

man

may

acquiten

hymself

biforn

God

by

penitence

in

this

world,

and

nat

by

tresor,

therfore

sholde

he

preye

to

God

to

yeve

hym

respit

a

while

to

biwepe

and

biwaillen

his

trespas.

And

for

as

much

as

a-SUJET

man-SUJET

may

fulfill

himself-OBJET

before

God

by

penitence

in

this

world,

and

NEG

by

treasure,

therefore

should

he-SUJET

pray

to

God

TO

give

him-OBJET

respite-OBJET

a

while

TO

regret

and

wail

his

death-OBJET.

And for as much as a man may fulfill before God through penitence, not treasure, he should therefore pray him to give him a moment of respite te regret and cry over his death. (CMCTPARS,291.C2.132)

[same thing as the preceding example, “for as much as” fixes the utterance into the irrealis.]

(363)

but,

certes,

he

sholde

suffren

it

in

pacience

as

wel

as

he

abideth

the

deeth

of

his

owene

propre

persone.

but,

certainly,

he-SUJET

should

suffer

it-OBJET

in

patience

as

well

as

he-SUJET

waits-PRES

the

death-OBJET

of

his

own

propre

person.

but it is certain that he should have to suffer it patiently, as he awaits his own death. (CMCTMELI,217.C1b.20)

[the time of the utterance is the present, but sholde does not have a past value; it has a prospective value, as the death to come, it is a “future” tense.]

(364)

The

yeer

of

oure

Lord

1391,

the

12

day

of

March

at

midday,

I

wolde

knowe

the

degre

of

the

sonne.

The

year

of

our

Lord

1391,

the

12

day

of

March

at

midday,

I-SUJET

would

know

the

degree-OBJET

of

the

sun.

In the year 1391 of our Lord, the twelfth day of March at midday, I woudl know the degree of the sun. (CMASTRO,669.C1.189)

[wolde has a conditional meaning (which implies here: if all the conditions are fulfilled, that very day, I will know it).]

(365)

Þu

þohhtesst

tatt

itt

mihhte

wel

Till

mikell

frame

turrnenn,

ʒiff

Ennglissh

follc,

forr

lufe

off

Crist,

Itt

wollde

ʒerne

lernenn

&

follʒhenn

itt...

You-SUJET

thought-PRET

that

it-SUJET

might

well

till

great

from

translate,

if

English

people-SUJET,

for

love

of

Christ,

it-OBJET

would

willingly

learn

&

follow

it-OBJET...

You thought that it could be wholly translated if the English people had willingly learnt and followed it fro the love of Christ... (CMORM,DED.1.5)

[for this example, the form mihhte belongs to the past, but we can question wollde, because it is introduced by “if” which expresses a condition.]

(366)

...

Forr

þatt

he

wollde

uss

waterrkinn

Till

ure

fulluhht

hallʒhenn,

Þurrh

þatt

he

wollde

ben

himm

sellf

Onn

erþe

i

waterr

fullhtnedd.

...

For

that

he-SUJET

would

us-OBJET

water-follower

till

our

baptism

consacrate,

because

that

he-SUJET

would

be

him-OBJET

self

on

earth

in

water

baptised-P.PASSE.

... so that he would consacrate us at our christening because he would himself be christened on earth and in water. (CMORM,DED.L171.44)

[in this example, “for” roots the utterance in the irrealis sphere, the two of forms of wollde are only morphological past forms.]

(367)

...

hit

walde

to

swiðe

hurten

ower

heorte

ant

maken

ou

swa

offered

þet

ʒe

muhten

sone,

as

God

forbeode,

fallen

i

desesperance,

...

...

it-SUJET

would

too

much

hurt

your

heart-OBJET

and

make

you-SUJET

so

offered-P.PASSE

that

you-SUJET

might

soon,

as

God-SUJET

forbidden-PRET,

fall

in

despair,

...

... it would hurt your heart too much and expose yourself, as a consequence you might become desesperate... (CMANCRIW,I.46.65)

[the forms walde and muhten both belong to the irrealis.]

(368)

“hwerof

chalengest

þu

me,

þe

appel

þt

ich

loki

on

is

for bode

me

to

eoten,

naut

to

bi halden”,

þus

walde

eve

inoche

raðe

habben

i onswered.

“whereof

defies-PRES

you-SUJET

me-OBJET,

the

apple-SUJET

that

I-SUJET

look-PRES

on

is-PRES

forbidden-P.PASSE

me-OBJET

TO

eat,

NOT

TO

contemplate”,

thus

would

Eve-SUJET

enough

quick

have

answered-P.PASSE.

“What are you challenging me of, the apple I am looking at, I am forbidden to eat it but no to look at it”, it is how Eve would have quickly liked to answer. (CMANCRIW,II.44.405)

[walde has a conditional meaning according to the context; moreover, it is the complex structure MD + HAVE + V + EN, where walde functions as a modal, but the tense of the sentence is expressed through HAVE + EN, as in contemporary English.]

(369)

forþi

wes

ihaten

on

godes

laʒe

þt

put

were

iwriʒen

eauer.

&

ʒef

ani

were

vnwriʒen

&

beast

feolle

þer

in

he

hit

schulde

ʒelden.

because

was-PRET

called-P.PASSE

on

god´s

law

that

holes-SUJET

were-PRET

hidden-P.PASSE

ever

&

if

any

was-PRET

no hidden-P.PASSE

&

beast-SUJET

fell-PRET

therein

he-SUJET

it-OBJET

should

give back.

because God´s law said that the holes were still hidden, and if none of them were found and a beast fell in one of them, it had to be given back. (CMANCRIW,II.47.440)

[here again, “if” roots the utterance displaying schulde in the irrealis sphere, giving a conditional meaning to it.]

According to the texts, the two structures for modal verbs coexist whereas the morphological marks for the subjunctive do not appear anymore, since they merge with the morphological marks for the present. Then the context will help us know if we are dealing with Mood [+irrealis] or not.

