The Locative Possessive in English and West-Flemish

Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte

Eline Laperre

A diachronic study

Masterproef voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van Master in de Taal- en Letterkunde Engels-Duits

2012-2013

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Anne Breitbarth and my co-supervisor, Prof. Dr. Liliane Haegeman, for their help and support in writing this thesis. Furthermore, I am very grateful to Prof. Dr. Luc de Grauwe, and Prof. Emeritus Magda Devos, fort heir help in analysing the Middle Dutch results of this study. Finally, I also thank Janne Vandriessche for giving me the inspiration to write this thesis.

Table of contents

1. Introduction

It is generally known that in English, locative possessive constructions of the type to John’s, where a head noun meaning home is omitted, occur relatively frequently. However, it may be a lesser known fact that such constructions exist in the West-Flemish dialect of Dutch as well. It may, then, be interesting to compare the locative possessives in these two languages, and to find out how they developed. However, scholarly literature regarding the locative possessive is remarkably scarce. Thus, I have conducted this study in order to investigate how the locative possessive developed in English and West-Flemish, how it is used in these languages today, and whether the constructions in both languages originated as Ingvaeonisms or a parallel independent development.

For this construction, I have used the term ‘locative possessive’, because it is a possessive construction which is used to express location. Some authors (Grafmiller, forthcoming; Allen 2004) refer to the locative possessive as an ‘elliptical’ possessive; however, this term may cause confusion, as not all elliptical possessives are locatives. For instance, constructions such as this is my book and that is Mary’s also contain an elliptical possessive: Mary’s. In this case, the elided head noun, book, can be derived from the context, and the meaning of this construction is, of course, not locative. To avoid such confusion, I have chosen to refer to the construction that I will investigate as a locative construction. Another problematic aspect of the terminology is that many authors refer to possessives as genitives. While it is important for my study to distinguish between the genitive case and other possessive markers, I have chosen to solely use the term ‘genitive’ when I am referring to the genitive case. Otherwise, I will always use the term ‘possessive’. Thus, the type of possessive that this study focuses on will always be referred to as the locative possessive.

The framework of the present study is cognitive grammar and the prototype theory. Cognitive grammar considers two participants to be the basis of each clause or phrase: the landmark, which is the primary constituent in every clause or phrase, and the trajector, which is the secondary constituent. In possessive phrases, the possessor, i.e. the head noun, is considered to be the trajector, whilst the possessee is labelled the landmark (Langacker 1995;Taylor 1996). The locative possessive will furthermore be investigated by means of the prototype theory (Heine 1997), and this framework will be used to explain how locative possessives

4 most likely originated in English and West-Flemish. Specifically, I will argue that the locative possessive is one of the most prototypical possessive constructions in English and West- Flemish, and that consequently, the interpretation of locative possessives, even if they have omitted the trajector, is relatively easy.

As it was my aim to discuss the diachronic development of the locative possessive in English and West-Flemish, corpus research was conducted in order to map this development. For West-Flemish, a number of Middle Dutch corpora were examined. Unfortunately, corpora of modern dialects are not yet available, so no corpus research regarding the West-Flemish possessive could be done on corpora containing modern texts. As the locative possessive is used in the entire English language area, corpora of modern English could be examined. However, I have restricted these English corpora to British English corpora only, for reasons of space and time. For West-Flemish, the research was conducted by running the concordance program AntConc on the Middle Dutch corpora. AntConc only allows string searches with regular expressions, rather than on syntactic structures, like the CorpusSearch program that was used for the English research. In other words, the methodologies for English and Dutch differ significantly. This of course carries the consequence that the Dutch and English results of the research cannot unconditionally be compared to one another. Both may be used to investigate diachronic developments, but the frequency of occurrences in one language may not be comparable to that of the other language. However, such a comparison is not the purpose of this study; rather, it aims to map the development of the locative possessive in both languages separately, and then to investigate why it developed in these particular languages.

Chapter 2 in this study will deal with the question whether the locative possessive should be considered an old Ingvaeonism, or whether the development of these constructions in English and West-Flemish should be considered a parallel independent development. Chapter 3 will focus on the English possessive: first, the English possessive marker and its origin will be discussed, then, the locative possessive in English will be discussed, and finally, the third chapter of this thesis will address the corpus research that was done in order to map the development of the English locative possessive. Chapter 4, then, will focus on the West- Flemish possessive. First, it will also discuss the Modern Standard Dutch possessive and its diachronic development, then, it will address the locative possessive in West-Flemish and finally, the corpus research that maps the diachronic development of the locative possessive in

Dutch will be discussed. Chapter 5 will contain a discussion of the results in both languages, and will interpret these results in a cognitive framework, and by means of the prototype theory.

2. Ingvaeonisms and Ingvaeonic features in Germanic languages

The following chaper will focus on the question whether the locative possessive can be considered to be an Ingvaeonism. In section 2.1, I will first discuss what Ingvaeonisms and Ingvaeonic languages are, before turning to the discussion of the locative possessive with relation to Ingvaeonisms in section 2.2.

