SELIM 15.indb Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes, Selim 13 (2005-2006): 9—46 OLD ENGLISH DITRANSITIVE ADJECTIVES1 Abstract This article describes Old English ditransitive adjectives, that is, adjectives that license two complements and which may therefore be considered as three-argument predicates. One argument always surfaces as a nominative noun phrase functioning as clausal subject. The other two arguments are complements of the adjective and are realized as inflected noun phrases, prepositional phrases or clauses. The number of Old English adjectives that may be considered to be ditransitive is small, as is also the case in Present-Day English. They denote such concepts as “gratitude,” “generosity and abundance,” “forgiveness,” “obedience,” “guilt and responsibility,” “deserving,” “agreement,” and “similarity.” I provide a hopefully complete list of these ditransitive adjectives, describe their semantic (argumental) and syntactic (complementational) patterns, contrast them with those of synonyms or of semantically- and lexically-related adjectives, and show how this grammatical and semantic information may be encoded in a lexicon of adjectival complementation. Keywords: adjective, argument, case, complement, complementation, ditransitive, lexicography, Old English, role, semantics, syntax, transitive. Resumen Este artículo describe los adjetivos ditransitivos del Inglés Antiguo, es decir, los adjetivos que admiten dos complementos y que, por lo tanto, pueden considerarse como predicados con triple argumento. Un argumento se presenta siempre como un sintagma nominal en caso nominativo cuya función es la de sujeto oracional. Los otros dos argumentos son complementos del adjetivo y se realizan como sintagmas nominales marcados, sintagmas preposicionales u oraciones subordinadas. El número de adjetivos que pueden considerarse ditransitivos es reducido, tanto en Inglés Antiguo como en Inglés Contemporáneo. Se refieren a conceptos como “gratitud”, “generosidad y abundancia”, “perdón”, “obediencia”, “culpa y responsabilidad”, “merecimiento”, “acuerdo” y “similaridad”. El artículo muestra una lista de estos adjetivos que aspira a ser completa, describe sus patrones semánticos (argumentales) y sintácticos (complementación), los contrasta con los patrones de adjetivos sinónimos o adjetivos relacionados semántica o sintácticamente, y muestra cómo esta información semántica y gramatical puede ser codificada en un lexicón de complementación adjetiva. Palabras clave: adjetivo, argumento, caso, complementación, complemento, ditransitivo, inglés antiguo, lexicografía, rol, semántica, sintaxis, transitivo. 1 I express my gratitude to my anonymous referees for many corrections and suggestions for improvement, and to Dr. Belén Méndez Naya and Dr. María José López Couso of the Universidade de Santiago de Compostela for their encouragement and wise criticism at the 18th SELIM Conference in Málaga, where I delivered a preliminary version of this article. Naturally, all errors remain solely mine. I also acknowledge the financial support provided by the Universidad de Jaén and the Junta de Andalucía for a research period at the Centre for Medieval Studies (University of Toronto) in 2006, which has enabled me to further my investigation on Old English adjectives. Last, but not least, I also wish to convey my sincere gratitude to Prof. Antonette di Paolo Healey, for allowing me to use the facilities and resources of the Dictionary of Old English Project, and to Dr. Ian McDougall and Dr. David McDougall for valuable commentaries on many examples cited and not cited in this article. Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 10 INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES This article has a twofold objective. On the one hand, it purports to give a fairly complete list of Old English (OE, henceforth) adjectives which are used as predicates in combination with a verb (bÕon “be,” weorþan “be, become”, standan “stand,” wunian “remain,” …) and which can be considered as ditransitive, together with a detailed description of their semantic and syntactic configuration. On the other hand, it shows how the information resulting from this analysis may be recorded in a dictionary of adjectival complementation in OE. These two objectives are intertwined throughout the article and complement each other, since the analysis I posit for these adjectives is put to use as a major classifying parameter of adjectives and entry sections in the dictionary. To my knowledge, neither of these aims has been the subject of any monographic research in OE linguistic and lexicographic studies.2 This lexicon3 organizes 2 The two main dictionaries of Old English — the 19th century Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon (Bosworth & Toller, henceforth) and Dictionary of Old English in Electronic Form (DOE, henceforth) — either do not provide information on the syntactic potential of adjectives or on their argumental structure, or do so indirectly, or in different sections and at different levels within the entries. For example, the DOE does not systematically and explicitly distinguish between the predicative and the attributive (noun-modifying) usage of the adjective, a type of information which is only gathered from reading the examples, but which should — in my opinion — be stated explicitly for each headword or sense. As for the Oxford English Dictionary (OED, henceforth), it provides longer definitions, sometimes in combination with translation equivalents. However, one single definition often covers all the different meanings of the adjectives, irrespective of the fact that, depending on the meaning, the adjective may show different argumental and syntactic requirements. In short, not all complementational patterns are illustrated for each major period in the history of English. For example, s.v. guilty, the definition provided in the OED for sense 1 (the only one that goes back to the OE period) reads “That has offended or been in fault; delinquent, criminal. Now in stronger sense: That has incurred guilt; deserving punishment and moral reprobation; culpable”. However, only one example corresponding to the OE period is included, and it does not have a complement. I therefore believe that a dictionary or lexicon dealing exclusively with adjectival complementation in OE is pertinent and certainly needed. Old English ditransitive adjectives 11 entries at three levels: syntactic function of the adjective (attributive, postpositive or predicative), sense, semantic frame and syntactic structure. One major feature of this lexicon is that it provides synonyms, quasi-synonyms and antonyms for each sense of an adjective in order to facilitate quick comparison between the adjectives belonging to the same lexical class. It also provides definitions worded in a paraphrase-like manner.4 The reason why I have included in this article a sample dictionary entry along these lines for one adjective per semantic class of ditransitive adjectives is to demonstrate the practical value of my analysis of OE three-place or ditransitive adjectives. I will first define ditransitive adjectives (section 1), the case labels I have used (section 2), and show the different structures of the complements (section 3). I then present the various semantic classes and their members (section 4). Each of the following sections (5–6) contains a detailed analysis of one representative adjective of the class, a sample dictionary entry, a comparison of the semantic and syntactic properties of different adjectives of the class (secondary or side issues are briefly dealt with in notes), and tables summarizing their complementational patterns and the realization of the arguments. Finally I present an overall summary and my conclusions in section 7. 1.- INTRANSITIVE, TRANSITIVE AND DITRANSITIVE ADJECTIVES 3 A similar project was recently published for Present-Day English: Herbst’s (2004) valency dictionary, which, however, does not include argument labels and deals with other word-classes as well. 4 Thus, unlike the DOE or Bosworth & Toller, which s.v. cystig, say “charitable, generous, munificent, liberal, bountiful” and “munificent, benevolent, bountiful, liberal, generous, good”, respectively, I propose the following definition “willing to give and share things”, while the PDE adjectives would still be included in a special field for translation equivalents. Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 12 It is first necessary to define the terms intransitive, transitive and ditransitive in order to delimit the type of adjectives described in this article.5 Intransitive adjectives are those which are semantically self-sufficient and require no complementation, such as academic, neuter, bald or enormous. The vast majority of OE and PDE are intransitive since they do not require a complement to complete their semantic potential. A transitive adjective is one whose semantic reading is vague and has to be restricted by means of a complementing structure, that is, adjectives which are not semantically full and which syntactically need a complementing structure, no matter whether this complement is a noun phrase (NP), a prepositional phrase (PP) or a clause, such as anxious, delighted, devoid, fond, keen, mindful, proud or worth. The surface realization of the non-subject argument may be obligatory or optional. Thus, georn “ready and willing” has a THEME argument which is syntactically obligatory, there being no tokens without a complement in the TOEC. Other adjectives also have this argument in their semantic structure, but its appearance in the surface does not seem to be compulsory. This is the case of ofergytol “forgetful”, which is found with and without a complement representing the THEME argument; see example (1)6. Transitive adjectives must therefore be seen a divalent or two-argument predicates. The other argument in example (1) is an EXPERIENCER, realized by the syntactic subject. (1) gecwomun ðegnas hisSub [...] ofergeotole weron þæt hia hlafas onfengonComp (came his disciples [...] forgetful were that they loaves had taken) (MtGl (Li) 16.5) 5 See Comesaña-Rincón, 1986: 276, 287 and ff., 1998: 194, 2001a: 35 and ff. for the application of these terms to adjectives. As terms applied to verbs, see Bolinger and Sears 1981: 85, Quirk & al. 1985: 1176 and ff., 1220 and ff., Trask 1993: 284, Biber & al. 2002: 47, and Huddleston and Pullum, 2002: 218–219, 542–543). 