Like in OE, ME has two tenses: present ([-past]) and past ([+past]). Once again, morphology will tell us the tense of the finite verb. But unlike OE, morphology is less marked since we can only find the 2^nd person singular and plural inflections (present and past) and sometimes the plural inflection. There is no vowel alternation anymore for modal verbs between the infinitive and the present form, the only vowel alternation remaining is between the present and past form. Yet, as Examples (361) to (369) have shown, a past form does not necessarily have a past value.

The following examples illustrate the present forms of (shall, mei and moot) and the past forms of (walde/wollde, mihhte, cuþe/koude, shollde and must).

(370)

For

uh

an

schal

halde

þuttere

efter

þet

heo

best

mei

wið

hire

seruin

þeo

inre.

For

each

one-SUJET

shall

support

the whole

to get

that

they

best

may

with

their

accomplish

this

inside.

Because each of them must support the others so that they can inwardly accomplish this. (CMANCRIW,I.44.26)

(371)

“Thanne

moot

it

nedis

be

that

verray

blisfulnesse

is

set

in

sovereyn

God.”

“Then

must

it-SUJET

necessarily

be

that

very

blissfulness-SUJET

is-PRES

set-P.PASSIF

in

sovereign

God.”

“The the real blissfulness must necessarily set into the sovereign God.” (CMBOETH,432.C1.148)

(372)

he	cuþe	ben	Himm	ane	bi	himm	sellfenn.
he-SUJET	could	be	him-OBJET	one	by	him	self.

he could finally be on his own. (CMORM,I,26.314)

(373)

By

thise

resons

that

I

have

seid

unto

yow,

and

by

manye

othere

resons

that

I

koude

seye,

I

graunte

yow

that

richesses

been

goode

to

hem...

By

these

reasons-PL

that

I-SUJET

have-PRES

said-P.PASSE

unto

you,

and

by

many

other

reasons-PL

that

I-SUJET

could

say,

I-SUJET

promise-PRES

you-OBJET

that

riches-PL

are-PRES

good

to

them...

For all the reasons I said to you, and for many more that I could add, I promise you that the riches are good for them... (CMCTMELI,233.C1.623)

These examples allow us to notice two things: first, there is a morphological standardization of past forms of SHALL, WILL and CAN; secondly, MUST still has two morphological forms, but only the past one will remain in CE (with a present meaning). So, we have the following syntactic structures for the second person of the present and past:

(374)

(374.a)

(374.b)

If we compare the verbal forms of structures (374) and (374.b), we can notice that there is a vowel alternation between the present and past forms of OWEN, CUNNEN, ÐURVEN, SCULEN and WILLEN. But it is no longer the case for MOTEN et MOWE. Their only other morphological mark is the present and past plural endings, which is identical for all the persons: -en, but this ending is not always identified. Moreover, this mark, as well as the infinitive and subjunctive ones are also identical, as a consequence, they disappear. But, still, we can question whether a past morphological form is a past tense. When we deal with the perfective aspect, we shall see that we can partly answer this question. However, the choice between past and conditional will always be context-dependent.

Now, what about the functional head Mood which has been introduced in the last chapter?

As we have mentioned it, the indicative and subjunctive morphological endings become identical, and for the preterite presents, we have three types of verbs: preterite presents whose ending is identical for both present indicative and subjunctive, preterite presents which do not have a subjunctive form and verbs whose present indicative and subjunctive are different. In all these cases, past subjunctive does no longer exist (see Appendix A for more details). In the following table, the root vowel is italicized and the ending in bold.

(375)

	Verbe	-irréel sg-pl	+irréel sg-pl
Formes identiques	OWEN	owe/ owe(n)	owe/(owen)
	DURREN	dar/–	dar/–
	MOTEN	mote/mote(n)	mote/moten
Pas de subjonctif	DUGEN	dowe/dowen	–
Formes différentes	UNNEN	an/–	unnen/–
	CUNNEN	can/cunnen	cunne/cunnen
	ÐURFEN	þarf/þurfon	þurve/þurven
	SCULEN	shal/shulen	shule/shulen
	MOWE	mei/mugen	mowe/mowen
	WILLEN	wil/wilen	wille/willen

This table highlights two things: in ME, a functional head Mood exists, which is only realized in the singular by now (for verbs having distinct forms). For the other verbs, it will depend on the context to know whether it is an indicative or a subjunctive form. But, above all, it means that as the subjunctive mood disappears morphologically, the position Mood is left empty for epistemis modals. Let us take some examples.

(376)

...

mihte,

þet

ich

maʒe

don,

wisdom,

þet

ich

cunne

don,

luue,

þet

ich

wulle

don

al

þet

þe

is

leouest.

...

might

FOR

TO

serve

you-OBJET,

wisdom

FOR

TO

satisfy

you-OBJET,

love

and

will

TO

do

it-OBJET;

power,

that

I-SUJET

can

do,

wisdom,

that

I-SUJET

can

do,

love,

that

I-SUJET

will

do

all-OBJET

that

this-OBJET

is-PRES

beloved.

... the might to serve you, the wisdom to satisfy you and the love and will to do it; the power I can use, the wisdom I can have, and love (which is everything) I want to give. (CMANCRIW,I.62.200)

(377)

...

Butt

iff

itt

shule

tacnenn,

Whatt

weorrc

himm

is

þurrh

Drihhtin

sett

To

forþenn

her

onn

eorþe.

...