2.1 Ingvaeonisms and Ingvaeonic languages

According to Van Keymeulen (2003: 394), “the term Ingvaeonism is used for a wide variety of phenomena which do not fit into the ‘normal’ development of Low Franconian, but which are paralleled by phenomena in English and / or Frisian.” Today, ingvaeonic features occur in a series of coastal dialects reaching from West-Frisia to Cape Gris Nez in present-day France. One example is the absence of the dental n before s and th in, for instance, the English words other (Old Saxon oþar) and us (Old Saxon ûs), where Dutch has ander and ons (van Bath 1949). Ingvaeonisms are not, however, purely dialectal features, as Weijnen (1999) seems to argue; some Ingvaeonisms occur in Modern Standard Dutch as well. One example is the absence of n in vijf ‘five’: the cognate forms in English and Frisian are five and fiif respectively, whereas German has the form fünf, with n. The Modern Standard Dutch personal pronouns starting in h (such as hij or hem) can also be argued to be Ingvaeonisms, as the English and Frisian pronouns (he and hy respectively) start in h as well. Furthermore, Ingvaeonisms are not strictly confined to dialects in the coastal areas, either. Weijnen (1999), for instance, notes some Ingvaeonisms in a few Brabantine dialects, and Van Keymeulen (2003: 395) also argues that the occurrences of Ingvaeonisms in present-day Dutch dialects “increase towards the western coast”, indicating that these features are not all confined to the coastal dialects.

Interestingly, Van Keymeulen (2003) puts forth the hypothesis that Ingvaeonisms occur in some Dutch dialects, which are usually considered to be Franconian dialects, because an ancient population, which spoke an Ingvaeonic language, lived in the coastal areas of present- day Flanders and the western Netherlands before these areas were ruled by the Franks. From the early Middle Ages onwards, Franconian tribes gradually started migrating to more western areas, and by the 7th century, they had come into contact with the Ingvaeonic tribes living in

7 present-day Flanders and the Netherlands. During the 7th century, the Franconian tribes gradually established dominance over the Ingvaeonic tribes, and their language was accordingly influenced by the Franconian dialects. Arguably, the reason why some Ingvaeonisms have survived in the present-day dialects might be the fact that “in a situation where the source language is dominant, namely Ingvaeonic, the stable components of the source language […] are transferred to the receiving language, namely Franconian” (Van Keymeulen 2003: 398). During the early Middle Ages, the Frisian Kingdom was gradually gaining power as well, and from the late 7th century onwards, the Frisian language was able to influence Old English and the Franconian dialects through language contact (Van Keymeulen 2003; Weijnen 1999). Interestingly, Weijnen (1999) argues that Ingvaeonisms did not enter the English language because of the Saxon tribes that migrated to Britain in the 5th century, and consequently brought their language with them; rather, Ingvaeonisms first appeared in English only after the Anglo-Saxon migrations had taken place. Thus, these Ingvaeonisms must have been transferred from another language into English: in all likelihood, they were introduced into English because of language contact with the Frisian Kingdom. Importantly, from this notion, it may be inferred that Ingvaeonisms did not yet exist in the 5th century in the Saxon dialect; otherwise, they would have entered the language with the Anglo-Saxon migrations to Britain.

2.2 The locative possessive as an Ingvaeonic feature?

In this chapter, I will discuss the possibility that the locative possessive may be an Ingvaeonic feature. An argument in favour of such an interpretation may be that the locative possessive occurs in most languages or dialects which happen to be Ingvaeonic. First of all, the construction occurs in English (Biber et al. 2002, Allen 2004); a few examples are at John’s, to the baker’s, at my father’s, and so on. Secondly, as Devos (2005) shows, West-Flemish has the locative possessive in constructions such as bi Annies, to pepes (‘at granddad’s’), to min moeders (‘at my mother’s’). Furthermore, the locative possessive can be found in French- Flemish, in for example toe de bakkers (‘at the baker’s’), toe me zusters (‘at my sister’s’) or no de meres (‘to the mayor’s’). Finally, the construction also occurs in West-Frisian, in for instance by masters (‘at the schoolmaster’s’), by domeneys (‘at the pastor’s’), or by de bakkers (‘at the baker’s’) (Sipma 1913), and in North-Frisian, in constructions such as äät präästers (‘at the pastor’s’), äät ualaatjen (‘at grandfather’s’), äät Wöögens (‘at Wöögen’s’) (Fering- Öömrang Wurdenbuk 2002).

However, one argument against the interpretation of locative possessives as Ingvaeonic phenomena may be the fact that, according to Van der Horst (2008), the locative possessive was used in the entire Dutch language area, and not just the coastal areas. However, as we have seen, other Ingvaeonisms do exist in some Brabantine dialects, and even in the Modern Dutch Standard language. This notion alone can therefore not disprove the Ingvaeonic interpretation of the locative possessive.

A more important argument against an Ingvaeonic interpretation might be related to the time period in which the construction originated. Ingvaeonisms are rather old phenomena. As indicated before, they probably did not exist yet in the Saxon dialect during the 5th century, and they must have been part of the Dutch coastal dialects and the Frisian language before the 7th century. Heeroms (1972) argues that Ingvaeonisms first occurred around 400 AD, and that some Ingvaeonic dialects existed until after the High Middle Ages. He divides this ‘Ingvaeonic period’ into thee subperiods: ‘early’ Ingvaeonic, which is dated from 400 to 800, ‘later’ Ingvaeonic, dated from 800 until 1200, and ‘latest’ Ingvaeonic, which is date after 1200. He argues that, in the inland parts of the Dutch and Low Dutch language areas, only Ingvaeonisms from the first period have survived, which means that the Ingvaeonisms from these areas are quite old. The ‘lasest’ Ingvaeonic was, according to Heeroms (1972) only spoken in Frisia during the High Middle Ages. Thus, in order to interpret the locative possessive as an Ingvaeonism, the construction would have to be very old. However, Allen (2004) and Van der Horst (2008) claim that the locative possessive only arose in Middle English and Middle Dutch, respectively, making the locative possessive a rather recent phenomenon. In order to determine with more certainty whether the locative possessive is an Ingvaeonism or not, more research needs to be done on this construction in the Ingvaeonic languages. In the following chapters, such research will be presented, although only with respect to English and West-Flemish.