6 All my examples are excerpted from citations in the Dictionary of Old English Corpus (DOEC, henceforth). I offer word-by-word translations, except when too literal a rendering would hinder comprehension or be too conspicuously agrammatical. Old English ditransitive adjectives 13 Transitive adjectives may be subdivided further into mono-transitive, which have only one complement, as in the above example, and ditransitive, which have two complements, such accountable or responsible. However, in this article the term ditransitive does not refer to the obligatory presence of two complements in the syntactic structure, but to the potential surfacing of either or both complements. Thus example (2) contains two complements, but (3) contains none. Yet, both are ditransitive, for it is the presence in the semantic structure of two arguments that is meant, whether overt or covert. In other words, ditransitive adjectives are trivalent or three-place adjectival predicates. (2) himComp1 ealraComp2 wæs araComp2 este ælmihtig godSub (to them in all favours was generous almighty God) (GenA,B 1503) (3) Beoð þancfulle (Be thankful) (ÆCHom I, 39, 606.18) Comesaña-Rincón (ibid.) also identifies pseudo-intransitive adjectives, which have a non-surfacing argument, such as ambitious or identical, corresponding to gelíc “similar” in example (4); and pseudo-transitive, which are accompanied by a complement-looking structure which does not actually belong to the semantic argument frame of the adjective, such as likely, acceptable, or difficult, corresponding to the adjectives toweard “imminent”, andfenge “acceptable”, and earfoþe “difficult” and eaþe “easy” in examples (5) to (8), respectively. I do not wholly agree with Comesaña-Rincón concerning pseudo-intransitive and pseudo-transitive adjectives. I believe that the dative NP him in example (6) is an argument (EXPERIENCER) of the adjective that optionally surfaces as its complement. Likewise, the infinitive clauses, to understandenne “to understand” and to slidenne “to fall” in examples (7) and (8) also belong to the semantic structure of the adjective (SCOPE) and must be seen as complements of the adjective. What is more, I believe that there are grounds to consider some of these adjectives, such as gelíc (or even eaþe), as ditransitive adjectives, as we shall see further down (and in note 23). However, it is necessary first to define the meaning of the arguments, cases or semantic roles that I will be using in my description. Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 14 (4) Ures Drihtnes dæda and þæs deoflesSub [...] ne beon gelice (Our Lord’s works and the devil’s […] are not similar) (ÆHom 4 200) (5) se þe on þysne middeneard toweard is to cumeneComp (he who to this earth near is to come) (Notes 21 (Warn) 7) (6) se þe ondræt hyne د wyrcð rihtwisnysseSub andfencge ys himComp (he who fears him & does justice acceptable is to Him) (LibSc 59.4) (7) Swa wæs seo ealde .æ.Sub swiðe earfoðe and digle to understandenneComp (So was the old law very difficult and obscure to understand) (ÆCHom I,12, 188.6) (8) Forlæten we […] æghwylce synne þissum gelice þaSub þæm lichomanComp bið eaþe in to slidenneComp (Let us abandon […] all sins to these similar which [for] the body are easy to fall in) (HomU 15.1 (Scragg) 126) 2.- SEMANTIC ROLES In order to identify the different participants involved in the predication I will use a set of case labels, which have been current in the linguistic literature ever since they were originally proposed by Fillmore (1968). The definitions I offer for the cases I use are almost standard now, but they mainly draw on Cook (1998: 10–18), Comesaña-Rincón (2001b), and, in the case of the SCOPE, Tucker (1998). AGENT This is the case label for the participant which produces the action or process conveyed by the adjective predicate. The referent of this participant is normally personal, but it may also be inanimate, thus including other cases, such as INSTRUMENT, FORCE or CAUSE, which I will not use in this article. Examples: (9) And ðonne age we mycle þearfe þæt weSub=AGENT […] a wære beon wið deofles costnunga Old English ditransitive adjectives 15 (And then it is very necessary that we […] always vigilant be against the devil’s temptations) (LitBen 7.8 (Ure) 20) Although agency is a concept usually associated with verbs and the actions they denote, there is a strong case for labelling as AGENT the argument of adjective predicates liable to be considered as process or action predicates, which often happens when the verb — the copula — is in the imperative mood, or if there is a participant affected by the action, whether actual or implied. In other words, the subject actively engages in an action. Thus, the meaning of the adjective predicate in example (10) is “act with clemency / leniently.” (10) Þonne byð us godSub=NP=AGENT milde, and bliþe (HomM 7 (Then will be [to] us God mild and clement) (KerTibC 1) 34) THEME This argument basically refers to the participant described, an entity which is involved, consciously or unconsciously, in the state of affairs. In example (11), the THEME surfaces as subject and is untainted by other meanings. However, in example (12), “se ende” may be seen as both as AGENT and THEME, since it is the participant being described and also the participant producing some kind of effect upon another participant. Finally, the THEME may also manifest itself as a complement (example (13)). (11) Eustachies wifSub=THEME swiðe fæger wæs (Eustace’s wife very beautiful was) (LS 8 (Eust) 165) (12) HimComp se endeSub=THEME/AGENT wearð earm and þrealic (To him the end was miserable and woeful) (Seasons 17) (13) SefaSub wæs þe glædra þæs þe heo gehyrdeComp=THEME (Spirit was the gladder [on account of] that which he [had] heard) (El 955) EXPERIENCER Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 16 This is the participant that experiences a sensation, an emotion or a cognitive process. It can surface as the subject of the clause (example (14)) or as the complement of the adjective (example (12) above). (14) Ðonne heSub=EXPERIENCER/THEME wæs hungrig ɞ þurstig, heo hine estlice gefylde (When he was hungry & thirsty, she him generously filled) (LS 22 (InFestisSMarie) 113) With “sensation” adjectives, the subject may be both the EXPERIENCER and the THEME (example (14) above), where “he” is at the same time the entity described and the entity affected by the meanings conveyed by the adjectives. However, since hungrig and þurstig are inherently experiential, the participant experiencing these sensations are best labelled as EXPERIENCERS. On the other hand, with “emotion” and “cognition” adjectives, the THEME is a complement and it expresses the content of the experience. This complement is optional for “emotion” adjectives, that is, the argument may be covert (example (15)) or overt (example (16)). However, it is obligatory with “cognition” adjectives (example (17)). (15) ne beo geSub=EXPERIENCER dreorige: ne afyrhte (don’t you be distressed nor afraid) (ÆCHom I, 29, 432.29) (16) Þa wæs heoSub=EXPERIENCER […] swiðe gedrefed bi swelcum witedomeComp=THEME د forht geworden (Then was she […] very frightened on account of such prophecy and troubled became) (Bede 4 26.352.29) (17) ægþer þara folcaSub=EXPERIENCER wæs þæs gefeohtesComp=THEME georn (both peoples were for the fight eager) (Or3 8.67.11) BENEFICIARY This is the participant, always personal, that is affected positively or negatively by the emotion felt or the behaviour or attitude shown by the AGENT towards it. This AGENT may also be considered as EXPERIENCER, insofar as it is the participant that experiences the emotion towards the Old English ditransitive adjectives 17 BENEFICIARY and acts accordingly. However, since this emotion (e.g., gratitude, generosity, forgiveness or obedience) is normally expressed through some kind of active or willing behaviour, I prefer to keep the label AGENT. The BENEFICIARY normally surfaces as a dative NP, as in example (18): (18) heoSub=AGENT her […] his ðrowunge ɞ his eadmodnesseComp1=THEME […] himComp2=BENEFICIARY þoncfulle wæren (they here [for] his suffering & his humility [to] him thankful were) (HomU 2 (Belf 11) 116) SCOPE This case specifies the extent to which the meaning conveyed by the adjective is valid. Although debatable, I believe it must be included in the semantic frame of adjectives whose meaning is too general or vague to be left without any further specification for the proposition to make sense. In fact, the more general the meaning, the more necessary it seems to be. Thus, in example (19) the meaning of genďh is semantically incomplete without the SCOPE, and the infinitive tď healdenne should be seen as an optional complement realizing this argument. The same might be said of the anhydig in example (20). (19) twydæglic fæsten oðþe þreodæglic fæstenSub=THEME is genoh to healdenneComp=SCOPE (two-day-long fast or three-day-long fast is enough to hold) (Bede 4 26.350.31) (20) þær se halga þeowSub=THEME elnesComp=SCOPE anhydig eard weardade (there the holy servant [of] courage resolute the land guarded) (GuthA,B 894) LOCATIVE This is the entity where the state of affairs exists. Not many adjectival predicates contain this argument in their semantic structure (and with many of them it is figuratively that we must understand it): only those referring to spatial relations (andweard “present,” feor “far,” gehende “near,” neah “near”) and Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 18 those expressing lack or abundance of something (full “full,” genyhtsum “abundant,” rĭmgifol “abundant,” rĭmlíc “abundant,” spÕdig “abundant,” wana “lacking,” welig “abundant”). In the case of the “proximity” adjectives, both the subject and the complement can be considered as THEME and LOCATIVE at the same time. In fact, the participants may exchange their syntactic functions, with no semantic alteration of the proposition, apart from the focus. Example (21) can be rewritten as (22).7 As for the “abundance” adjectives, the THEME and the LOCATIVE can both surface as either subject or complement; see examples (23) and (24). (21) HeSub=THEME/LOCATIVE wæs gehende þam scipeComp=THEME/LOCATIVE (He was near [to] the ship) (Jn (Nap) 6.19) (22) *Þæt scipSub=THEME/LOCATIVE wæs himComp=THEME/LOCATIVE gehende (The ship was [to] him near) (23) Hit is welig þis ealondSub=LOCATIVE on wæstmum ɞ on treowum misenlicra cynnaComp=THEME (It is fruitful this island in fruits & in trees [of] different kinds) (Bede 1 0.26.2) (24) eower lufuSub=THEME is betweoxn eowComp=LOCATIVE suiðe genyhtsumu (your love is between you very abundant) (CP 32.213.7) 3.