Show Less

Self-based Anaphora in Early Modern English

Series:

Ewa Kucelman

This book is a corpus-based study which aims to describe the class of self-pronouns as used in the Early Modern English period. Self-pronouns are presented as a multi-functional class, with two main functions, as emphatic forms and as reflexive markers. The emphatic function is seen as a continuation of an earlier state of affairs, whereas the reflexive function is described as a new, emerging one. As reflexive markers, self-pronouns in Early Modern English compete with personal pronouns. Therefore the book seeks to present the conditions of their distribution ranging from configurational and thematic through discursive to pragmatic factors involved in the choice of the reflexive strategy.

Prices

Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Chapter 6: Conclusions

Extract

Chapter 6 Conclusions The present study has been based on the analysis of an EModE corpus consisting of 35 plays by William Shakespeare and the EModE1 and EModE2 subparts of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (HCET). Size-wise, the Shakespearean part of the corpus is almost four times larger than either EModE1 or EModE2 subparts of the HCET. Chronologically, the Shakespearean corpus belongs to the EModE2 period. EModE1 presents an earlier state of affairs. Although studies similar to ours were carried out by Peitsara (1997) and van Gelderen (2000), we worked on a much larger corpus. Peitsara used only the HCET EModE corpus, and van Gelderen mentions just two EModE sources, The Paston Letters (they represent an earlier state of affairs, since the collection includes correspondence written between 1422-1509) and Shakespeare’s King Henry IV, Part 2.The size of our corpus enabled us to obtain a broader picture of the use of the SELF pronoun than the above studies. 6.1 SELF pronouns in bound contexts The study deals with SELF pronouns in both bound and non-bound contexts used as reflexive markers and/or emphatics. In the description of bound contexts we used Reinhart and Reuland’s (1993) version of the Binding Theory. The choice was dictated by the nature of the EModE data. In Chapter 1 we discussed some crosslinguistic problems related to partial lack of complementarity between SELF and personal pronouns. For P-dayE, we listed three typical non- complementary positions, i.e. NP internal positions, adjunctive PPs and coordinate structures. EModE data show...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.