3. English

The third chapter of this thesis will address the locative possessive construction in English. Chapter 3.1 will first provide a theoretical discussion of the English possessive, and will then narrow down the discussion to the locative possessive. As it was my aim to map the diachronic development of the locative possessive, the English possessive marker was also discussed from a diachronic viewpoint. In order to achieve this aim, corpus research was conducted on the occurrence of the locative possessive in earlier stages of English. This corpus research and its results will be addressed in chapter 3.2.

3.1 Possessives in English

The following chapter will discuss the English possessive marker, and more specifically, the locative possessive in English. Section 3.1.1 will address the nature of the possessive morpheme in English, and in section 3.1.2, the development of the possessive marker from a genitive case affix to a phrasal affix will be discussed. Section 3.1.3 will deal with the separated possessive in English, and finally, section 3.1.4 will address the locative possessor and its occurrence in present-day English.

3.1.1 The Modern English possessive Before focussing on the locative possessive, it may be useful to discuss the nature of the English possessive, both as it exists in present-day English, and how it developed diachronically. There is general consensus among scholars that the possessive marker in present-day English should no longer be considered a true inflectional affix. The reason for this notion is that in English, the possessive marker can not only attach to the head noun, but it can also appear “at the right edge of a noun phrase containing postmodification” (Börjars et al. 2013: 125) , or “syntactic groups” (Allen 2008: 43), as in, for example, [the man with the red jumper]’s keys, where the possessive relation affects the entire noun phrase. This construction is most commonly referred to as a group genitive, although, according to Börjars et al. (2013), the term phrasal genitive appears as well. Little agreement, however, can be found in the literature about what Börjars et al. (2013: 125) call the “theoretical status of ‘s”. While the possessive morpheme arguably still has characteristics of an affix, it also behaves like a clitic in some respects.

Before we, however, turn to the discussion of the status of the possessive morpheme, it may be useful to briefly summarize the core differences between clitics and affixes: (Zwicky & Pullum 1983)

1. “Clitics can exhibit a low degree of selection with respect to their hosts, while affixes exhibit a high degree of selection with respect to their stems“ (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 503). 2. “Arbitrary gaps in the set of combinations are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups” (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 504). 3. “Morphophonological idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups.” (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 504). 4. “Semantic idiosyncrasies are more characteristic of affixed words than of clitic groups” (Zwicky & Pullum 1983: 504).

According to these criteria, the English possessive seems more clitic-like than affix like. First, it shows a somewhat lower degree of selection with respect to its host than affixes: as noted above, the English possessive can attach to the right edge of noun phrases, even when the word at the right edge of the syntactic group is not a noun (Börjars et al. 2013). However, as Allen (2008: 45) argues, “if it is to be called a clitic, it is one which exhibits the affix-like characteristic of sensitivity to the morphological nature of its host.” In other words, while the possessive marker can attach to noun phrases that contain postmodifiers, it does of course still select its host on the basis of morphology. Secondly, as far as I am aware, arbitrary gaps do not usually occur with respect to the possessive marker: it can attach to most types of nouns, and when the ‘s possessive cannot be used due to syntactic or morphological restrictions, these restrictions are usually of a systematic, rather than arbitrary, nature. Furthermore, the English possessive can take idiosyncratic forms, as is the case for the pronouns my, you, her, their, and our (Nevis 2000). Finally, Nevis (2000) presents another reason why the English ‘s possessive marker cannot be considered a ‘pure’ clitic: while clitics can be interpreted as derived bound words, the English possessive cannot. Like independent words, clitics are assigned word classes, and they can function as inflectable stems, just as words can be inflected. The English possessive marker, by contrast, can still be analysed morphologically; in other words, as part of a word. A first argument that Nevis (2000: 394) provides to support this statement, is the fact that “the possessive marker exhibits haplology when combined with the homophonous plural marker:” possessive plural nouns do not repeat the s of the possessive, as, for instance, the plural possessive noun cats’ indicates (see example (1).

(1) (a) the eyes of the cats (b) the cat’s eyes (c) the cats’ eyes (d) * the cats’s eyes

Secondly, the English possessive can take idiosyncratic forms, as is the case for the pronouns my, you, her, their, and our (Nevis 2000). Thus, it can be argued that the English possessive marker cannot be analysed as a pure clitic, nor as a pure affix.