- TYPES OF SYNTACTIC COMPLEMENTS The different types of structures that adjectival complements adopt are the following: a. A genitive NP (georn deadra manna feos “eager [for] dead men’s property”, HomS 14 (BlHom4) 70), a dative NP (Azarias […] dædum georn “Azariah […] [in] deeds ardent”, Az 1), and in a few instances an accusative NP (ælc þæra wita wyrðe “[to] each of the fines entitled”, 7 The asterisk in this article indicates that the example is not attested, but made up for illustrative or comparison purposes. Old English ditransitive adjectives 19 LawIAtr 1.14)) or an instrumental NP (þy hade […] wyrðne “[of] the office […] worthy”, Bede 4 2.260.3). b. A Prepositional Phrase (georne […] ymbe godra manna þearfe “diligent […] about good men’s need”, Bo 7.18.16). c. A clause, whether finite (georne ne gewilnigende þæt þine deda halige gesæde beon ær hi halige gewurðan “eager nor desirous that your actions holy should be called before they holy become”, Conf 1.4 (Logeman) 68) or non- finite (inflected or simple infinitive) (geornful to witanne þætte ær wæs “eager to know what before was”, Solil 2 63.24); georn […] geseon sigora frean “eager […] [to] gaze upon the Lord of victories”, Guth A,B 1077). 5.- THE OE DITRANSITIVE ADJECTIVAL PREDICATES THE ADJECTIVES There are around 50 adjectives in OE which may be considered to be ditransitive. They can be grouped semantically into eight classes. Table 1 includes all those adjectives which I consider to have a three-place argument structure and which are used with either or both arguments as complements. The italics in the adjectives at the bottom of each group indicates that there are no attested examples in which both non-subject arguments surface at the same time. Translation equivalents are taken from the DOE (Dictionary of Old English), Bosworth & Toller, and/or the OED (Oxford English Dictionary). Table 1. List of adjectives and semantic classification8 GRATITUDE þancful “thankful,” uncĨþfull “ungrateful,” unþancfull “ungrateful,” unþancol “ungrateful.” GENEROSITY/ ABUNDANCE cystig “generous,” Ôste “liberal,” genyhtsum “plenteous,” rĨmgifol “generous,” rĨmheort “generous,” rĨmmČd “generous,” spÔdig “generous,” fæsthafol niggardly,” r×cel×as “parsimonious,” heamol “parsimonious,” [fulgenyhtsum “very abundant,” ungenyhtsum “insufficient,” wana “lacking”], 8 The adjectives enclosed in square brackets semantically belong with the others, but are not ditransitive. Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 20 [ælmesgeorn “charitable”]. FORGIVENESS Ârfull “compassionate,” forgyfen “forgiving,” forgyfende “forgiving,” unforgyfend “unforgiving.” OBEDIENCE ÔaþmČd “submissive,” gehƧrsum “obedient,” ungehƧrsum “disobedient.” GUILT/ RESPONSIBILITY fÂh “stained,” forscyldigod “guilty,” forworht “condemned, guilty,” gyltig “guilty,” scyldig “guilty,” sinnig “guilty,” þurhscyldig “very guilty,” unscyldig “innocent,” [Åfƫled “defiled,” bilewit “innocent,” clŦne “clean,” unsinnig “not sinful,” unwemme “undefiled,” weorþ “guilty”]. DESERVING medeme “entitled,” unmedeme “not entitled,” weorþ “worthy,” unweorþ “unworthy,” unweorþlëc “unfitting,” [weorþfull “deserving,” weorþig “deserving,” weorþlîc “suitable”]. AGREEMENT Ânræd “one-minded, agreeing,” geþwære “agreed,” ungerÂd “discordant,” ungeþwære “disagreed.” SIMILARITY gelëc “like, similar,” anlëc “like, similar,” ungelëc “unlike.” I think that the meaning of these adjectives is not complete if at least two arguments — I insist, other than that surfacing as subject — are not taken into account. One may understand this through paraphrases: one is thankful to somebody for something, generous to something in something, obedient to somebody in something, forgiving of something to someone, deserving of something on account of something, responsible/guilty to somebody for something, agreed with somebody in something, similar to somebody/ something in something. The adjectives contained in Table 1 are not always monosemous and therefore each sense section in the dictionary will state the differences in the number and nature of the arguments and in the type of syntactic complementation. Figure 1 below is a tentative entry of the adjective þancful, Old English ditransitive adjectives 21 where three basic meanings are explained according to what has been said so far, although it is only in sense 3 that þancful is ditransitive.9 ADJECTIVES OF “GRATITUDE” Adjectives denoting “gratitude” are in principle liable to take three arguments: somebody [AGENT] is thankful to somebody else (BENEFICIARY) for something (THEME). This pattern will be illustrated with a sample dictionary entry (Figure 1) for the adjective þancful.10 The AGENT always surfaces as subject; the BENEFICIARY — an optional complement — is always found as a dative NP; and the THEME — optional — is always found as a genitive NP. Figure 1. Dictionary entry of þancful11 ÞANCFUL ܽ feeling or expressing gratitude to somebody for something � grateful, thankful ڢ uncĭþful, unþancfull, unþancol � PREDICATIVE (CS) � AGENT, BENEFICIARY, THEME ;S+V+Adj+C1+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = pers; NP; AGENT] [C1= pers; NPdat ݏ BENEFICIARY] [C2= abst; NPgen; THEME] • wesað þancfulle þon HælendeC1=NPdat=BENEFICIARY eoweres andleofanC2=NPgen=THEME (be thankful [to] the Saviour [for] your sustenance) (LS 12 (NatJnBapt) 151) • heoSub=NP=AGENT […] his ðrowunge ɞ his eadmodnesseC2=NPgen=THEME mid worde د weorcum himC1=Npdat BENEFICIARY þoncfulle wæren (they […] [for] his suffering & his mercy with word and 9 The dictionary entry in Figure 1 contains some additional fields which, in my opinion, ought to be included in a lexicon of adjectival complementation, such as fields for synonyms, semantically related adjectives and antonyms (symbols =, ڡ and ڢ, respectively) and labels for different types of referents (personal, abstract, action…). I do not include the fields recording collocational patterns (that is, adjectives frequently used in coordination with the headword or found in its immediate vicinity, such as na georn ne gewilnigende “neither eager or willing” (Conf 1.4 (Logeman) 68), and frequent nouns in subject function, such as such as synnful + cild / folc / gÃst / man / wíf “sinful + child / folk / spirit / man / woman”). 10 Þancful has other senses, not presented here, namely, “causing pleasure to somebody (on account of something)” and “feeling satisfied with something.” 11 The order in which the various elements appear in the Semantic Frame and Syntactic Pattern boxes does not reflect the actual syntagmatic order in which the different elements are found in the examples. Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 22 works [to] him thankful were) (HomU 2 (Belf 11) 116) ᆧ S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = pers; NP; AGENT] [(C1) = pers; BENEFICIARY] [C2 = pers/abst; NPgen; THEME] • Þæt folcSub=NP=AGENT wearð ða swa fagen his cystignessaC2=NPgen=THEME and swa þancful (The people became then so joyful [for] his generosity and so thankful) (ApT 10.14) ݑ S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = pers; NP; AGENT] [(C1); pers; BENEFICIARY] [(C2); pers/abst; THEME] • Beoð ðancfulle (Be thankful) (ÆCHom I, 39, 606.18) The adjective has three antonyms: unþancful, unþancol and uncĭþ, roughly translatable as “ungrateful.” The patterns seen in the extant examples of these adjectives are shown in Table 2, together with those of þancful (in sense 3), for contrast. Table 2. Syntactic complementation patterns of adjectives of “gratitude” S+V+Adj+C 1+C 2 S+V+Adj+C1+(C2 ) S+V+Adj+(C1)+C 2 S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2 ) þancful + – + + uncĭþful + – – – unþancful + + – – unþancol + – + – Since all the patterns, except that with only C1 (BENEFICIARY) surfacing, have been illustrated in Figure 1, I provide just one here, with unþancful: (25) ÞuSub=NP=AGENT wære swa ungeþancfull þinum drihtneC1=NPdat=BENEFICIARY (you were so ungrateful [to] your Lord) (HomU 37 (Nap 46) 235) As for the different types of structure that the complements of the four “gratitude” adjectives take, there is a neat correlation between argument and structure: the argument BENEFICIARY is always realized by a dative NP (C1), while the THEME is always genitive NP (C2). ADJECTIVES OF “GENEROSITY” AND “ABUNDANCE” Adjectives of “generosity” and “abundance” take three arguments, AGENT, BENEFICIARY and THEME. I will illustrate the dictionary entry for adjectives of this group with cystig (see Figure 2 below). The