But

if

it-SUJET

shall

mean,

what

work

him-OBJET

is-PRES

through

Lord

set-P.PASSE

TO

accomplish

here

on

earth.

except that he has to say what work is set by God so that he can accomplish iti on earth. (CMORM,I,61.559)

(378)

ant	alle	aʒen	hire	in	an	eauer	to	halden.
and	all-SUJET	ought	them-OBJET	in	an	ever	TO	hold.

and that all should always hold it. (CMANCRIW,I.44.34)

(379)

ne

ne

þurue

naut,

ne

ne

ahʒe

naut

halden

on

ane

wise

þe

vtterre

riwle...

nor

NEG

need

NOT,

nor

NEG

ought

NOT

hold

in

one

way

the

whole

rule-OBJET...

neither need it nor should it hold the whole rule in any way... (CMANCRIW,I.44.36)

(380)

but

that

schal

he

nat

fynde

in

tho

thynges

that

I

have

schewed

that

ne

mowen

nat

yeven

that

thei

byheeten?

but

that-OBJET

shall

he-SUJET

NOT

find

in

the

things-PL

that

I-SUJET

have-PRES

showed-P.PASSE

that

NEG

might

NOT

give

that

they

promise?

but does he have to find that in the things I have showed him that he cannot give what they are promising? (CMBOETH,430.C1.83)

(381)

that

right

as

maladies

been

cured

by

hir

contraries,

right

so

shul

men

warisshe

werre

by

vengeaunce.

that

right

as

illnesses-SUJET PL

was-PRET

healed-P.PASSE

by

their

opposites-PL,

right

so

should

one

cure

war

by

vengeance.

as all illnesses are cured by their opposites, one should likewise cure war by vengeance. (CMCTMELI,218.C2.62)

Example (376) illustrates the [-irrealis] mood, as for Examples (377) to (381), they illustrate the [+rrealis] mood. Let us now give the structures of (376) (now numbered (382)) and (381) (now numbered (383)) to exemplify our analysis.

(382)

(383)

The preceding examples underline that the [-irrealis] and [+irrealis] features of the functional head Mood are present in ME, regardless of the morphological marks. In (46) ((46)), the author underlines the fact that the “modal” past firmly sets at that period. Then, even if the subjunctive ending is lacking, the [+irrealis] feature of the Mood head exists, as Examples (361) to (369) have exemplified. And this fact still continues in CE.

3.6.4.1. The perfective aspect HAVE + EN

Let us first define aspect:

General term for verbal categories that distinguish the status of events, etc. in relation to specific periods of time, as opposed to their simple location in the present, past, or future. (...) I have read the paper means that, at the moment of speaking, the reading has been completed: it is therefore present in tense but perfect in aspect. ((44) ((44)))

By the end of the OE period, corresponding to the appearance of the epistemic preterite presents, we noticed the less common use of aspect in the corpora ((52) ((52)) and (67) ((67))) motivating then the presence of the functional head Mood for epistemic modals and aspect. However, in the very late OE period (around the XII^th c.), aspect appears again, but syntactically lower in the structure.

This fact continues on in ME, and we have found many examples of structures displaying MD + HAVE + EN (the modals are either epistemic or deontic), where the perfective aspect reflects a temporal landmark, as is the case in CE.

(384)

He	moghte	hafe	boghte	vs	agayne	on	oþer	manere.
he-SUJET	might	have	bought	us-OBJET	again	on	other	manner.

He might have bought it from us somehow or other. (CMEDTHOR,43.631)

(385)

þenne	we	mihten	more	han	loued	vre	buggere	þen	vre	makere;
then	we-SUJET	might	more	have	loved	our	buyer	than	our	maker;

then we might have loved more our buyer that oiur maker; (CMEDVERN,256.691)

(386)

sche	cowd	or	ellys	mygth	a	schewyd	as	sche	felt.
she-SUJET	could	or	else	might	have	showed	as	she-SUJET	felt-PRET.

she could, or at least might, have showed what she felt. (CMKEMPE,39.871)

(387)

he	wolde	sone	a	revenged	us.
he-SUJET	would	soon	have	revenged	us-OBJET.

he would have soon revenged us. (CMMALORY,32.1005)

(388)

for

haddest

thow

not

shewed

me

that

syght

I

shold

have

passed

my

sorow.

for

had-PRET

you-SUJET

NOT

showed

me-OBJET2

that

sight-OBJET1

I

should

have

surpassed

my

sorrow-OBJET.

because if you had not showed me this sight, I should have surpassed my sorrow. (CMMALORY,66.2249)

Here are some examples of structures for epistemic ((384)) and deontic ((388)) modals.

(389)

(390)

These two examples demonstrate that Aspect is now to be found under a specific functional head which is different from the head Mood, but we shall not go into detail for now.

3.7. Syntax and negation

During the ME period, not prevails over ne even if ne does not disappear totally in early ME. The predominance of not allows us to underline the scope of the negation when it concerns epistemic or deontic modals.

3.7.1. Negative concord and Neg criterion ?

In the last chapter, we underlined the two phenomena of negative concord (when there are two negative elements within a single sentence, they do not cancel each other out but they express a single negation) and Neg criterion (every negative head must be in a head-head relation with a negative operator within its minimal research domain). But in ME, can we still talk about these two processes? The following examples illustrate that point: as in OE, there is still negative concord when the principal negation of the sentence remains the negative adverbial particle ne; but when the principal negation becomes not, the process of negative concord tends to disappear but Neg criterion does not, since the relation with a covert negative operator takes place whenever not is the only negation of the sentence.

(391)

Ne	munnde	he	næfre	letenn	himm	Þurrh	rodepine	cwellenn;
...	NEG	remembered	he-SUJET	never	let	him-SUJET	through	the torment of the cross	kill;

... He never remembered that he had let him be executed on the cross; (CMORM,I,68.612)

(392)

...	forrþi	þatt	ʒho	Ne	maʒʒ	himm	nowwhar	findenn.
...	therefore	that	you-SUJET	NEG	may	him-OBJET	nowhere	finden.

... therefore you cannot find him anywhere. (CMORM,I,42.435)

(393)

...	þa	ne	cuðen	ha	neauer	stutten	hare	cleppen.
...	then	NEG	could	they-SUJET	never	answer	his	call-OBJET.