Several alternative interpretations of the theoretical nature of the possessive marker have been suggested. Zwicky (1977) proposes three types of clitics: simple clitics, special clitics, and bound words. Simple clitics are defined by Zwicky (1977: 3) as “cases where an unaccented bound form acts as a variant of a stressed free form with the same cognitive meaning and with similar phonological make-up.” Examples of simple clitics are the French conjunct pronouns me ‘me’, and le ‘him’, as opposed to the corresponding ‘full’ forms, the disjunct pronouns moi ‘me’ and lui ‘him’ (Zwicky 1977). Special clitics, then, are “cases where a free morpheme, when unaccented, may be phonologically reduced, the resultant form being phonologically subordinated to a neighboring word” (Zwicky 1977: 5). The use of these clitics is generally dependent on register or style: in English, some pronouns can, in informal registers, be realised as reduced forms, as in he sees ‘er (her), or she met ‘im (him) (Zwicky 1977). Finally, bound words are “cases where a morpheme that is always bound and always unaccented show considerable syntactic freedom, in the sense that they can be associated with words of a variety of morphosyntactic categories” (Zwicky 1977: 6). These clitics are always located at the margins of constituents. The English possessive morpheme is, according to Zwicky (1977), an example of a bound word. Nevis (2000), however, has argued that the division between special clitics and bound words can be discarded, due to considerable overlap between the two categories. Hence, a two-way division between simple and special clitics has been adopted, and the English ‘s possessive has, in this view, been analysed as a special clitic (Nevis 2000).

A second widely adopted interpretation is that of the possessive marker ‘s as a phrasal affix (Anderson 1992). In this view, the possessive marker is considered to have all the characteristics of a regular inflectional affix, except for the fact that it attaches phrasally

(Nevis 2000). As indicated above, the possessive marker shows sensitivity to the morphology of its host (Allen 2008), and cannot be considered a bound word, due to the haplology it exhibits when attached to plural nouns, and its morphological idiosyncrasies (Nevis 2000). These affixal qualities, combined with the phrasal attachment of the possessive marker, have prompted an analysis of the possessive as a phrasal affix. This study will adopt this analysis as well.

3.1.2 The origin and development of the English possessive While the possessive marker in Modern English is analysed as a phrasal affix, this is not the case in Old English; rather, in Old English, a possessive relation was expressed by means of the genitive case (see example 2). An overview of the genitive case inflections in Old English can be found in table (1).

(2) ðæs cyninges gerefa the:M.GEN.SG king:(M)GEN.SG reeve:(M)NOM.SG. ‘the king’s reeve’ (cochronA-5, ChronA_[Plummer]:1001.18.1434) (ASC(A) 1001.21), as cited in Allen 2008: 76, her (3-13)

Strong Weak Masc. Neut. Fem. Masc. Neut. Fem. u- Athematic Short Long Short Long stem Sg. stānes scipes þinges giefe sorge naman ēagan tungan suna mannes Pl. stāna scipa þinga giefa sorga namena ēagena tungena suna manna Table (1): Old English genitive inflections, from The Magic Sheet of Old English inflections (http://faculty.virginia.edu)

In what follows, I will discuss the development of the English possessive marker, from its Old English realisation as an inflectional affix to its present-day status as a phrasal affix.

During the Middle English period, the genitive case marker underwent several significant changes in morphology and distribution. First of all, already near the end of the Old English period, there was a “statistically highly significant trend towards favouring the prenominal position for structurally assigned genitive case” (Allen 2008: 118). In other words, the

13 postnominal genitive gradually began to disappear, and this development was completed by the end of the Early Middle English period (c. 1300). The postnominal genitive (see example (3) was then, gradually, replaced by of- possessive (see example 4) constructions (Allen, 2008).

(3) Old English postnominal genitive: of ðære foresædan cyrcan þæs of the:F.DAT.SG aforesaid church:(F)DAT.SG the:M.GEN.SG eadigan Stephanes blessed:M.SG Stephen:(M)GEN.SG ‘from the aforementioned church of the blessed Stephen’ (COCATHOM2,ÆCHom_II,_2:12.14.263), as cited in Allen 2008: 83, her (3- 21a)

(4) Middle English of-possessive: for þære deorewurðnysse of þære forme for the:F.DAT.SG preciousness:(F)DAT.SG of the:F.DAT.SG first dohter. daughter(F) ‘because of the preciousness of the first daughter’ (CMKENTHO,139.153) (Festis 242), as cited in Allen 2008: 160, her (4-28)

Koike (2006) links the Old English postnominal position of genitives to the relation of the genitive nominal phrase to the head noun. Genitive nouns expressing a Patient or a Cause relation, which are normally nonhuman nouns, are usually postposed. The partitive (see example (5)) genitive is also postposed in most cases, except when it is a pronoun (see example 6); in that case, it occurs before the head noun. Preposed genitives are, according to Koike (2006) usually those expressing an interpersonal relation, a possessive relation, or Agentive or Experiencer relations. Importantly, as the postnominal genitive disappeared, the distribution of the genitive case marker was reduced both syntactically and semantically, as it could no longer be used in postnominal genitive positions, in combination with nouns expressing Patient, Cause or partitive relations (Allen 2008; Koike 2006).

(5) Behealdað þæt ge ne forseon ænne þyssera lytlinga Watch out that you:NOM.SG not.neglect one these:GEN.PL little ones:GEN.PL ‘Watch out that you do not neglect one of these little ones’ (CH 34, 153), as cited in Koike 2006: 52, her (e-10)

(6) Gif ure ænigum sum ungelimp becume If 1PL:GEN any:DAT.PL some mishap comes ‘If a mishap befalls any of us’ (cocathom2, ÆCHom_II,_35:267.234.6022), as cited in Allen2008: 85, her (3- 24)

Some authors (see e.g. Taylor 1996; Lightfoot 1999) have suggested that the loss of the postnominal genitive in English was caused by the loss of the genitive as a case in Early Middle English. Lightfoot (1999), for instance suggests an Early Reanalysis Hypothesis. This theory assumes that children growing up in, and acquiring the language of dialect areas where the language had already lost (part of) its case system, could no longer recognise –es as a case inflection, precisely because those children did not acquire cases anymore. According to this hypothesis, the possessive marker already had the status of a phrasal affix in Early Middle English (Allen 2008). However, Allen (2008) rejects the Early Reanalysis Hypothesis, on the basis of evidence for the retention of the genitive case beyond the Early Middle English period. This evidence will discussed in what follows.