AGENT is obligatory and Old English ditransitive adjectives 23 surfaces as subject, while the other arguments, BENEFICIARY and THEME, are optional. I have found no examples in which they co-occur, unlike þancful. However, this should not rule out the need for its inclusion in the group of ditransitive adjectives. Since some of the synonyms (Õste, genyhtsum, rĭmmďd and spÕdig) are indeed found with two overt complements, one may safely presume that the same holds for cystig, despite the lack of evidence in extant texts. Figure 2. Dictionary entry of cystig CYSTIG willing to give and share things � generous, liberal, munificent. ڡ genyhtsum, rĭmgifol, rĭmheort, rĭmmďd ڢ fæsthafol � PREDICATIVE (CS) � AGENT, BENEFICIARY, THEME ;S+V+Adj+C1+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = pers; NP; AGENT] [C1= pers ݏ NPdat; BENEFICIARY] [(C2)= -anim; THEME] • HeSub=NP=AGENT wæs cystig wædlum and wydewumC1=NPdat=BENEFICIARY swa swa fæder (He was generous [to] orphans and widows as father) (ÆLS (Edmund), 22) ᆧ S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2: [V = Cop weorþan] [(C1); pers; BENEFICIARY] [C2 = -anim; PP: on; THEME] • Þa wearð se cynincg OswoldSub=NP=AGENT […] on eallum þingumC2=PPon=THEME cystig (Then became king Oswald […] in all things generous) (ÆLS (Oswald), 83) ݑ S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = pers; NP; AGENT] [(C1); pers; BENEFICIARY] [(C2); -anim; THEME] • HordereSub=NP=AGENT si gecoren of gegæderunge wis […] na cystig ac atodrædenne (The janitor [must] be chosen by the congregation wise […] not liberal but fearful) (BenRGl 31.61.4) Examples (2), with este, and (27), with genyhtsum illustrate the syntactic pattern with overt BENEFICIARY and THEME, while example (28), with spÕdig, illustrates a the pattern with a covert BENEFICIARY and an overt THEME. (26) Forþon þuSub=NP=AGENT drihtyn wynsum د milde eart د genihtsum on mildheortnysseC2=PPon=THEME eallum gecigyndumC1=NPdat=BENEFICIARY (Because you, Lord, sweet & mild are & plenteous in mercy [to] all calling on you) (PsGlC (Wildhagen) 85.5) (27) Forðon þu drihten wynsum د biliwite þuSub=NP=AGENT eart د spedig on mildheortnesseC2=PPon=THEME eallum gecigendum þeC1=NPdat=BENEFICIARY Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 24 (Because you, Lord, pleasant & amiable you are & generous in mercy [to] all calling on you) (PsGlL (Lindelöf) 85.5) (28) on ælmesdædumComp=THEME heSub=AGENT wæs rumgiful (in alms-deeds he was generous) (ÆLS (Oswald), 83) The extant examples of some antonyms of genyhtsum “generous”, such as fæsthafol, heamol and rÕcelÕas “niggardly, parsimonious,” only illustrate their use with two arguments, an AGENT (subject) and a THEME (surfacing as a genitive NP complement), but not with an BENEFICIARY. Yet, I believe that an BENEFICIARY argument ought to be included in its semantic frame; see example (29). (29) for hwi wære þuSub=NP=AGENT swa fæsthafol minra godaC2=NPgen=THEME? (Why were you so parsimonious [with] my good [things]?) (HomS 40.1 (Nap 49) 165) Table 3 summarizes the different syntactic patterns of the “generosity/ abundance” adjectives. Table 3. Complementation patterns of adjectives of “generosity” and “abundance” S+V+Adj+C1+C 2 S+V+Adj+C1+(C2 ) S+V+Adj+(C1)+C 2 S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2 ) cystig – + + + Õste + + – – genyhtsu m + + – – rĭmgifol – –12 + + rĭmheort – + + + rĭmmďd + + + – spÕdig + – – + fæsthafol - - + - heamol - - + - 12 Note, however, that there exists an example for this pattern with the corresponding noun: heSub. [Oswald] wæs eallumC1=NPdat=BENEFICIARY rumgeofa ge æðelum ge unæðelum C1=NPdat= BENEFICIARY (Bede 3 12.194.31) (he [Oswald] was to all [a] liberal [one], both to high [ones] and low [ones]). Old English ditransitive adjectives 25 rÕcelÕas - - + - The boundary between both the meanings of “generosity” and “abundance” is often blurred: “having abundance of something” being a necessary condition for “acting with generosity”, but not vice versa. Not all adjectives belonging to this semantic class qualify to their inclusion among ditransitive adjectives. For example, spÕdig is ditransitive in (27) above, but if the subject has inanimate reference (and materializes a LOCATIVE instead of an AGENT argument), the semantic frame cannot contain an BENEFICIARY; see example (30). The same is true of fulgenyhtsum “very abundant” and wana “lacking”.13 However, the antonym ungenyhtsum “insufficient”, in its unique occurrence in the DOEC, has a different semantic frame (overt THEME and SCOPE, covert BENEFICIARY).14 (30) Ic his cynnSub(Obj)=NP=LOCATIVE gedo […] wæstmumC=NPdat=THEME spedig (I his kin will make […] in fruits plentiful) (GenA,B 2801) (31) Gif soþlice seo tidSub=NP=THEME eal þis to gefremmanneC=- enneInfClause=SCOPE ungenihtsum beo […] (If indeed the time all this to perform insufficient should be […]) (ThCap 2 (Sauer) 29.351.12) Table 4 shows the different structures used by the complements of the adjectives of this group. C1 (BENEFICIARY) correlates with a dative NP and with PPs headed by ofer, while C2 (THEME) correlates with a genitive NP and 13 Besides, these adjectives are used in impersonal constructions, which cannot contain more than two arguments, either because the subject is clausal or because it is a subjectless clause. Examples: Genoh is munuceC=NPdat=EXPERIENCER and fulgenihtsum, þæt he hæbbe twa cugelan and twegen syricas for þære nihtwareSub=þætClause=THEME (Enough is [for a] monk and sufficient, that he have two cowls and two for the night-ware, BenR 55.91.2); þam huseC1=NPdat=LOCATIVE ne bið wana þæs healican leohtesC2=NPgen=THEME ([to] that house shall not be lacking [of] sublime light, ÆLS (Thomas), 66) (or take wana as a noun). 14 I justify this analysis further down. See example (45) and note 23. Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 26 with a PP headed by on, fram and of, with very few examples with a dative NP, in poetry. Table 4. Formal realization of the complements of “generosity and abundance” adjectives Dative NP Genitive NP Prepositional Phrase Infinitive Clause C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 (SCOPE) cystig + on Õste + + genyhtsum + on rĭmgifol + on rĭmheort + + rĭmmďd + + ofer on spÕdig + on ungenyhtsum + fæsthafol + heamul + rÕcelÕas + ADJECTIVES OF “FORGIVENESS” Adjectives of “forgiveness” have three arguments (AGENT, BENEFICIARY and THEME). Unlike the adjectives of the semantic classes seen so far, they are never found with the two non-AGENT arguments used at the same time. From a semantic point of view, the arguments are obligatory, but syntactically they are deletable and must be recovered from the context. The dictionary entry in Figure 3 illustrates the adjective forgyfen “forgiving.”15 Figure 3. Dictionary entry of forgyfen FORGYFEN ready to show mercy and grant forgiveness to somebody for something � merciful, forgiving, compassionate = Ãrful, forgyfende ڢ unforgyfende � PREDICATIVE (CS) 15 Past participle of forgyfan “to forgive” used as an adjective, with an active sense; see the DOE, s.v. forgyfan D.3.f.ii.a. Old English ditransitive adjectives 27 � AGENT, BENEFICIARY, THEME ݏ S+V+Adj+C1+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan, weorþan] [S = pers; NP; AGENT] [C1 = pers; NPdat; BENEFICIARY] [(C2); abst; THEME] • hieSub=NP=AGENT […] him eallumC1=NPdat=BENEFICIARY wurdon to milde د to forgiefene (they […] [to] them all became very mild & very forgiving) (Or4 3.87.17) ᆧ S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan, weorþan] [S = pers; NP; AGENT] [(C1); pers; BENEFICIARY] [C2 = abst; NPdat; THEME] • sie god ælmihtigSub=NP=AGENT […] eallum eowrum synnumC2=NPdat=THEME forgifen (Conf 9.5 (Först) 7) (let God almighty […] be forgiving [of] all your sins) There follow a few examples with other adjectives of the group: (32) SeSub=NP=AGENT arfull vel mild bið eallum unrihtwisnyssum þinumC2=NPdat=THEME (He merciful and mild will be [to] all your iniquities) (PsGlC (Wildhagen) 102.3) (33) HeSub=NP=AGENT wæs swa heard د unforgyfende þam forwyrhtum mannum C1=NPdat=BENEFICIARY (he was so hard & unforgiving [to] the guilty men) (GDPref and 4 (C) 37.319.24) (34) And þuSub=NP=AGENT hælend Crist sy […] forgifende […] mine synna and mine giltas C2=NPacc=THEME (And you, healing Christ, be […]forgiving […] [of] my sins and my guilts) (Conf 4 (Fowler) 18.71)16 The patterns found in the DOEC citations are summarized in Table 5. Table 5. Complementation patterns of adjectives of “forgiving” S+V+Adj+C1+C2 S+V+Adj+C1+(C2) S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2 S+V+Adj+(C 1)+(C2 ) 16 I analyse the structure bÕon forgyfend (example (34)) as “copula + adjective”, even though this interpretation may be debatable, for various reasons: a) the form may also be used attributively (forgifendre miltse (ArPrGl 1 (forgiving mercy, Holt-Campb) 27.19)); b) its antonym unforgyfende is necessarily an adjective (example (33)), since there exists no such verb as *unforgyfan; c) the verb is in the imperative mood, which is semantically incompatible with a progressive interpretation (see Quirk & al. 1985: 827); and d) even though in (34) the complement (THEME) is in the accusative, which is the expected inflection as object of the verb (see the DOE, s.v. forgyfan, sense D.3.d ), examples with a genitive form are also found, in which I consider the participial form to be adjectival: bið heSub=NP=AGENT […] forgifende ura synna C2=NPacc=THEME (he shall be […] forgiving [of] our sins, HomS 8 (BlHom2) 95). See in this respect Visser (1963–1973: 1931), Mitchell (1985: I 272–280), Denison (1993: Chapter 13) and Fischer and Van der Wurff (2006: 135 and ff.). Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 28 Ãrfull – – + – forgyfen – + + – forgyfende – – + + unforgyfende – + – – The formal realizations of complements of adjectives of “forgiving” are shown in Table 6. Again, C1 (BENEFICIARY) is always realized by a dative NP, while C2 (THEME) may be a genitive, an accusative, or a dative NP. Table 6. Formal realization of adjectives of “forgiving” Genitive NP Accusative NP Dative NP C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 Ãrfull + forgyfen + + forgyfende + + unforgyfend + ADJECTIVES OF “OBEDIENCE” Adjectives of “obedience” also require BENEFICIARY and THEME arguments, apart from the AGENT: one is obedient to somebody in something. The adjective gehƵrsum is used in all four syntactic patterns, while the antonym ungehƵrsum lacks a surviving example with simultaneous surfacing of the two non-subject arguments. I am aware that the paraphrase used (“be obedient to somebody in something”) is misleading, since it would seem that the argument I call THEME here is in fact SCOPE, that is, it fences in the extent of one’s obedience. However, I think it is not. The fact that a PP is used for C2 should not bias us against choosing the label THEME for this argument. This is borne out by a comparison of the referents of C2 in the examples of the entry for gehyrsum in Figure 4. We can readily see that they are of the same nature and, whether the syntactic pattern is C1+C2 or (C1)+C2, what the AGENT is compliant with is still an order or a wish. Figure 4 shows the dictionary entry of gehƵrsum. Figure 4. Dictionary entry of gehƵrsum Old English ditransitive adjectives 29 GEHYRSUM feeling or expressing obedience to somebody in something � obedient, submissive = Õaþmďd ڢ ungehƵrsum � PREDICATIVE (CS/CO) � AGENT, BENEFICIARY, THEME ݏ S+V+Adj+C1+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = pers; NP; AGENT] [C1 = pers; NPdat; BENEFICIARY] [C2 = abst; PPæt/in/on/tď; THEME] • gif geSub=NP=AGENT æt þissum þreom þingumC2=PPæt=THEME meC1=NPdat=BENEFICIARY hyrsume beon willað (if you in these three things [to] me obedient will be) (Bede 2 2.102.10) ݐ S+V+Adj+C1+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan, weorþan; Intr wunian] [S = NP; pers; AGENT] [C1 = pers; NPdat/PPtď; BENEFICIARY] [C2 = abst; (C); THEME] • ge ðeowanSub=NP=AGENT. beoð gehyrsume eowerum hlafordumC1=NPdat=BENEFICIARY (you servants, be obedient [to] your masters) (ÆCHom II, 21, 186.216) • HeSub=NP=AGENT sceal beon […] hersum to ælcum men د to GodeC1=NPtď=BENEFICIARY (He must be […] obedient to all men & to God) (HomS 2 (ScraggVerc16) 185) ݑ S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = pers; NP; AGENT] [C1) = pers; BENEFICIARY] [C2 = NPdat; abst; THEME] • ðuSub=NP=AGENT wære gehyrsum ðines wifes wordumC2=NPdat=THEME (you were obedient [to] your wife’s words) (ÆCHom I, 1, = S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan, bÕon/wesan geworden] [S ݒ (18.12 pers; NP; AGENT] [(C1); pers; BENEFICIARY] [(C2) = abst; THEME] • Læcedemonie þære byrigSub=NP=AGENT siþþan gehiersume wæron (The Lacedemonians of that city afterwards obedient were) (Or3 1.55.9) The adjective Õaþmďd, when used predicatively, is never found with a THEME argument. However, there is one example, (35), in which it is used attributively and has one such argument, but no BENEFICIARY.17 (35) he on Brytene her eaðmode him eorlasSub(Obj)=NP=AGENT funde to godes willanC2=PPtď=THEME 17 Another example of Õaþmďd which is somewhat misleading is the following: wite he eac, þæt heSub=NP=EXPERIENCER?/AGENT? swa micle eaðmodra beon sceal on regoles underþeodnesse C2:PPon=THEME/SCOPE?, swa miclum swa he furðor forlæten is (let him also know that he must be all the more submissive/humble in [to?] the obedience of the rule the more he is allowed [in the service], BenR 62.111.20)). Ôaþmďd also means “humble, meek.” If we consider that this is the sense it has in the previous example, then the PP on regoles underþeodnesse could be labelled SCOPE. But if we consider that it is the sense “obedient” that is being conveyed, then the PP is a THEME. This would also alter the type of argument surfacing as subject: EXPERIENCER in the former interpretation, AGENT in the latter. Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 30 (he in Britain here obedient [for] himself earls found to God’s will [͸ he found himself law-abiding earls]) (Men 95) Table 7 shows the different complementation patterns of the two adjectives. Table 7. Complementation patterns of adjectives of “obedience” S+V+Adj+C1+C2 S+V+Adj+C1+(C2) S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2 S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2) gehƵrsum + + + + Õaþmďd – + – + ungehƵrsum – + + + The formal realizations of complements of adjectives of “obedience” are shown in Table 8. C1 (BENEFICIARY) can be either a dative NP or a PP headed by tď or wiþ. C2 (THEME) can be dative or genitive NP or a PP with æt, in, on, tď. Table 8. Formal realization of adjectives of “obedience” Dative NP Genitive NP Prepositional Phrase C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 gehƵrsum + + tď æt, in, on, tď ungehƵrsu m + + + Õaþmďd + wiþ on, tď ADJECTIVES OF “GUILT AND RESPONSIBILITY” This group of adjectives is semantically heterogeneous: not all of them have the same meaning components and some of them present great complexity in their denotations. This can be illustrated by means of paraphrases: one can be accountable for something (e.g., a crime or a sin) and, if found out, be liable to judgement, and if convicted, be liable to a sentence (that is, the punishment), while being responsible to somebody for the crime or sin committed. Naturally, we are not going to find more than two of these complements used at the same time. However, two arguments may surface in the same element. Old English ditransitive adjectives 31 For example, in Sense 1 of scyldig (see Figure 5), the subject is both AGENT, insofar as he is the doer of the action, and EXPERIENCER, since he is liable to undergo a punishment. Besides, the semantic frame would contain two THEME arguments, one of which should perhaps be given a more specific case label, such as CAUSE. This contingency — the presence of two THEMES — actually only happens with very few adjectives and does not invalidate our choice of argument labels. It should be considered as an idiosyncratic feature of the adjective scyldig itself. However, for the sake of consistency, since I have used the term CAUSE for no other adjective, I will refer to this argument as THEME, and distinguish between the two THEMES by means of superscript numerals. Sense 2 of scyldig also involves two arguments, though they are different from those it has in sense 1. Here we have an AGENT surfacing as subject, an EXPERIENCER and an optional THEME, which is always the price the subject referent must pay to compensate for his crime or sin. Figure 5. Dictionary entry of scyldig SCYLDIG ܽ responsible or convicted for a crime AND liable to punishment � guilty, convicted, liable ڡ weorþ � PREDICATIVE (CS) � AGENT/EXPERIENCER, THEME 1, THEME 2 ;S+V+Adj+C1+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = pers; NP ݏ AGENT/EXPERIENCER] [C1 = pers; PPfor; THEME1] [C2 = abst; PPtď; THEME2] • Scyldig heSub=NP=AGENT/EXPERIENCER wæs to hellicere susleC1=PPtď=THEME1 for his mandædumC2=PPfor=THEME2(CAUSE) (Guilty he was to hellish torment for his crimes) (ÆCHom II, 5, 45.131) ܾ responsible to someone AND liable to punishment � guilty, liable ڡ weorþ � PREDICATIVE (CS) � AGENT, EXPERIENCER, THEME ݏ S+V+Adj+C 1+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = NP; AGENT] [C1 = pers; NPdat/PPwiþ; EXPERIENCER] [C2 = abst; NPgen, dat, acc/PPwiþ; THEME] • And gif hit hwa gedon hæbbe, beo heSub=NP=AGENT […] wið þone cyningcC1=PPwiþ=EXPERIENCER scyldig ealles þæs, þe he age C2=NPgen= THEME (And if somebody should have done it, let him be […] against the king guilty [of] all that which he may own [i.e., liable to pay compensation]) (HomU 40 (Nap 50) 178) • Twegen gafolgylderasSub=NP=AGENT wæron feohC2=NPacc=THEME scyldige sumum massereC1=NPdat=EXPERIENCER (Twelve tribute-payers were [to] money liable [to] some merchant) (ÆHomM 12 (Brot 1), 163) • þuSub=NP=AGENT eart wið mec Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 32 C1=PPwiþ=EXPERIENCER deaþeC2NPdat=THEME scyldig, forþon ealle mine broðor […] wæron ofslegene (you are liable against me [to] death, because all my brothers […] were killed) (Bede 4 23.328.24) • And se ðe rihte lage د rihtne dom forsace, beo se Sub=NP=AGENT scyldig wið þone þe hit ageC2 =PPwiþ=THEME: swa wið cyningc C1=PPwiþ =EXPERIENCER CXX scyllingaC2=NP=THEME, swa wið eorlC1=PP wiþ =EXPERIENCER LX scyllingaC2= NP=THEME (And he who disregards rightful law & rightful judgement, he shall be guilty against him [to whom] he owes: against the king [for] 120 shillings, against the earl [for] 60 shillings) (LawIICn 15.2) ݐ S+V+Adj+C1+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = NP; AGENT] [C1 = pers; NPdat/PPwiþ; EXPERIENCER] [(C2)= abst; THEME] • […] us sylfeSub(Obj)=NP=AGENT scyldige þeC1=NPdat=EXPERIENCER ([…] ourselves guilty [against] you) (HyGl 3 (Gneuss) 12.3) • Ælc man þe yfel deþ mid yfelum willanSub=NP=AGENT is scyldig wið GodC1=PP wiþ=EXPERIENCER (Each man who evil should do with evil will is guilty against God) (ÆLS (Exalt of Cross), 170) • Ic […] meSub(Obj)=NP=AGENT scyldigne dyde wið þeC1=PP wiþ=EXPERIENCER (I […]myself guilty made against you) (Conf 9.3.2 (Logeman) 32) ܿ responsible to someone for something � guilty ڢ unscyldig � PREDICATIVE (CS) � AGENT, EXPERIENCER, THEME ݏ S+V+Adj+C1+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = NP; AGENT] [C1 = pers; PPwiþ; EXPERIENCER] [C2 = abst; NPgen; THEME] • we […] ðæt witon se esne ðe ærendað his woroldhlaforde wifes, ðæt heSub=NP=AGENT bið diernes geliresC2=NPgen=THEME scyldig wið GodC1=PPwiþ=EXPERIENCER (we […] that know, the servant who acts as messenger for his lord’s wife, that he shall be [of] fornication guilty against God) (CP 19.143.1) Some other meanings of scyldig have not been included in the