... they could never be able to answer his call. (CMANCRIW,II.59.589)

(394)

&	þach	þurch	me	ne	schulde	hit	neauer	beon	iupped.
&	then	because	me	NEG	should	it-SUJET	never	be	opened-P.PASSE.

an then, because of me, it should never be opened. (CMANCRIW,II.70.795)

(395)

thanne

ne

mowen

neither

of

hem

ben

parfit,

so

as

eyther

of

hem

lakketh

to

othir.

than

NEG

might

neither

of

them-SUJET

be

perfect,

so

as

either

of

them-SUJET

find fault with-PRES

to

other.

... none of them could be perfect, so that none of them would find fault with the other. (CMBOETH,432.C2.172)

(396)

and	certes,	that	ne	may	nevere	been	accompliced;
and	certainly,	that-SUJET	NEG	may	never	be	accomplished-P.PASSE;

and that certainly cannot be accomplished; (CMCTMELI,222.C1.201)

Besides the examples that can be found with the particle ne, we can also find some where ne is used conjointly with not (see the next section) or a negative element different from not (Example (395)). Both negative concord and Neg criterion apply. As for the OE period, let us illustrate this in ME with Structures (397.b) (which refers to Example (391) for early ME) and (398.b) (refering to Example (396) for late ME):

(397)

(397.a)

Ne	munnde	he	næfre	letenn	himm	Þurrh	rodepine	cwellenn;
...	NEG	remembered	he-SUJET	never	let	him-SUJET	through	the torment of the cross	kill;

... He never remembered that he had let him be executed on the cross; (CMORM,I,68.612)

(397.b)

(398)

(398.a)

and	certes,	that	ne	may	nevere	been	accompliced;
and	certainly,	that-SUJET	NEG	may	never	be	accomplished-P.PASSE;

and that certainly cannot be accomplished; (CMCTMELI,222.C1.201)

(398.b)

For both examples, the analysis is the following: the Neg criterion establishes a relation between Neg and T, then there is morphological merge between Neg and T, and finally there is an overt merge of ne with the modals after Vocabulary Insertion.

3.7.2. Coexistence of ne and not

3.7.2.1. ne and not

In ME, the coexistence of ne and not is more frequent, even if not prevails over ne. As we have just mentioned, when they coexist within a single sentence, they are to be analyzed as occurrences of negative concord and Neg criterion (as in OE). The following examples illustrate the existence of a second functional head Neg₂ which is lower in the structure than Neg₁: the latter hosts ne, Neg₂, not. Their structure is then:

(399)

(400)

&

we

ne

maʒe

naut

þolien

þt

þe-SUJET

wint

of

anword

beore-PRES

us-OBJET

towart

heouene.

&

we-SUJET

NEG

may

NOT

suffer

that

the

wind

of

calumny

takes

ustoward

heaven.

& we cannot bear the wind of calumny to take us to heaven. (CMANCRIW,II.100.1203)

(401)

ne	þarf	þu	naut	dreden	þt	attri	neddre	of	helle.
NEG	need	you-SUJET	NOT	dread	the	poison	adder-OBJET	of	hell.

you need not fear the poison of the adder of hell. (CMANCRIW,II.108.1355)

(402)

for

he

ne

kan

noght

conseille

but

after

his

owene

lust

and

his

affeccioun.

for

he-SUJET

NEG

can

NOT

advise

but

fir

his

own

lust

and

his

affection.

for he is unable to give advice but for his own pleasure and affection. (CMCTMELI,223.C2.251)

(403)

Certes,

quod

she,

the

wordes

of

the

phisiciens

ne

sholde

nat

han

been

understonden

in

thys

wise.

Certainly,

said-PRET

she-SUJET,

the

words-SUJET PL

of

the

physicians-PL

NEG

should

NOT

have

been-P.PASSE

understood-P.PASSE

in

this

way.

Certainly, she said, the words of the physicians do not have to be understood this way. (CMCTMELI,226.C2.360)

(404)

And

therfore

seith

Salomon,

“The

wratthe

of

God

ne

wol

nat

spare

no

wight...”

And

therefore

said-PRES

Salomon-SUJET,

“The

wrath

of

God-SUJET

NEG

will

NOT

spare

no

creature...”

And Salomon then said: “The wrath of God will not spare any creature...” (CMCTPARS,291.C1.119)

Let us take Example (402) and give its structure (now numbered (405.a)).

(405)

(405.a)

for

he

ne

kan

noght

conseille

but

after

his

owene

lust

and

his

affeccioun.

for

he-SUJET

NEG

can

NOT

advise

but

fir

his

own

lust

and

his

affection.

for he is unable to give advice but for his own pleasure and affection. (CMCTMELI,223.C2.251)

(405.b)

Examples (406) to (411.a) are interesting because they display the negative adverb not which is generated (in situ) higher than the negative adverbial particle ne. Still, can we claim the existence of a third functional head Neg, or is this adverb the Spec of de Neg₁,P, or is this adverb an Adv head of an AdvP adjoined above de Neg₁,P? We point out that this structure is only found in two texts from the first half of the ME period.

(406)

All

wollde

he

shædenn

fra

þatt

þing

Þatt

he

nohht

off

ne

wisste.

All

would

he-SUJET

hide

from

that

thing

that

he-SUJET

NOT

nothing

NEG

knew-PRET.

He wanted to hide anything about it which he knew nothing. (CMORM,I,106. 910)

(407)

Swa

þatt

he

nohht

ne

cuþe

ʒet

Gastlike

lare

findenn

Inn

all

þatt

alde

laʒheboc

Þatt

he

wass

læredd...

So

that

he-SUJET

NOT

NEG

could

yet

piously

knowledge-OBJET

find

in

all

the

old

book of law

that

he-SUJET

was-PRET

taught-P.PASSE...

