On the Auxiliary Status of Dare in Old English

Open access


OE *durran ‘dare’ belongs to a group of the so-called preterite-present verbs which developed weak past tense forms replacing the originally strong forms throughout the paradigm. The present study hypothesizes that the potential sources of this development are related to the decay of the subjunctive mood in Old English. Further, this corpus-based study analyses the status of DARE in Old English, with the findings showing that the verb displayed both lexical and auxiliary verb characteristics. These results are juxtaposed and compared with the verb's developments in Middle English. The databases examined are the corpus of The Dictionary of Old English in Electronic Form (A-G) and the Innsbruck Computer Archive of Machine-Readable English Texts. In both cases, a search of potential forms was performed on all the files of the corpora, the raw results were then analysed in order to eliminate irrelevant instances (adjectives, nouns, foreign words, etc.). The relevant forms were examined with the aim to check the properties of DARE as a lexical and an auxiliary verb, and compare the findings with Molencki’s (2002, 2005) observations.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Beths Frank. 1999. The history of dare and the status of unidirectionality. Linguistics 37. 1069-1110.

  • BECD = British English Cambridge Dictionary online. Available at: http://dictionary.cambridge.org.

  • Bryant Margaret. 1944. The preterite-present verbs of Present-Day English. College English 5. 259-264.

  • Cameron Angus et al. 2003. The Dictionary of Old English (A-G). (CD-ROM version) Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies University of Toronto.

  • Canon Elizabeth Bell. 2010. The use of modal expression preference as a marker of style and attribution: The case of William Tyndale and the 1533 English Enchiridion Militis Christini. (Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and Semiotics 76.) New York: Peter Lang.

  • Denison David. 1990. Auxiliary + impersonal in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica 9: 139-166.

  • Denison David. 1993. English historical syntax. London and New York: Longman.

  • Fischer Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Norman Blake (ed.) The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 2. 1066-1476 207-408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Harris Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hogg Richard. 2002. An introduction to Old English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • Hogg Richard M. & Robert D. Fulk. 2011. A grammar of Old English. Vol. 2: Morphology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Hopper Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.) Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues 17-35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Lightfoot David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 23.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lightfoot David W. 2009. Cuing a new grammar. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.) The handbook of the history of English 24-44. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Markus Manfred et al. (eds.). 1999. Innsbruck Computer Archive of Machine-Readable English Texts. (CD-ROM version.) Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck.

  • MED = Middle English Dictionary online - http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med

  • MD=Macmillan Dictionary online - http://www.macmillan.pl Mitchell Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Vols. 1-2. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Molencki Rafał. 2002. The status of dearr and þearf in Old English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 38. 363-380.

  • Molencki Rafał. 2005. The confusion between tharf and dare in Middle English. In Herbert Schendl et al. (eds.) Rediscovering Middle English philology 147-160. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang.

  • Rissanen Matti. 1991. Spoken language and the history of do-periphrasis. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.) Historical English syntax. (Topics in English Linguictics 2.) 321-342. Berlin- New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Taeymans Martine. 2004. An investigation into the marginal modals DARE and NEED in British present-day English. A corpus-based approach. In Olga Fischer et al. (eds.) Up and down the cline: The nature of grammaticalization 97-114. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Tomaszewska Magdalena. 2012. On the auxiliary status of dare in Middle English: A corpus based study. In Joanna Esquibel & Anna Wojtyś (eds.) Explorations in the English language: Middle Ages and beyond. Festschrift for Professor Jerzy Wełna on the occasion of his 70th birthday 309-317. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.

  • Traugott Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Richard M. Hogg (ed.) The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 1. The beginnings to 1066 168-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Visser Fredericus Theodorus. 1963-1973. An historical syntax of the English language 3 parts 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

  • Warner Anthony R. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Journal information
Impact Factor

Cite Score 2018: 0.08

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.1
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.095

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 141 60 6
PDF Downloads 84 51 3