preceding figure given the impossibility to recover a covert argument. In (36) below, where scyldig means “guilty of a crime or sin”, just one argument surfaces, THEME2. Which is the missing argument? The EXPERIENCER (the person against whom one is guilty, e.g., God) or the THEME1 (the punishment, e.g., hell)?18 18 One particular meaning of weorþ in legal texts is synonymous with the second part of senses 1 and 2 of scyldig, that is, “liable to punishment”. For this reason, unlike scyldig, its semantic frame contains only an EXPERIENCER (subject) and an optional THEME (complement), which refers to the punishment. Thus, even though weorþ belongs to the “deserving” class, it is not ditransitive in this case. Example: Hwæt hæfð þes Old English ditransitive adjectives 33 (36) Nu synd þa IudeiscanSub=NP=AGENT[…] Cristes deaðesC2=NPgen=THEME2 scyldige (Now are the Jews […] [of] Christ’s death guilty) (ÆLS (Exalt of Cross), 176) Likewise, should an extra argument really be supplied in example (37), where scyldig means “liable to conviction and sentence,” and a new syntactic (C1)+C2 pattern be added to Sense 2 in Figure 5? (37) se ðe man ofslihð, seSub=NP=EXPERIENCER bið domesC1=NPgen=THEME1 scyldig (he who a man kills, he shall be [to] judgement liable) (ÆHom 16 125) The following examples illustrate some of the other adjectives of the group, their complementation patterns being shown in Table 9: (38) heSub=NP=AGENT biþ leahtrumC2=NPdat=THEME fah wið wuldorcyningC1=PPwiþ=EXPERIENCER (he shall be [of] crimes guilty against the glorious King) (Whale 62) (39) þaSub=NP=AGENT wæron synfulle menn, and bysmorlice forscyldgode on sceamlicum dædumC2=PPon=THEME (who [the Sodomites] were sinful men and disgracefully guilty in shameful deeds) (ÆHom 19 65) (40) heSub=NP=AGENT bið […] scyldig wið God, د wið his hlafordC1=PPwiþ=EXPERIENCER eallenga forworht (he shall be […] guilty against God & against his lord utterly guilty) (CP 19.143.1) (41) Ic wat […] me sylfneSub(Obj)=NP=AGENT forworhtne wordes and dædeC2=NPgen=THEME (I know […] myself sinful [in] word and deed) (WPol 2.1.1 (Jost) 57) (42) icSub=NP=AGENT wille beon þyses mannes blodesC2=NPgen=THEME unscyldig د his deaþesC2=NPgen=THEME (I wish to be [of] this man’s blood guiltless & [of] his death) (HomS 24 (ScraggVerc1) 187) rihtwisa man […] gefremod. þæt heSub=NP=EXPERIENCER rodehengeneC=NPgen=THEME wurþe sy? (What has this righteous man […] done, that he [of] crucifixion deserving should be?) (ÆCHom I, 38, 596.1). Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 34 Table 9. Complementation patterns of adjectives of “guilt and responsibility” S+V+Adj+C1+C2 S+V+Adj+C1+(C2) S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2 S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2) fÃh + - + (?) - (?) forscyldigod – + + – forworht – + + + gyltig – + + + scyldig1 + – – – scyldig2 + + – – scyldig3 + – – – synnig – + – – þurhscyldig – – + – unscyldig – + + + The complements of the adjectives of “guilt and responsibility” take the realizations shown in Table 10: C1 (EXPERIENCER) correlates with dative and with a PP headed by wiþ, while C2 (THEME) is normally realized by a genitive NP or a PP headed by mid, on or þurh.19 Table 10. Formal realization of adjectives of “guilt and responsibility” Dative NP Genitive NP Prepositional Phrase C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 fÃh + wiþ forscyldigod wiþ for, mid, on, þurh forworht + + wiþ mid, þurh gyltig + + wiþ on scyldig1 for tď scyldig2 + + + wiþ wiþ scyldig3 + wiþ sinnig + wiþ þurhscyldig for unscyldig + ætforan, wiþ fram, of 19 A few adjectives semantically or lexically related adjectives cannot be considered ditransitive for they only have one non-subject argument in their semantic frame: ÃfƵled, bilewit, clŬne, unsynnig and unwemme. Old English ditransitive adjectives 35 ADJECTIVES OF “DESERVING” Adjectives of “deserving” are also ditransitive, insofar as one is worthy or deserving of something on account of something. The three arguments which make up the semantic frame of these adjectives are an EXPERIENCER, which always surfaces as subject, and a THEME and a SCOPE, which are realized by complements and never appear simultaneously. Figure 6 illustrates the dictionary entry of medeme. Figure 6. Dictionary entry of medeme20 MEDEME having sufficient worth or merit in a certain respect to deserve having or receiving something � deserving, entitled, fit, worthy = weorþ � PREDICATIVE (CS/CO) � EXPERIENCER, THEME, SCOPE ݏ S+V+Adj+C 1+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan, weorþan] [S = pers; NP; EXPERIENCER] [C1 = pers; NPdat/PPfor; THEME] [(C2) = abst; SCOPE] • seþe lufað fæder oþþe moder swiðor þonne me nis heSub=NP= EXPERIENCER meC1=NPdat=THEME wyrðe vel meoduma (he who loves [his] father or mother more than me, he is not [of] me worthy or deserving) (MtGl (Ru) 10.37) • weSub=NP=EXPERIENCER magon on þyssum stowum […] gode د medeme weorþan for urum Drihtne C1=PPfor= THEME (we can in this place […] good & fit become for our Lord) (HomS 46 (BlHom 11) 251) ݐ S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan, weorþan] [S = pers; NP; EXPERIENCER] [(C1)= pers; THEME] [C2 = - anim; PPon/þurh; SCOPE] • HeSub=NP=EXPERIENCER wes meodum on eallum þingumC2=PP on=SCOPE (he was worthy in all things) (LS 3 (Chad) 76) • heSub=NP=EXPERIENCER wæs þurh allC2=PPþurh= SCOPE meodum د Gode gecoren (he was through all worthy & chosen by God) (Bede 4 3.262.30) ݑ S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan, weorþan] [S = pers; NP; EXPERIENCER] [(C1)= pers; THEME] [(C2) = -anim; SCOPE] • ðeah mon nu yfelum men anwald selle, ne gedeð se anwald hineSub(Obj)=NP=EXPERIENCER godne ne medomne (even though an evil man may have been given power, power will not make him good or worthy) (Bo 16.38.32) 20 The basic meaning of medeme is “moderate, occupying or observing the mean position”, whence “meet for” or “worthy of something.” See Bosworth & Toller, s.v. medume. My dictionary entry sample in this article records this last sense, though it often proves difficult to pinpoint the exact meaning in extant examples. Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 36 The adjective weorþ is semantically more complex than medeme.21 Three senses are relevant here: “Having sufficient worth or merit in a certain respect to deserve having or receiving something”. With this sense it is a synonym of medeme and shares with it the same argumental and syntactic complementation structure.22 1.- “Legally entitled to something on account of something [=having the right to deserve].” 2.- “Worthy of esteem for somebody on account of something.” Although the arguments of the adjective are the same in its three senses, they surface as different structures according to the meaning conveyed: x (1) “DESERVING” AND (2) “ENTITLED”: EXPERIENCER (SUBJECT), THEME (C1) AND SCOPE (C2); x (2) “ESTEEMED”: theme (SUBJECT), experiencer (C1) AND scope (C2). Unlike medeme, weorþ is always used with at least one complement. Besides, both complements are allowed simultaneously. Examples (43) and (44) illustrate senses 1 and 3, with 2 complements. (43) he […]cwæð þæt he meahte oðerne getæcnan, þeSub=NP=EXPERIENCER biscophadaC1=NPgen=THEME wyrðra wære ge on gelærednesse ge on his lifes gegearnunge ge on gedefre eldoC2=PPon=SCOPE (he […] said that he could another[one] instruct, who [for the] bishopric worthier would be in learning, in his life’s preparation and in adequate age) (Bede 4 1.254.6) (44) Wæs heSub=NP=THEME for his arfæstum dædumC2=PPfor=SCOPE eallum his geferumC1=NPdat=EXPERIENCER leof د weorð 21 Weorþ has other meanings which that have nothing to do with the idea of deserving, such as “having a value equal to something specified”, “considered appropriate or acceptable for a given circumstance or purpose”, “of great value, importance or merit”, “deserving of or liable to punishment” (see Note 17), and “held in esteem by somebody on account of something”. These meanings, of course, are not considered in this article. 22 However, the referent of the THEME in the case of medeme is always personal, while in the case of weorþ it may also be inanimate. Old English ditransitive adjectives 37 (Was he for his honourable actions [to] all his companions dear & worthy) (LS 17.1 (MartinMor) 31) There exist a few adjectives lexically derived from weorþ, namely, weorþfull, weorþig, weorþlíc and unweorþlíc, which also belong to the “deserving” group. However, only unweorþlíc “unworthy, unfitting” might be considered as ditransitive; see example (45). The adjective has three arguments, THEME, EXPERIENCER and SCOPE, which surface as subject, a dative NP complement and an infinitive-clause complement, respectively.23 (45) þeah þe heoSub=NP=THEME [sprƥce] si usC1=NPdat=EXPERIENCER unwyrðelice ɞ unrihtlic to sprecaneC2=-enneInfCl=SCOPE (even though it [speech] should be [for] us unfitting & wrong to speak) (GDPref and 3 (C) 15.209.16) Table 11 illustrates the different patterns of the adjectives of the “deserving” group. 