So that he could not piously find the wisdom yet in that old book of law that was taught... (CMORM,II,249.2530)

(408)

Þohh	þatt	itt	nohht	ne	shollde	ben	O	faderr	hallfe	streonedd...
Tough	that	it-SUJET	NOT	NEG	should	be	of	father	name	get-P.PASSE...

although it should not be gained in the name of the father... (CMORM,I,68.615)

If we have a closer look at Example (406), it is noteworthy that another adverb off is adjoined between nohht and ne. This example then dismisses the hypothesis of a Spec,NegP: an adverb can only be adjoined to a maximal projection (which is not the case here). It also rules out the hypothesis of a third negative functional head: this negative operator is no longer within the minimal domain of search of the head ne. As a consequence, this particular not is an adjunct to the left periphery of Neg₁P.

(409)

Let us illustrate with Example (407), now numbered (410.a).

(410)

(410.a)

Swa

þatt

he

nohht

ne

cuþe

ʒet

Gastlike

lare

findenn

Inn

all

þatt

alde

laʒheboc

Þatt

he

wass

læredd...

So

that

he-SUJET

NOT

NEG

could

yet

piously

knowledge-OBJET

find

in

all

the

old

book of law

that

he-SUJET

was-PRET

taught-P.PASSE...

So that he could not piously find the wisdom yet in that old book of law that was taught... (CMORM,II,249.2530)

(410.b)

Then, let us illustrate this structure with Example (411.a) displaying the verb WITEN which no longer belongs to the class of preterite present verbs in CE. This example allows us to highlight that this not is hierarchically higher than the head Neg₁ and that it is an adjunct (like the adverb off).

(411)

(411.a)

All

wollde

he

shædenn

fra

þatt

þing

Þatt

he

nohht

off

ne

wisste.

All

would

he-SUJET

hide

from

that

thing

that

he-SUJET

NOT

nothing

NEG

knew-PRET.

He wanted to hide anything about it which he knew nothing. (CMORM,I,106.

910)

(411.b)

In the texts we have chosen, we have not found other examples of this kind, where an adverb occurs between not and ne.

3.7.2.2. not becomes the main negation

At the late ME period (for instance Chaucer), we can find examples where the main negation is now not: it will always follow the modal verb. Hence, Neg₁ is no longer realized (even if some instances displaying both not and ne exist, but they are less and less numerous).

(412)

The

serpent

seyde

to

the

womman,

“Nay,

nay,

ye

shul

nat

dyen

of

deeth.”

The

serpent-SUJET

said-PRET

to

the

woman,

“No,

no,

you-SUJET

shall

NOT

die

of

death.”

The serpent said to the woman: “No, no, you shall not die.” (CMCTPARS,296.C2b.362)

(413)

Presumpcioun

is

whan

a

man

undertaketh

an

emprise

that

hym

oghte

nat

do,

or

elles

that

he

may

nat

do;

Presumption

is

when

a

man

undertakes-PRES

an

enterprise

that

him-OBJET

doit

NOT

do,

or

else

that

he

may

NOT

do;

Presumption is when a man undertakes something he should not, or cannot do; (CMCTPARS,300.C1.487)

(414)

therfore	shal	ye	nat	suffren	that	they	serve	yow	for	noght,
therefore	shall	you-SUJET	NOT	suffer	that	they-SUJET	serve-PRES	you-OBJET	for	nothing,

therefore you shall not suffer because they do not serve you, (CMCTMELI,226.C1.353)

(415)

...

that

every

conseil

that

is

affermed

so

strongly

that

it

may

nat

be

chaunged...

...

that

every

advice

that

is-PRES

claimed-P.PASSE

so

strongly

it-SUJET

may

NOT

be

changed-P.PASSE

...

... that every advice so strongly claimed cannot be changed... (CMCTMELI,225.C1.317)

(416)

I

seye

thanne

that

ye

shul

fleen

avarice,

usynge

youre

richesses

in

swich

manere

that

men

seye

nat

that

youre

richesses

been

yburyed,

...

I-SUJET

say-PRES

then

that

you

shall

flee

avarice,

using

your

riches-PL

in

such

manner

that

one-SUJET

says-PRES

NOT

that

your

riches-SUJET PL

are-PRES

buried-P.PASSE,

...

I then sya that you must flee avarice through your riches so that they cannot be said to be buried, ... (CMCTMELI,234.C1.653)

In Examples (412), (413), (414) and (415), we assume not to be base-generated under the functional head Neg₂ (cf Structure (409)). Neg₁ being now covert, does it imply it no longer exists? For ME, we have explained there was a syntactic competition between two clause structures. In one of these structures, Neg₁ (and Neg₂) has a [+neg] feature; moreover, when Neg₁ was overt, we were dealing with an OE structure and both negative concord and Neg criterion applied. The non-realization of this head Neg₁, that is its diasappearance in terms of Distributed Morphology, would then imply that one of these two processes, i.e. negative concord, would disappear, or would not take this shape but the one of negative polarity items. The [+neg] feature of negation and modal verbs would then be less marked (there is no merge of not nor n´t with modal verbs in ME). The examples we have just mentioned would imply that fact. As for Example (416), it also shows that the negation not is indeed base-generated under Neg₂ and the use of the dummy-DO has not occurred yet seeing that, at that period (and to a greater extent at the EME period), the finite verb can happen to be before not. When the dummy-DO is used, not will indeed be base-generated under Neg₂ and [T-Neg₂] will morphologically merge and not (and n´t) will cliticize onto DO and modals.

But, above all, the selection of not as the main negative head goes along with the grammaticalisation of preterite presents: they now are modal verbs, that is functional items.

Thus, we have the following points: ne + V et ne + V + not in OE, and now, V/MD + not in ME. The structure ne + V + not reminds us of the structure for the French negation (ne ... pas : “je ne comprends pas la question” (I don´t understand the question)); as for the structure V/MD + not it reminds us of the Contemporary French structure V + pas as in “j´ai pas vu le facteur aujourd´hui” (I didn´t see the postman today). Both in English and French, the negations not and pas are hierarchically below T. It would thus be relevant to claim that not is base-generated under the head Neg₂ in ME, even if we can find negative adverbs to which Neg criterion could apply.