A second significant change regarding the English genitive case marker, is the loss of agreement inflection. According to Allen (2008), in an initial stage of the development, near the end of the 12th century, inflectional agreement within nominal phrases had become optional. In other words, articles or adjectives no longer needed to be inflected according to the case of the nominal. By the 14th century, near the end of the Middle English period, the -es possessive marker was no longer a genitive case marker that was exclusively used with masculine and neuter singular nouns, but a possessive marker that could be used with all nouns, regardless of gender and number (Allen 2008) (see example (7) below).

(7) þese anticristis disciplis these Antichrist:POSS disciples ‘these disciples of the Antichrist’ (CMWYCSER, 398.3106), as cited in Allen 2008: 146, her (4-16)

Importantly, as Allen (2008) points out, the loss of agreement inflection does not imply the loss of the case system in English. In fact, the genitive case remains in existence throughout the Middle English period, even though agreement no longer occurred in the nominal phrase. Gradually, the genitive case inflections ceased to be used and were replaced by a possessive marker –es, but instances of the genitive can still be found until the end of the Middle English period (Allen 2008). The evidence which Allen (2008: 146) presents for the retention of the genitive case is first of all that “invariant –es did not become the only genitive inflection for nouns until after the end of the ME period.” Secondly, even texts which normally do not display much inflection, contain some cases of agreement within the NP (see example 8). In other words, the genitive case still appears in some texts that can be considered inflection- poor texts, indicating that the genitive case was not immediately lost after the Old English period (Allen 2008).

(8) Inn aness were heowe In a:GEN man:GEN hue ‘in the likeness of a man’ (Orm 11602), as cited in Allen 2008:146, her (4-17b)

Furthermore, the retention of a dative/accusative distinction in English may, arguably, also support the idea that the genitive case still exists as well. A final piece of evidence is related to the morphophonemic alternation between [f] and [v] in words like wife/wives. In Old English, [f] and [v] were allophones: [f] appeared in word-final position, and [v] in intervocalic position. Thus, when followed by a plural or genitive case marker, the voiced allophone was selected. However, the spelling remained . In Middle English, then, these allophones had become two phonemes, with different spellings. The phonological process, which caused the in intervocalic position to become voiced, disappeared. However, or spellings, representing [v]-pronunciation, can be found both in the plural and the possessive forms of words normally ending in [f] (see example (9)).

(9) in his wyues heritage ‘in his wife’s heritage’ (CMCAPCHR,128.2957), as cited in Allen 2008: 148, her (4-18)

This could mean that, although the phonological process that had demanded the [v]- pronunciation had disappeared, the plural and possessive markers still interacted on a morphological level with their host. These four points may serve as evidence of the fact that in Middle English, the genitive case was still present in the language, and that the possessive marker was thus still a genitive (inflectional) suffix (Allen 2008).

Allen (2008) notes, however, that due to the aforementioned optionality of agreement, the genitive inflection was often characterised by once-only marking (see example (10) below.

(10) þt ter walde wakenin of wif. & weres somnunge; richesce. & That there would arise of wife and man:POSS union wealth and orldes weole world:POSS prosperity ‘that of man and woman’s union, there would arise wealth and worldly prosperity’ (CMHALI,150.322), as cited in Allen 2008: 149, her (4-19)

Because the head of the NP was usually located at the right edge of the NP, it is not always possible to determine whether head marking (i.e. only the head NP is marked) or edge marking (i.e. the entire NP is marked, at the right edge) took place (Allen 2008). Another issue regarding edge marking, is that the –es inflection had started to spread beyond masculine and neuter nouns of the majority of the nouns within the –a stem class; for instance, once-only marking gradually spread to appositives and conjoined possessors. This spread of –es to inflectional classes where it normally did not appear in Old English could have facilitated the reanalysis of the genitive suffix as an edge inflection. A further catalyst in the reanalysis of the English genitive to a phrasal affix was in all likelihood the origin of the group genitive. As explained in section 3.1.1, group genitives are constructions to which a possessive marker is attached on a phrasal level: the possessive marker attaches to the whole NP, and not just the head noun. This should not be confused with once-only marking: in

17 phrases which show once-only marking, the possessive marker still attaches to the noun itself, and the possessive relation does not, as is the case for the group genitive, refer to the phrase as a whole (Allen 2008). In conclusion, Allen (2008: 151) argues that “it was the optionality of agreement morphology combined with the spread of -es into noun classes where it had not been found earlier that made possible the reanalysis of this suffix as something rather different from the masculine and neuter singular genitive marker of OE.”