23 When the SCOPE is an infinitive clause, the clause often contains yet another argument which surfaces as a dative NP. Semantically this NP is an AGENT within the infinitive clause, but in my view it is also an EXPERIENCER argument of the adjective predicate. The same analysis may be applied to a semantic class of adjectives which I have not considered in this article, that of “ease and difficulty”. In the sentence þæs dæges godspelSub=THEME is swiðe earfoðe læwedum mannumComp1=EXPERIENCER to understandenneComp2=SCOPE (ÆCHom II, 36.2, 271.6; Today’s gospel is very difficult for uneducated men to understand), the quality of ease applies not only to the action (tď understandenne), but also to the referent of the subject (þæs dæges godspel). As Bolinger (1961: 373) points out (in his criticism of Lees’s (1960) thesis that He is hard to convince has the same origin as It is hard to convince him), these adjectives “can as readily modify the subject as the action.” Paraphrasing Schachter (1980: 446, Note 15), we could say that the act of reading the gospel is difficult by reason of some intrinsic quality of the gospel itself. See also Wülfing (1894–1901 II: 200). Since there are examples in OE with no infinitive clause complement, it is clear that the adjective can indeed qualify the subject: hu nearu ys wegSub=THEME ɞ earfoþe se gelæt to life (LibSc 60.1; how straight and difficult is the path that leads to life). Here the SCOPE and EXPERIENCER arguments do not surface, though they are contextually recoverable (*mannum and *tredan, for example). There are examples where only the EXPERIENCER is overt and the SCOPE is covert (but recoverable: *tď donne): Drihten hælend. nis þeC1=EXPERIENCER nan ðingSub=THEME earfoðe (ÆCHom I, 4, 62.10; Lord saviour, is to You nothing difficult). Therefore, adjectives of “ease and difficulty” could arguably be included among our ditransitive adjectives. See also examples (26) and ((45). Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 38 Table 11. Complementation patterns of adjectives of medeme, unweorþ and weorþ with the sense “deserving” S+V+Adj+C1+C2 S+V+Adj+C1+(C2) S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2 S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2) medeme - + + + unmedeme – – – + unweorþ + + + + unweorþlíc + – – – weorþ1 + + + + weorþ2 + + + + The complements of the adjectives of “deserving” take the following realizations: Table 12. Formal realization of adjectives of “deserving” Dat NP Gen NP Acc NP PP Finite Cl. Infin. Cl. C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 medeme + for on, þurh weorþ1 + + +(inst ) tď for, on + + weorþ2 + + mid, on for, in, mid, on unweorþ + fram, on + weorþful1 + weorþful2 + betwÕoh, mid, on weorþig + ADJECTIVES OF “AGREEMENT” There are four adjectives denoting “agreement with somebody in something”: Ãnræd, geþwære, ungerÃd and ungeþwære. The arguments required by these adjectives are two EXPERIENCERS and a SCOPE. One of the EXPERIENCER arguments always surfaces as the subject and the other may be a complement (a dative NP or a PP); see example (46). As Comesaña-Rincón (2001b: 38) points out, there exists a relation of reciprocity between them: “a Old English ditransitive adjectives 39 change in the (linear) direction of the relation provokes no alteration in the relation itself.” Thus, example (46) may be rewritten as example (47). (46) Hwæt gewilnað þes wiðerwinna, þe wyle, þæt þuSub=NP=EXPERIENCER1 beo wið hineC1=PPwiþ=EXPERIENCER2 geþwære, buton þines sylfes hæle? (ÆLet 6 (Wulfgeat), 135) (What does this enemy wish, who desires that you should be agreed with him, except your own salvation?) (47) *heSub=NP=EXPERIENCER2 beo wiþ þeC1=PPwiþ=EXPERIENCER1 geþwære (he should be agreed with you) This reciprocal relationship is the reason why both arguments are given the same case label. Reciprocity also means that both EXPERIENCERS may appear as coordinated NPs with subject function, as is illustrated in example (48), with the antonym ungerÃd:24 (48) Ðonne se abbodSub=NP1=EXPERIENCER1 and se prafostSub=NP2=EXPERIENCER2 ungerade beoð and him betwyx sacað […] (When the abbot and the provost discordant are and between them contend […]) (BenR 65.124.18) What is more, the referents of the two coordinated phrases, that is, the two EXPERIENCERS, may be realized by just one NP in the plural: (49) Æfter godes gesetnysse ealle cristene menSub=NP=EXPERIENCERS1+2 sceoldon beon swa geþwære. swilce hit an man wære (After God’s law, all Christian men must be as agreeing as if it one man were) (ÆCHom I, 19, 272.23) As for the second argument in the semantic frame, the SCOPE, it surfaces as a complement: 24 Naturally, although these “transformations” involve no change of meaning, the focus is different. See Quirk & al. (1985: 940; 945 et passim). Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 40 (50) And ealle hiSub=NP=EXPERIENCERS1+2 wæron anræde æt eallum þam ðingum C2=PPæt=SCOPE (And they all were unanimous on all those things) (WPol 2.1.1 (Jost) 161) Figure 7 illustrates the dictionary entry of Ãnræd. Figure 7. Dictionary entry of Ãnræd ÁNRÆD being agreed with somebody concerning something � agreed, one-minded, unanimous ڢ ungerÃd, ungeþwære � PREDICATIVE (CS) � EXPERIENCER 1, EXPERIENCER 2, SCOPE ݏ S+V+Adj+C1+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = pers; NP; EXPERIENCER 1, EXPERIENCER2] [C1 = pers; PPbetwÕon; EXPERIENCER1, EXPERIENCER 2] [C2 = abst; PPtď/Cl Fin: þæt; SCOPE] • And hy ealle Sub=NP= EXPERIENCERS1+2 wæron anræde him betweonanC1=PPbetwÕon= EXPERIENCERS1+2 to þæra gesætnyssa C2=PPtď= SCOPE (And they all were agreed between them concerning the decree) (ÆLet 1 (Wulfsige Xa), 98) • Wurdan þa ealle Sub=NP=EXPERIENCER1 swa anræde mid þam cyngeC1=PPmid=EXPERIENCER2 þæt hy woldon Godwines fyrde gesecan gif se cyng þæt woldeC2=þætCl=SCOPE ([They] all became so agreed with the king that they would Godwin’s army seek if the king so wished) (Or else: “resolute in support of the king”; see DOE, s. v. Ãnræd) (ChronD (Classen- Harm) 1052.1.31) ݐ S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = pers; NP; EXPERIENCER 1, EXPERIENCER2] [(C1) = pers; EXPERIENCER2] [C2 = abst; PPæt; SCOPE] • And ealle hiSub=NP=EXPERIENCERS1+2 wæron anræde æt eallum þam ðingumC2=PPæt=SCOPE (And they were all agreed on all the things) (WPol 2.1.1 (Jost) 161) ݑ S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan, weorþan] [S = pers/conc(fig); NP; EXPERIENCER1, EXPERIENCER2] [(C1) = pers; EXPERIENCER2 > reciprocity: C > S] [(C2) = abst; THEME] • þæt we ealleSub=NP=EXPERIENCERS1+2 gemænelice, gehadede and læwede, anræde weorðan for gode and for worold (that we all mutually, religious and lay [people], one-minded become for God and for [the] world) (HomU 40 (Nap 50) 206) • se monaSub=NP=EXPERIENCER1 and seo sæSub=NP=EXPERIENCER2 beon anræde (the moon and the sea are harmonious) (Days 3.2 (Först) 42) The various patterns used by the “agreement” adjectives are shown in Table 13. Table 13. Complementation patterns of adjectives of “agreement” Old English ditransitive adjectives 41 S+V+Adj+C1+C2 S+V+Adj+C1+(C2) S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2 S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2) Ãnræd + – + + geþwære – + + + ungerÃd – + + + ungeþwære – + + – The complements of the adjectives of “agreement” take the realizations shown in Table 14. Table 14. Formal realization of adjectives of “deserving” Dat NP PP Finite Cl. C1 C2 C1 C2 C 1 C2 Ãnræd betwÕon, tď + geþwære + wiþ on ungerÃd + betwÕon ungeþwære + betwÕoh 6.- ADJECTIVES OF “SIMILARITY” The three adjectives of “similarity”, Ãnlíc and gelíc “like”, and their antonym, ungelíc “unlike”, always involve two THEMES and a SCOPE. Therefore, the patterns are very similar to those of the “agreement” adjectives. However, a major difference is that “agreement” adjectives always involve personal referents, while “similarity” adjectives may involve either animate or inanimate referents. THEME1 always surfaces as subject in the clause structure while THEME2 may surface as complement (C1), as in the following example: (51) Forþam ys heofena riceSub=NP=THEME1 anlic þam cyningeC1=NPdat=THEME2 þe hys þeowas geradegode (Therefore is the kingdom of heaven like that king, who his servants reckoned) (Mt(WSCp) 18.23) Since the same type of reciprocity relation which obtains with “agreement” adjectives exists with “similarity” adjectives, example (51) may be rewritten as (52), with no change in meaning. What is more, both THEMES may appear as Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 42 coordinated NPs with subject function (example (53) or as one NP with double reference (example (54). (52) *Se cyningSub=NP=THEME2 ys anlic heofena riceC1=NPdat=THEME1 (the king is like [the] kingdom of heavens) (53) sio bieldoSub=NP1=THEME1 ɞ sio monnðwærnesSub=NP2=O2 bioð swiðe anlice (the courage & the meekness are most similar) (CP 40.287.23) (54) Ac hiora anwalda endasSub=NP=THEMES1+2 wæron swiþe ungelice (But their rulers’ ends were very unlike) (Or2 1.38.17) The second argument is SCOPE, that is, the extent to which the similarity or lack of similarity between two people or things obtains. It surfaces as a complement taking the shape of a NP or a PP, as in (55): (55) Se fugelSub=NP=THEME1 is on hiweC2=PPon=SCOPE æghwæs ænlic, onlicost peanC1=NPacc=THEME2 (The fowl is unique in aspect most like [a] peacock) (Phoen 311) Figure 8 shows the dictionary entry for the adjective gelíc. The section for Syntactic Pattern ݐ is further divided into subsections ۿ ,۾ and ܀ to illustrate more clearly the structures and types of referent of its components. Both the subject and the C1 take the shape of finite clauses introduced by þe, þæt and swÃ, often anticipated by or correlating with hit, þŬm, þon and þæs. Since these patterns disappeared in the course of history, the courtesy translations offered may at times prove a little taxing for PDE acceptability. Figure 8. Dictionary entry of gelíc GELìC having resemblance in certain features to someone or something � like, similar = anlíc ڢ ungelíc � PREDICATIVE (CS/CO) � THEME 1, THEME2, SCOPE S+V+Adj+C1+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan, weorþan] [S = ±anim; NP; THEME1] ݏ [C1 = ±anim; NPdat; THEME2] [C2 = ±anim; NPdat/PPin/on; SCOPE] • Is seo eaggebyrdSub=NP=THEME1 stearc ond hiweC2=NPdat=SCOPE staneC1=NPdat=THEME2 gelicast (Is the eye rigid and in aspect [to] a stone most similar) (Phoen 301) • Wendun ge ond woldun, wiþerhycgende, þæt geSub=NP=THEME1 scyppendeC1= Old English ditransitive adjectives 43 NPdat=THEME2 sceoldan gelice wesan in wuldreC2=PPin=SCOPE (You imagined and wanted, evil-thinking, that you [to] the Creator must similar be in glory) (Guth A,B 663) • Ne gedafenað biscope