As the main negation is now not and as it immediately follows T (in the linear order), it could merge with modals. Yet, we have found no such examples in ME (i.e. contraction of the negation). Moreover, preterite present verbs such as sholde and wolde are now mainly used as irrealis forms, like the particle TO (see (62) ((62))). This is the result of the morphological loss of infinitive and subjunctive endings. But it is to be noticed that not can also immediately follow a finite lexical verb, even if there are some differences.

According to us, the following examples underline the fact that modals and verbs do not have the same syntactic position in ME, despite the position of the negation. We have two kinds of examples:

1. imperative sentences (examples (417), (419) and (420)),

   (417)

   Forget	not	thys,	litel	Lowys.
   Forget-IMP	NEG	this-OBJET,	little	Lowys.

   Do not forget this little Lowys. (CMASTRO,664.C2.59)

   (418)

   ...	forasmyche	as	his	men	wist	it	not,
   ...	for as much	as	his	men-SUJET PL	knew-PRET	it	NEG,

   ... for as much as his men did not know it, (CMBRUT3,13.347)

   (419)

   “Desmaye	you	not,”	said	the	kyng,
   “Dismay-IMP	you	NEG	,”	said-PRET	the	king-SUJET,

   “Do not dismay,” said the king, (CMMALORY,5.123)

   (420)

   Syr"

   said

   Merlyn

   to

   Arthur,"

   fyghte

   not

   with

   the

   swerde

   that

   ye

   had

   by

   myracle..."

   Sire,"

   said-PRET

   Merlin-SUJET

   to

   Arthur,“Fight-IMP

   NEG

   with

   the

   sword

   you-SUJET

   had-PRET

   by

   miracle...”

   “Sire,” said Merlin to Arthur, " do not fight with the sword you miraculously got..." (CMMALORY,13.393)

2. and negative sentences (examples (421) and (422)),

   (421)

   and	when	thaye	came	to	more	aige	it	grevyd	theym	not.
   and	when	they-SUJET	came-PRET	to	more	possession	it-SUJET	grieved-PRET	them-OBJET	NEG.

   and when they gained more possessions, it did not grieve them. (CMEDMUND,164.23)

   (422)

   And	Merlion	was	so	disgysed	that	kynge	Arthure	knewe	hym	nat,
   And	Merlin-SUJET	was-PRET	so	disguised-P.PASSE	that	king	Arthur-SUJET	knew-PRET	him-OBJET	NEG,

   And Merlin was so well disguised that King Arthur did not recognize him, (CMMALORY,30.939)

Why are these examples interesting? Imperative forms can only be found with lexical verbs in ME; and in negative sentences, a constituent, that is an object pronoun, can be inserted in between the finite lexical verb and the negation. Neither fact has been found for modals. As a syntactic consequence, a different position for lexical and modal verbs would exist. That is the reason why not is part of the grammaticalisation of modal verbs in ME.

Let us now take Examples (415) and (416) again and give their structures (they are now numbered (423.a) and (424.a)).

(423)

(423.a)

...	that	it	may	nat	be	chaunged	for	no	condicioun,	...
...	that	it-SUJET	may	NOT	be	changed-P.PASSE	for	no	condition,	...

... that this advice cannot be changed at any rate, ... (CMCTMELI,225. C1.317)

(423.b)

(424)

(424.a)

I

seye

thanne

that

ye

shul

fleen

avarice,

usynge

youre

richesses

in

swich

manere

that

men

seye

nat

that

youre

richesses

been

yburyed,

...

I-SUJET

say-PRES

then

that

you

shall

flee

avarice,

using

your

riches-PL

in

such

manner

that

one-SUJET

says-PRES

NOT

that

your

riches-SUJET PL

are-PRES

buried-P.PASSE,

...

I then say that you must flee avarice through your riches so that they cannot be said to be buried, ... (CMCTMELI,234.C1.653)

(424.b)

Our feeling is that when we find a deontic modal, the scope of the negation is on this modal because negation is generated above it.

Likewise, when we find an epistemic modal, we could believe the scope of the negation is first on the relation between the subject and the predicate, since epistemic reading belongs to the CP domain.

Let us have a look at examples we have already mentioned. Examples (425) and (426) display epistemic modals and Examples (427) and (428) deontic ones.

(425)

þough þe fflame of the ffyre of love may not breke out so þat it may be seyn, ... (1472 Stonor 123 I 126.36)

(426)

hym	shall	not	gayne.
him	shall	NEG	gain.

it will not do him any good. (a1500(?a1300) Bevis(Cmb) p.83, textual note to 1583-1596)

(427)

ne	a	more	worthy	thing	than	God	mai	not	ben	concluded.
nor	a	more	worthy	thing-SUJET	than	God	may	NOT	be	concluded-P.PASSE

A more worthy thing than God cannot be concluded. (CMBOETH,433.C1.178)

(428)

The

serpent

seyde

to

the

womman,

“Nay,

nay,

ye

shul

nat

dyen

of

deeth.”

The

serpent-SUJET

said-PRET

to

the

woman,

“No,

no,

you-SUJET

shall

NOT

die

of

death.”

The serpent said to the woman: “No, no, you shall not die.” (CMCTPARS,296.C2b.

362)

We could represent these for examples in the following way:

(429)

MAY NOT [þe fflame of the fyre of love - breke out]

(430)

SHALL NOT [gayne - him]

(431)

[God] MAI NOT [ben concluded]

(432)

[You] SHUL NOT [dyen]

If we stick to syntax, the scope of the negation is on the predicative relation in Examples (429) and (430, but on the modals in Examples (431) and (432). If we now look at these examples from a semantic point of view, it coincides with syntax: in Examples (429) and (430, MAY and SHALL express the degree of implication of the speaker in the NOT/Subject-Predicate relation; whereas in Examples (431) and (432), MAI and SHUL negatively establish the relation between the subject and the predicate.