3.1.3 The separated genitive or his genitive In addition to the –es possessive marker, the so-called his genitive or separated genitive appeared in Middle English as well (Allen 2008). This type of possessive marker will briefly be discussed in the following section, in order to give a complete account of the development of the English ‘s possessive marker. Even though the construction is often referred to as a ‘genitive’, in this study I will not refer to possessive markers as genitives, unless they are actually genitive case markers. Therefore, the construction will henceforth be referred to as the his possessive or the separated possessive. The his possessive is construction which is formed by means of a (separated) possessive pronoun, rather than an attached possessive marker, and was mainly used between 1400 and 1750 (Allen 2008). One example can be found below:

(11) Of seth, ðe was adam is sune Of seth, who was adam POSS son ‘Of Seth, who was Adam’s son’ (Gen&Ex (A) 493), as cited in Allen 2008: 223, her (6-1)

The his possessive can take several different spellings: his, ys and is (Allen 2008). Some authors (e.g. Taylor 1996) have suggested that the possessive marker of present-day English did not develop from the genitive inflection, but originated as a separated possessive. These views are supported by the claim that the apostrophe of the present-day possessive marker is an indication of contraction; therefore, it is argued that the possessive marker cannot have derived from an inflectional affix, but rather from his (Taylor 1996). This study will, however, reject this view, as the Modern English possessive quite clearly has its origins in the genitive case, and adopt the idea that past confusion between the attached and separated possessives, due to ambiguous spelling, caused the apostrophe to be retained as part of the possessive marker in present-day English (Baugh and Cable 2002). As Allen (2008) notes,

18 the apostrophe was originally used to indicate elisions of vowels, and thus, the apostrophe might represent the elision of –e in the possessive affix –es, resulting in the present-day possessive marker ‘s. However, in Early Modern English, the apostrophe also began to be used in contractions. Thus, the presence of the apostrophe was often misinterpreted as being a sign of a contraction of his, and following this idea, the origin of the English possessive marker was often mistakenly assumed to be related to his (Allen 2008).

3.1.4 The locative possessive

3.1.4.1 Theoretical discussion

In the final subsection of this chapter, I will focus on the theoretical nature of the locative possessive, and its occurrence in present-day English. Unfortunately, not much literature regarding this particular type of possessive is available. In what follows, I will discuss two different approaches to locative possessives in comparison to other elliptical constructions. On the one hand, Biber et al. (2002) analyse locative possessives as independent possessives with a null head noun, and consider elliptical possessives to be constructions where the head noun can be recovered from the immediate context. Allen (2004), on the other hand, analyses locative possessives in a similar way, but describes elliptical possessives differently.

Biber et al. (2002) discuss the English locative possessive with relation to the so-called independent genitives. Independent possessives are defined as “genitive phrases standing alone as a noun phrase” and Biber et al. (2002) go on to say that “[u]nlike other genitives, they are not part of another (main) noun phrase” (Biber et al. 2002: 81). They divide independent possessives into two subtypes: the first are constructions which have become conventional, and therefore no longer need a head noun to support the meaning of the phrase. Below are a few examples:

(12) She’s going to a friend’s. (Biber et al. 2002: 81) (13) The vast main concourse had the combined appearance of a football scrimmage and Christmas Eve at Macy’s. (Biber et al. 2002: 81) (14) An open bottle of Jack Daniel’s is on the candle table. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)

The possessive construction a friend’s in example (x1) refers to someone’s home, the possessive Macy’s in (x2) is used to refer to a shop, and the possessive in (3x) refers to a kind of whisky. Thus independent possessives can be seen to be used to people’s homes, to places of business or to clubs as well as to commercial products or firms (Biber et al. 2002). The first two examples illustrate the pattern that is of interest to this study, and that I have referred to as locative possessives. Thus, in Biber et al.’s (2002) view, the locative possessive is a subtype of conventional possessive constructions, which in their turn are types of independent genitives. Importantly, the possessives in this first subtype are, according to Biber et al. (2002) not to be considered elliptical constructions, as the omitted noun is no longer necessary in the context: these constructions can be understood without requiring the presence of a head noun. In order words, they assume a null head noun for the English locative possessive construction. Structurally, then, such possessives are nominal constituents whose head is the possessive noun.

Unlike the conventional independent possessives discussed above, other independent possessives are considered fully fledged nominal constituents in which the possessive modifies a head noun which is elided (Biber et al. 2002). While independent genitives are characterised by omission of the head noun, these constructions are considered as elliptical because the relevant head noun can be recovered from the context. If this were not possible, the construction would not make sense semantically. A few examples of the elliptical possessive, as Biber et al. (2002) define it, can be found below.

(15) This isn’t my handwriting, it’s Selina’s. (Biber et al. 2002: 81) All the Turner girls preferred girls’ toys to boys’. (Biber et al. 2002: 81)

The elided head nouns, handwriting and toys respectively, are present in the context, and thereby allow the full interpretation of the elliptic genitive.

The second analysis of locative possessives that will be addressed here is the one suggested by Allen (2004). She analyses the locative possessive in a similar way as Biber et al. (2002), but her analysis of elliptical possessives differs. Three types of possessives are discussed in her study:

(16) We’ll meet at Mary’s. (Allen 2004: 351, her (1a))

(17) This is Mary’s. (Allen 2004: 351, her (1a)) (18) Mary’s is red. (Allen 2004: 351, her (1a))

Type (16) is a locative possessive, in which the head noun is omitted. Allen (2004) thus proposes a null head noun for the locative possessive construction in English. Type (17) expresses ownership: the omitted noun is interpreted as the possessum, while the possessive noun is the possessor. Such constructions are also regarded as having a null head noun by Allen (2004), whilst Biber er al. (2002) consider constructions of the type (17) to be elliptical, and argue that the head noun needs to be recovered from the immediate context. According to Allen (2004), however, in both (16) and (17), the meaning of the head noun can apparently be recovered without there being a need for an antecedent in the context. The possessive construction in type (18) is analysed by Allen as elliptical, which means that in such phrases, the head noun is not entirely omitted; rather, in order to make sense of the meaning of the construction, the head noun needs to be recovered from the immediate context.