þæt heSub=NP=THEME1 beo on dædumC2=PPon=SCOPE folces mannumC1=NPdat=THEME2 gelic (It does not befit a bishop he should be in deeds [to] the folk’s men similar) (ÆCHom II, 10, 81.14) S+V+Adj+C1+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [(C2); -anim; SCOPE] ݐ C1 = ±anim; NPdat/gen/acc/PPtď/Cl Fin: þæt] [S = ±anim; NP; THEME1] ۾ (anticipated by hit); þe; þe (anticipated by þŬm, þon); þæt (anticipated by þæs); THEME 2] • Helias se witegaSub=NP=THEME1 wæs us mannumC1=NPdat=THEME2 gelic (Elias the prophet was us men like) (ÆCHom II, 21, 189.277) • gelic is rice heofunasSub=NP=THEME1 nettC1=NPacc=THEME2 asendun in sae (similar is the kingdom of heavens [to] a net thrown into the sea) (MtGl (Ru) 13.47) • gelic is ric heofnaSub=NP=THEME1 to darsteC1=PPtď=THEME2 (similar is [the] kingdom of heavens is to leaven) (MtGl (Li) 13.33) • hitAnticip is us nu swiþor bismreC1=NPdat=THEME2 gelic þæt we þæt besprecað Sub=þætCl= THEME1 (it is now [to] us more like shame that we should complain about that) (Or3 11.82.33) • gyf hwa hwæt ungewealdes gedeð, ne byð þætSub=NP=THEME1 eallunga na gelic, þe hit gewealdes gewurþeC1=þeCl=THEME2 (if somebody something does unintentionally, that is not at all like that, that [= as if] it intentionally was done) (LawIICn 68.3 7) • hioSub=NP=THEME1 [seo sibb] sie þæmAnticip gelicost þe mon nime ænne eles dropanC1=þeCl=THEME2 […] (it [peace] be that most like that, that [= as if] somebody a drop of oil took […]) (Or4 7.97.28) ,C1 = -anim; NPdat; THEME1] [S = NP; pers/abst; THEME1, THEME2] ۿ THEME 2] • ealle gesceaftaSub=NP=THEMES1+2 þu gesceope himC1=NPdat=THEMES1+2 gelice (all creatures you created to them [= to one another] similar) (Bo 33.79.31 7) • Ac ealle þry hadasSub==NP=THEMES1+2 emnece him sylfumC1=NPdat=THEMES1+2 synt د gelice (But all three persons coeternal between themselves are & coequal) (PsCaI (Lindelöf) 19(15).26) :C1 = abst; Cl Fin] [S = abst; Cl Fin: swÃ/þæt/þe (anticipated by hit); THEME1] ܀ swÃ; THEME2] • Emne hitAnticip bið gelice swa man mid wætere þone weallendan wylm agioteSub=swÃCl=THEME1, þæt he leng me mot rixian (Likewise, it will be like that [as if] somebody with water the flowing flame would soak) (HomS 40.3 (ScraggVerc 10) 129) ,S+V+Adj+(C1)+C2: [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = NP; pers/abst; THEME1 ݑ THEME 2] [(C1); pers, abst; THEME2] [C2; -anim; PPon; SCOPE] • hiSub=NP=THEMES1+2 [iacob and esau] næron þeah gelice on þeawum ne on lifes Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 44 geearnungumC2=PPon=SCOPE (they [Jacob and Esau] were not, however, alike in customs nor in life’s earnings) (ÆCHom I, 7, 110.20) ᆩ S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2): [V = Cop bÕon/wesan] [S = ±anim; NP; THEME1, THEME 2] [(C1) = anim, abst; THEME2 reciprocity: > S] [(C2) = -anim; SCOPE] • Ealle weSub=NP=THEMES1+2 sind gelice ætforan gode (We all are alike before God) (ÆCHom I, 19, 260.24) • Se forholena cræftSub=NP=THEME1 and forhyded godSub=NP=THEME2 ne bið ællunga gelice (The hidden skill and the concealed good will not be atl all alike) (Instr 69) The patterns for the “similarity” adjectives are shown in Table 15 and the formal realization of the complements in Table 16. Table 15. Complementation patterns of adjectives of “similarity” S+V+Adj+C 1+C 2 S+V+Adj+C1+(C2 ) S+V+Adj+(C1)+C 2 S+V+Adj+(C1)+(C2 ) anlíc + + – + gelíc + + + + ungelíc + + – + Table 16. Formal realization of adjectives of “similarity” Dative NP Genitive NP Accusative NP PP Finite Clause C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C 2 C1 C2 gelíc + + + + tď in, on + anlíc + on + ungelíc + on + 7.- CONCLUSIONS Although the vast majority of OE adjectives are intransitive and do not require a complement, a substantial number of them are transitive and some fifty odd of these can be further considered to be ditransitive. OE ditransitive adjectives belong to just a few semantic classes (“gratitude,” “generosity,” “obedience,” “guilt and responsibility,” “deserving,” “agreement,” and “similarity”). Strictly speaking, the syntactic term ditransitive should apply only to adjectives which are always used with two complements (C1 and C2), but the broader definition I have used — ditransitive Old English ditransitive adjectives 45 adjectives are three-place adjectival predicates — allows me to include adjectives which are found with just one complement, that is, with an overt argument and with a covert, but recoverable, argument. This may be due either to the fact that tokens have not survived in extant texts (and are not found in the DOEC) or to the fact that they simply disallowed such syntactic patterns with two complements. However, it is on the grounds of their close semantic relationship to other adjectives of which there are extant examples that I posit, and hope to have shown, that their semantic structure is the same. This approach permits to organize the dictionary entries of these adjectives in the lexicon in a highly systematic way. It also allows for efficient comparison and cross- referencing between semantically- and lexically-related adjectives. A. Alcaraz-Sintes University of Jaén REFERENCES Alcaraz-Sintes, Alejandro 2006a: Proposal for a Dictionary of Syntactic and Semantic Complementation of Old English Adjectives. Selected Proceedings of the 2005 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX). McConchie R. W. & al. eds. 34–40. Somerville (Ma.): Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 14/04/2006. www.lingref.com, document #1344 Alcaraz-Sintes, Alejandro 2006b: La complementación del adjetivo en inglés antiguo. Jaén: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Jaén. Alcaraz-Sintes, Alejandro 2006c: Old English Ditransitive Adjectives. Paper delivered at the 18th SELIM Conference, University of Málaga. Alcaraz-Sintes, Alejandro In progress: A Dictionary of Adjective Semantic and Syntactic Complementation. Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 46 Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad and Geoffrey Leech 2002: Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Longman, Pearson Education Limited. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1961: Syntactic Blends and Other Matters. Language 37. 366–381. Bolinger, Dwight L. & A. Donald Sears 1981[1968]: Aspects of Language. Third edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Bosworth, Joseph and T. Northcote Toller 1921[1898]: An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Based on the Manuscript Collections of the Late Joseph Bosworth. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Comesaña-Rincón, Joaquín 1986: La complementación adjetiva en inglés contemporáneo. PhD Thesis. Universidad de Sevilla. Comesaña-Rincón, Joaquín 1992: La modificación adjetiva de sustantivos deverbales en inglés: hacia una tipología transitiva de los adjetivos. Actas del IX Congreso de AESLA. Congreso Nacional de la Asociacion Española de Linguistica Aplicada. Valladolid. Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco. 1992. 179–189. Comesaña-Rincón, Joaquín 1998: La transitividad adjetiva: hacia una tipología completiva del adjetivo inglés. Transitivity Revisited. Montserrat Martínez Vázquez. Ed. 187–199. Huelva: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva. Comesaña-Rincón, Joaquín 2001a: Decoding and Encoding Grammatical Information in Adjectival Entries: The Basics. Atlantis, XXIII 1, 27– 40. Comesaña-Rincón, Joaquín 2001b: Decoding and Encoding Grammatical Information in Adjectival Entries: Processes and Cases. Atlantis, XXIII 2, 31–48. Old English ditransitive adjectives 47 Cook, Walter A. S. J. 1998: Case Grammar Applied. Publications in Linguistics 127. Dallas (Texas): The Summer Institute of Linguistics and The University of Texas at Arlington. Denison, David 1993: English Historical Syntax. London and New York: Longman. DOE. The Dictionary of Old English – A to F. Antonette diPaolo Healey. Ed. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies. DOEC. The Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form. 2004. diPaolo Healey, Antonette, Dorothy Holland, Joan Haines, David McDougall, Ian McDougall & Xin Xiang. Toronto: DOE Project. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968: The Case for Case. Universals in Linguistic Theory. Emmon Bach and Robert Harms. Eds. 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Fischer, Olga & Wim Van der Wurff. 2006: Syntax. Hogg, Richard & David Denison. Eds. 109-198. A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Herbst, Thomas 2004: A Valency Dictionary of English: a Corpus-Based Analysis of the Complementation Patterns of English Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives. Topics in English Linguistics 40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum 2002: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lees, Robert B. 1960: A Multiply Ambiguous Adjectival Construction in English. Language 36. 207–221. Maling, Joan 1983: Transitive Adjectives: A Case of Categorial Reanalysis. Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles. Frank Heny and B. Richards. Eds. 253–289. Dordrecht: Foris. Mitchell, Bruce 1985: Old English Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes 48 OED. The Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on Compact Disk. Version 3.0. 2002[1989]. Simpson, Joseph & Edmund Weiner. Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik 1985: A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman. Trask, R. Larry 1993: A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge. Tucker, Gordon H. 1998: The Lexicogrammar of Adjectives. A Systemic Functional Approach to Lexis. London and New York: Cassell. Visser, Frederic Th. 1963–1973: An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Wülfing, J. Ernst 1894–1901: Die Syntax in den Werken Alfreds des Grossen. Bonn: B. Hanstein’s. * † *