3.7.3. Negation and adverbs

We have just put forward that the predominance of the head Neg₂ over the others would imply the loss of negative concord and/or Neg criterion. To that extent, does ME behave the same way? To analyze that, let us have a look at the distribution of negative constituents to stress out the presence or absence of these processes.

(433)

þatt	ʒho	Ne	maʒʒ	himm	nowwhar	findenn...
that	you-SUJET	NEG	may	him-OBJET	nowhere	find...

that you cannot find him anywhere... (CMORM,I,42.435)

(434)

swa	summ	itt	wollde	Godd,	Ne	mihhte	næfrær	tæmenn.
so	some-OBJET	wolde-PRET	God-SUJET,	NEG	might	never	tame.

So as God wanted, he could have never been tamed. (CMORM,I,23.294)

(435)

ne	schule	flesches	fondunges	namare	þenne	gastliche	Meistri	þe	neaure...
NEG	shall	fleshes	fundations-SUJET PL	no more	then	piously	master	you-OBJET	never...

The fundations of the flesh shall never master you... (CMANCRIW,II.208.2989)

(436)

Edmodnesse	ne	mei	beon	neauer	ful	preiset.
Edmondness-SUJET	NEG	may	be	never	fully	praised-P.PASSE.

Edmodness coudl never be fully praised. (CMANCRIW,II.206.2966)

(437)

and	certes,	that	ne	may	nevere	been	accompliced;
and	certainly,	that-SUJET	NEG	may	never	be	accomplished-P.PASSE;

and that certainly cannot be accomplished; (CMCTMELI,222.C1.201)

(438)

For	certes,	thyng	that	nevere	hadde	lyf	may	nevere	quykene;
For	certainly,	thing-SUJET	that	never	had-PRET	life-OBJET	may	never	rise;

For it is certain that a thing that had never lived can never rise; (CMCTPARS,293.C2.238)

(439)

For

certes,

sire,

oure

Lord

Jhesu

Crist

wolde

nevere

have

descended

to

be

born

of

a

womman,

if

alle

wommen

hadden

been

wikke.

For

certainly,

sire,

our

lord

Jesus

Christ-SUJET

would

never

have

came down-P.PASSE

TO

be

born-P.PASSE

of

a

woman,

if

all

women-SUJET PL

had-PRET

been-P.PASSE

wicked.

For it is certain that our lord Jesus Christ would never have come amongst us to be born out of woman if all women had been wicked. (CMCTMELI,220.C2.135)

(440)

For

right

as

the

body

of

a

man

may

nat

lyven

withoute

the

soule,

namoore

may

it

lyve

withouten

temporeel

goodes.

For

right

as

the

body

of

a

man-SUJET

may

NOT

live

without

the

soul,

no more

may

it-SUJET

live

without

temporal

goods-PL.

As the body of a man cannot live without soul, he cannot live without temporal goods either. (CMCTMELI,232.C2.604)

Examples (433) to (437) are illustrations of the negative concord and Neg criterion, as in OE. In Examples (438) and (439), the adverb nevere is the only negation of the sentence, hence the main negation. Moreover, this adverb, like not, immediately follows the modal verb: we can then deduce that that adverb is base-generated under the functional head Neg₂. As for Example (440), the main negation is namoore.

As the adverb is a functional head, there is Agree between this head and Neg₂.

3.7.4. Negative polarity?

As far as negative polarity is concerned, we have found very few examples from 1350 to 1450, that is late ME, which implies that negative concord does not apply any longer at that period.

(441)

ne	þey	schulle	not	apele	fro	eny	vnrytful	dom;
nor	they-SUJET	shall	NEG	call	from	any	unrightful	realm;

nor shall they call any unrightful kingdom; (CMAELR3,57.986)

(442)

&

cramme

it

riʒt

wel

so

þat

þe

hole

skyn

be

not

I-hurte

with

eny

hot

þyng

þat

schal

be

y-layd

þer-to.

&

cram-IMP

it-OBJET

right

well

so

that

the

perfect

skin-SUJET

is-PRES

NEG

hurt-P.PASSE

with

any

hot

thing

that

shall

be

laid

there to.

and cram it weel so that the skin is not damaged by something hot that could be laid unto it. (CMHORSES,111.259)

(443)

and

he

seide,

“If

eny

man

seekith

not

the

Lord

God

of

Israel,

diʒe

he,

fro

the

leeste

til

to

the

meeste,

fro

man

til

to

womman.”

and

he-SUJET

said-PRET,

“if

any

man-SUJET

seeks-PRES

NEG

the

lord

God

of

Israel-OBJET,

dies-PRES

he-SUJET,

from

the

smallest

to

the

biggest,

from

man

to

woman.”

and he said: “if no man seeks the God of Israel, he shall die, from the smallest to the biggest, from man to woman.” (CMPURVEY,I,22.1045)

(444)

þai	er	not	stirred	for	any	worde	þat	man	may	say.
they-SUJET	are-PRES	NEG	governed-P.PASSE	for	any	word	that	man-SUJET	may	say.

they are not governed by any word that man can say. (CMROLLEP,112.844)

Even if they are very few, these examples show that any is a negative polarity item from late ME. And perhaps it is responsible for the loss of negative concord at that period: if negative polarity items expressing negation conjointly with not (semi negation + negation) exist, it means that the two negations do cancel each other out and negative concord does not exist anymore.