According to Allen (2004), examples of the types (17) and (18) are found from the Old English period onwards, whereas locative possessives (type (16)) have, so far, not been discovered in Old English. An Old English example of the second type, which expresses ownership, is the following:

(19) hit is eal Godes It is all God’s (Blickling 51.1), as cited in Allen 2004: 351

An Old English example of the third type, which needs an antecedent head noun in the context, is provided in (20):

(20) na þurh his agene mihte, ah þurh godes Not through his own power, but through God’s’ (ÆCHIXI.184, as cited in Allen 2004: 351

According to Allen, 2004, the first example of a locative possessive dates form c.1280:

(21) he was at seint poules he was at Saint Paul’s (c. 1280 South Eng. Leg. 109.91), as cited in Allen 2004: 351

It should be noted that nor Biber et al. (2002), nor Allen (2004) discuss restrictions on the nature of the possessive in the locative, independent or elliptical patterns. For instance, one may wonder whether pronouns can take the place of the possessor noun. Huddleston & Pullum (2002) indicate that personal pronouns cannot he used in the locative possessive pattern, but do not elaborate on the question whether, for instance, indefinite or relative pronouns are grammatical in such constructions. In order to answer this question, a small survey was conducted in order to establish the grammaticality of pronouns in particular locative and elliptical constructions. These constructions can be found below:

(i) a. I don't remember at whose I met Jane. b. I first met Mary at Sylvia's house but I don't remember at whose I met Jane.

(ii) a. You don't find air conditioning at everybody's. b. You find air conditioning at some people's homes but not at everybody's.

(iii) a. You don't find air conditioning at his. b. You find air conditioning at some students' homes but not at his. c. You find air conditioning at some students' homes but not at mine.

(iv) a. This is the student at whose I first met my present wife. b. This is the student at whose house I first met my present wife.

The (a) types are all locative constructions, whereas the (b) and (c) types are elliptical. Three native speakers were questioned, and asked to evaluate the sentences above in terms of grammaticality. All (a) constructions were considered ungrammatical, and most (b) and (c) constructions were labelled as grammatical. Two out of the three native speakers considered type (1a) to be less grammatical than the other (b) types, but more so than the (a) types. From these findings it can be inferred that pronouns are most likely ungrammatical in locative possessive constructions, and that most pronouns, except relative ones, can be considered grammatical in elliptical possessive constructions. However, this survey was very restricted in

22 nature, as only three native speakers were interrogated. In order to adequately describe the grammaticality of pronouns in locative or elliptical constructions, more extensive research needs to be done.

3.1.4.2 Corpus research: the locative possessive in present-day English Since the locative possessive itself is not extensively described in the literature, I have conducted a small corpus investigation, in order to examine whether locative possessive is indeed common in English, and to find out which nouns are used as possessor nouns in the locative construction. To carry out this study, I first created a list of phrases was created. These phrases were divided into four categories: the first consisted of proper nouns (e.g. to John’s, at Mary’s), the second of nouns denoting kinship (e.g. at my sister’s, at my granddad’s), the third of nouns denoting professions (e.g. at the hairdresser’s, at the baker’s) and the fourth of complex noun phrases (e.g. to my older brother’s, at John’s mother’s). I then examined the distribution of these constructions in the British National Corpus (BNC). The results of this investigation will be discussed below, and the full list of phrases and the results can be found in appendix X.

It is important to note that this corpus research wa of a rather restricted nature. First of all, the ‘simple search’ function of the BNC was used, which can only produce a limited amount of results. Secondly, the research was done by searching for particular lexical items, rather than syntactic structures. As a consequence, there may very well be many more locative possessives in the corpus that were not detected by means of this research. The goal of this research, however, was not to find all locative possessives in the BNC; rather, it was merely meant to show if the locative possessive existed in combination with certain types of nouns or noun phrases. The full list of phrases and the results can be found in appendix X.

As indicated before, the locative possessive phrases that were researched with the BNC can be divided into four categories: proper nouns, kinship nouns, professional nouns and complex noun phrases. The first category of nouns that was researched, was that of proper nouns. The results of the corpus search clearly show that proper nouns can, indeed, be used as the independent possessor in the locative pattern. A few examples are to/at John’s, to Mary’s, and at Ann’s. Secondly, kinship terminology was entered into the corpus, and in most cases, a locative possessive was found: to/at my brother’s, to/at my sister’s, at my mother’s, at my nan’s, at granddad’s, to/at my cousin’s and to my aunt’s. While not strictly a kinship noun,

23 the phrase to/at my friend’s was also searched for, and found, within this category, since the relationship a person has with a friend can, arguably, be considered to be on a similar level as the relationship with kin. Surprisingly, no locative possessive was found with the noun uncle. To conclude from this that the locative possessive is not compatible with uncle would be somewhat rash, since it does exist with aunt and all other kinship terms that were researched. A more likely explanation could, arguably, be that the corpus did not contain any instances, or that the search did not find any due to the restricted nature of the corpus. It can be noted that this sort of problem illustrated the problems of basing one’s research solely on corpora.

