Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:08:40.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The distal demonstrative as discourse marker in Beowulf

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2011

RICHARD EPSTEIN
RICHARD EPSTEIN*
Affiliation:
Department of English, Rutgers University, Camden, Armitage Hall, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 311 North Fifth Street, Building no. 036, Camden, NJ 08102-1405, USArepstein@camden.rutgers.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The literature on the distal demonstrative se in Old English has mainly concentrated on its use as a marker of definiteness (referent identifiability) and deixis. In this article, I focus instead on demonstrative uses that have received much less attention in previous work. Drawing on data from Beowulf, I argue that the distal demonstrative determiner also serves a variety of discourse-pragmatic functions, such as indicating the relative importance of referents; topic continuity; or chapter boundaries.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 113 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Barbara. 2004. Definiteness and indefiniteness. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 122–49. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bessinger, J. B. Jr (ed.) & Smith, Philip H., Jr. (programmer). 1969. A concordance to Beowulf. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bjork, Robert E. & Obermeier, Anita. 1997. Date, provenance, author, audiences. In Bjork, Robert E. & Niles, John D. (eds.), A Beowulf handbook, 13–34. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Chickering, Howell D. 1977. Beowulf: A dual-language edition. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Christophersen, Paul. 1939. The articles: A study of their theory and use in English. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Haviland, Susan E.. 1977. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle, Roy O. (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension, 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1980. Beyond definiteness: the trace of identity in discourse. In Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production, 203–74. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Epstein, Richard. 2001. The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics 12, 333–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erkü, Feride & Gundel, Jeanette. 1987. The pragmatics of indirect anaphors. In Verschueren, Jef & Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella (eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, 533–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanne, Dolbey, Andy & Johnson, Christopher (eds.). 1994. Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2007. The definiteness cycle in Germanic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19, 275–308.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study, 5–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In Gernsbacher, Morton Ann & Givón, T. (eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text, 59–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A. & Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 3, 47–82. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore. 1994. Discourse deixis and information tracking. In Gahl, Dolbey & Johnson (eds.), 208–19.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69, 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heaney, Seamus. 2000. Beowulf. A new verse translation. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene R. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 1994. Discourse functions of demonstrative deixis in Tamil. In Gahl, Dolbey & Johnson (eds.), 246–59.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit. 1990. Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 273–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keusen, Anna. 1994. A focus marker in Cayuga. In Gahl, Dolbey & Johnson (eds.), 310–18.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S. & Van Heuven, Vincent J.. 1988. The significance of demonstrative position in modern Dutch. Lingua 76, 209–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaeber, Friedrich (ed.). 1950. Beowulf and the fight at Finnsburg. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Company.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Hans. 1933. Zur Wortstellung und -betonung im Altgermanischen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 57, 1–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20, 303–18.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1988. The pragmatic nature of nominal anaphora in To'aba'ita. Studies in Language 12, 299–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Millar, Robert McColl. 2000. Some suggestions for explaining the origin and development of the definite article in English. In Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette & Stein, Dieter (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, 275–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mines, Rachel. 2002. An examination of Kuhn's second law and its validity as a metrical-syntactical rule. Studies in Philology 99, 337–55.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, vol. 1. Clarendon: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippi, Julia. 1997. The rise of the article in Germanic languages. In van Kemenade, Ans & Vincent, Nigel (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 62–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph & Wrenn, C. L.. 1957. An Old English grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1977. Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 141–77. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1992. Syntax. In Hogg, Richard (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1: The beginnings to 1066, 186–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, S. & Givón, T.. 1987. The pragmatics of indefinite reference: Quantified text-based studies. Studies in Language 11, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yulong, Xu. 1987. A study of referential functions of demonstratives in Chinese discourse. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 15, 132–51.Google Scholar