3.8. Adverbs and functional heads

Let us recall for the reader the adverb hierarchy we established for OE, following (12) ((12)):

(445)

[sweotole/sweotollice clearly, precisely, fullice perfectly, fully, gewislicost certainly, surely, gerisenlice honorably, conveniently, huru yet, certainly, openlicor obviously, hluttorlice sincerely, clearly, rihtlice right, well, smealice precisely, subtly Mood_Evidential [eft again, nu now, iu precedingly, eac since T(Past) [þa/þonne then, nu now, teowardlice towards T(Future) [nede necessarily, aninga willingly Mod_Necessity [eað willingly, lustlice willingly Mod_Volitional [swa thus, consequently Mod_Obligation [hioweslice? informally Asp_Habitual [eft again, gelomlice frequently Asp_{Repetitive(I)} [eft again, gelomlice frequently Asp_{Frequentative(I)} [aninga rapidly Asp_{Celerative(I)} [emb before, after, iu precedingly, syððan since, now, then, eac? since T(Anterior) [get yet, again, gen already, now, again, swa thus, consequently Asp_Continuative [a/(n)æfre never, always, simble always, constantly Asp_Perfect[ær before, once Asp_{Retros- pective} [sona soon, sel/selust soon, hrædlicor suddenly Asp_Proximative [leng long Asp_Durative [neah near, almost Asp_Prospective [fullice perfectly, completely Asp_{Sg.Completive(I)} [wel well, sel/selust soon, geara formerly, once Voice [aninga rapidly, geara formerly, once Asp_{Celerative(II)} [fullice perfectly, completely Asp_{Sg.Completive(II)} [eft again, gelomlice frequently Asp_{Repetitive(II)} [eft again, gelomlice frequently Asp_{Frequentative(II)}]]...

and let us see if new functional, that is new modal, heads appear in ME.

Compared to OE, we have not found great differences in use concerning adverbs: there are still lots of time, place and manner adverbs, and the hierarchy previously establish does not change. However, unlike OE, we have found more instances of modality adverbs, particularly in texts from the late ME period (Chaucer).

(446)

ant	forþi	mot	vh	mon	neodeliche	ham	holden.
and	therefore	must	each	one-SUJET	necessarily	them-OBJET	hold.

and that is why one must necessarily hold them. (CMANCRIW,I.46.60)

(447)

The first cause is

this:

truste

wel

that

alle

the

conclusions

that

han

be

founde,

or

ellys

possibly

might

be

founde

in

so

noble

an

instrument...

The

first

cause-SUJET

is-PRES

this:

trust-IMP

well

that

all

the

conclusions

that

have-PRES

been

found-P.PASSE,

or

else

possibly

might

be

found

in

so

noble

an

instrument...

The first reason is the following: believe rightly that all the conclusions that have been found, or could have been found in such a noble instrument... (CMASTRO,662.C1.9)

(448)

And	as	verraily	shalt	thou	fynde	upon	thin	est	orisonte	thin	ascendent.
And	as	really	shall	you-SUJET	find	upon	yours	is	horizon	your	ascent-OBJET.

and you shall certainly find your (own) ascent on the horizon. (CMASTRO,671.

C2.292)

(449)

and

certes

also

mote

we

graunten

that

suffisaunce,

power,

noblesse,

reverence,

and

gladnesse

be

oonly

diverse

by

names...

and

certainly

also

must

we-SUJET

grant

that

smugness,

power,

nobleness,

reverence

and

joy-SUJET

are-PRES

only

differentby

names-PL...

and we obviously have to admit that smugness, power, nobleness, reverence and joy are only different in name... (CMBOETH,429.C2.50)

(450)

It	moot	nedly	ben	so,	quod	I.
It-SUJET	must	necessarily	be	so,	said-PRET	I-SUJET.

It should necessarily be so, said I. (CMBOETH,429.C2.53)

(451)

And	therfore	resonably	may	be	seyd	of	Jhesu	in	this	manere...
And	therefore	reasonably	may	be	said-P.PASSE	of	Jesus	in	this	manner...

And it can reasonably told about Jesus in this way... (CMCTPARS,294.C2.273)

What can be added to this hierarchy (445)? Only one functional head is to be added: Mod_Possibility which goes along with Mod_Necessity. Because of a more important use of modality adverbs, preterite presents grammaticalise (note: ➳) to become modal verbs.

3.9. Summary of the chapter

In Section 3.1, we presented what is called the Middle English language, that is, the English language spoken and written in Great-Britain between 1150 and 1550, as well as the different influences this language underwent throughout this period of time.

In Section 3.2, we then recalled what preterite presents were, as well as their syntactic structure in OE.

In Section 3.3, we highlighted the syntactic changes peculiar to this class of verbs: when they are lexical, they are base-generated under V, but when they are semi-lexical, that is, taking an infinitive clause as a complement, they are raising verbs base-generated under the specific syntactic position v_Modal. As a consequence, we can say that they function as causative verbs. The other syntactic change is the reparametering of the canonical form of the OE sentence: from SOV to SVO, which contributes to the process of grammaticalisation of preterite present verbs.

In Section 3.4, we dealt with grammaticalisation. We first gave a definition of it and then we stressed the importance it had concerning the syntax of preterite presents. Moreover, in the light of Distributed Morphology, we noticed this process was morphologically visible on modals, but also on TO and on causative verbs.

In Section 3.5, we focused on infinitive structures which allowed us to understand the morphological impoverishment of non finite verbs; that also reflected the grammaticalisation of TO and the status of preterite present verbs: from semi-lexical to functional items, and thus they have a structure different from the lexical verbs. We have analyzed the structure of causative verbs as well during that period, because they grammaticalised, from a lexical V to a semi-lexical v.

In Section 3.6, we focused on modality. We noticed that epistemic modals were more numerous in ME and that we still had two functional heads for them, that is v_Modal and Mood, which governs epistemic modals. Moreover, infinitive structures allowed us to claim more strongly that both epistemic and deontic modals were raising verbs.

In Section 3.7, we highlighted the fact that negative concord still existed in ME, as well as Neg criterion when the main negation of a sentence was ne. Yet, then not became the main negation, which is linked to grammaticalisation, by the end of the ME period, there is no longer negative concord: it then questions the scope of negation over epistemic and deontic modals. We also put forward that the coexistence of ne and not implied the syntactic existence of a second functional head Neg. Finally, despite the disappearance of negative concord, we noticed that the use of negative polarity remained marginal by the end of the ME period; still these two phenomena are linked.

Finally, in Section 3.8, we stressed the more important use of modality adverbs (compared to OE), which is also linked to the process of grammaticalisation of modal verbs.