The Old English Prefix ge-: A Panchronic Reappraisal

Abstract

This article carries out an analysis of the Old English verbal prefix ge- that is based on a paradigmatic organization of the lexicon, which allows for the inclusion of synchronic and diachronic data into a panchronic approach. On the synchronic side, the focus is on the spread of ge- in the derivational morphology of the language and the assessment of productivity, while on the diachronic side the emphasis is on the lexicalization and grammaticalization of the affix at stake. A path of grammaticalization is described as starting from the Proto-Germanic derivational prefix *ga- and leading to inflectional ge- in Old English. Quantitative evidence is gathered in favour of a progressive loss of the derivational productivity of the prefix that is paralleled by a gradual increase in inflectional distribution. The conclusion is reached that the neuter noun which is zero derived from the strong verb contributes through its derivatives to the decategorialization of the prefix ge-, which undergoes grammaticalization for reasons of over-markedness, becomes exclusively inflectional and, ultimately, disappears.

Keywords:

• Old English
• Morphology
• Lexical Derivation
• Derivational Paradigm
• Grammaticalization
• Lexicalization
• Productivity

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded through the National Programme for Basic Research (Spanish Government) projects FFI08-04448/FILO and FFI2011-29532. I should like to thank Antonette di Paolo Healey (Dictionary of Old English) and Luisa García García (Universidad de Sevilla), as well as two anonymous reviewers, for their insightful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this article. The usual disclaimers apply.

Notes

¹This represents the traditional view on the origin of the prefix, as reflected, for instance, by Wright and Wright (1984: 310), but see Brinton (1988: 280–281).

²Zero derivation is used in the sense of derivation without explicit derivational means, which comprises both derivation with zero morpheme proper and derivation through inflectional morphemes. Martín Arista (2011a, 2011b, 2011c) deals with zero derivation in Old English specifically. See Bauer and Varela (2005), who prefer the term conversion.

³On Middle English ge-, Mossé (1975: 80) remarks: ‘The past participle might be preceded by the pre-verb y-, i- (< OE ge-). The particle was lacking in the North, North-West Midland and East-Midland. In the literary language of London during the 14th century the forms were in free variation; Chaucer, for example, uses the particle, but not with any regularity. Gower, on the contrary, does not use it’.

⁴In a living language, the assessment of productivity is oriented towards new formations (Bauer 1983, 2005), rather than frequency and transparency, as is the case with an historical language. Some approaches are purely quantitative (Baayen 1992, 1993), whereas others insist on the constraints on certain formations (Plag 1999, 2003; Rainer 2005).

⁵The prefix does not appear in the past participle of Old Norse either (Faarlund 2004: 53), but see Gaeta (2008: 94), who claims that the prefix is grammaticalized as an inflectional marker in all West-Germanic dialects. Interestingly, the non-verbal (derivational) and the verbal (inflectional) marker have survived. For instance, the prefix is attached to form some collective neuter nouns in German and Dutch.

⁶Kastovsky (1992, 2006) describes a typological change in Old English whereby stem-based (or variable base) morphology is replaced by word-based (or invariable base) morphology by the end of the period. This typological change entails a progressive distinction between inflection and derivation, which interplay less freely than when morphological processes admit variable inputs.

⁷I consider the Germanic forms provided by Seebold (1970) hypothetical and, consequently, render them as Proto-Germanic and mark them with an asterisk.