The third category of locative possessives that were researched consisted of nouns denoting professions. Instances were found of to/at the hairdresser’s, to/at the butcher’s, to/at the baker’s, to/at the dentist’s and to/at the doctor’s. The following phrases did not yield any results: to/at the vicar’s, to/at the nurse’s, to/at the officer’s, to/at the farmer’s, and to/at the teacher’s. Interestingly, the professional nouns which did appear in locative possessive constructions all have in common that, when combined with a locative possessive, they usually refer to the shop or office where the relevant profession is practiced. For example, at the baker’s refers to the bakery, and at the dentist’s refers to the dentist’s office. In contrast, if the second set of profession nouns were found in locative possessive constructions, they would naturally not refer to the place where the profession is practiced, but rather to the home or residence of the person practicing the profession. In other words, at the vicar’s would refer to the vicar’s house, not to the church, and at the officer’s would refer to the officer’s home, not to the police office. It may then perhaps be argued that a prerequisite for professional nouns to be used in locative possessives could be that the construction must denote the shop or office where the profession is practiced. Such an interpretation may, however, be somewhat problematic for at the farmer’s. A farmer practices his profession on his farm, so one might argue that the locative possessive should be possible as well. However, the farm is also the farmer’s residence, and does not exclusively refer to the location of his profession. This ambiguity may then be the reason why it does not appear in locative possessive constructions. Thus, it can be further argued that the locative possessive containing professional nouns should not simply refer to the shop or office where the profession is practiced, but that it should solely and unambiguously refer to this location. Of course, one must exercise caution in making such arguments, as this particular research was rather restricted: more extensive research could show instances of the constructions which I have now considered to be non-existent.

The fourth category of possessives that were examined were complex noun phrases. The phrases that were researched were to/at my eldest cousin’s, to/at my little sister’s, to/at my older brother’s, to/at my late grandfather’s, to/at the tall baker’s, to/at the old vicar’s, to/at John’s mother’s, to/at my friend’s sister’s and to/at my French teacher’s. No results were found in this category.

In conclusion, it can be argued with relative certainty that the locative possessive in present- day English can be used with proper nouns and (most) nouns denoting kinship. Locative possessives containing professional nouns usually seem to refer to the shop of office where the profession is practiced. Importantly, however, it should be noted that this is not the case when professional nouns are used in non-locative elliptical constructions, of the type where the head noun can be recovered from the immediate context. As example (22) shows, in these cases, the elliptical construction does refer to the home or residence of the person in question.

(22) Jenny’s house is nice but the doctor’s is much nicer.

Furthermore, ambiguity can arise in constructions of the type exemplified in (23)

(23) The dentist’s practice is always full but there is never anyone at the doctor’s.

In this case, two interpretation of the doctor’s are possible: firstly, the doctor’s can be a locative possessive, but secondly, it can also be an elliptical possessive, with practice as the elided head noun. Thus, one should take care to analyse locative or elliptical possessives containing professional nouns adequately, and bear in mind that these constructions can sometimes be ambiguous. Finally, complex nouns phrases were not found to appear within locative possessives. However, the rather restricted nature of this small research must be kept in mind, as more extensive research may change these results.

3.2 Corpus Research

In the following section, I will attempt to map the development of the locative possessive construction in English. Corpus research was conducted in order to accomplish this: several corpora containing material ranging from Middle English (ME) to Modern British English (MBE) were used in this study, and were searched for locative possessives. Section 3.2.1 discusses the individual corpora that were used, and the data that were examined. In section 3.2.2, I will present and discuss the results of my research.

A few preliminary notes should be made regarding this study. First of all, Old English corpora were not included in my research, since, according to Allen, this type of possessive was unknown in Old English. As she notes, the first example that has been found so far is “he was at seint poules (c.1280 South Eng. Leg. 109.91)” (Allen 351). Secondly, it should, of course, also be noted that all results from this research reflect written language. Thus, it is quite probable that the development of the locative possessive in spoken language use was different from what this study may show. However, as no spoken records of language use existed before the 20th century, we must rely on written material in order to conduct historical linguistic research. It was moreover outside the scope of this study to analyse the spoken material that does exist.

3.2.1 Corpus and data

In order to map the development of the locative possessive in English, four corpora were consulted: the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2 (PPCME2), the Penn- Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PPCEME), the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PPCMBE) and the Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC).

Due to time restrictions and the extended nature of the corpus, it was not possible to examine all corpora entirely, and therefore, I have attempted to create a representative sample of texts from the corpora, by carefully selecting a number of texts per corpus. The selection made for this research was based on two factors: text genre and time period. Regarding the first factor, text genre, I have chosen two texts per chosen time period, one reflecting a more literary, narrative genre and one reflecting a more non-literary, administrative genre. If found, a difference in usage of the locative possessive between genres could indicate that its usage was perhaps genre- or register-dependent. As for the second factor, the time period, I have taken texts from two points in each century: one from around the ’25 year mark and one from around the ’75 year mark for each genre, with a margin of ten years before or after said year mark. Thus, my selection consists of four texts per century. I have not regarded geographical variation as a criterion, as it was my intention to focus more on the diachronic development of the locative possessor, rather than its geographical distribution. It would, of course, be interesting to examine geographical factors in the diachronic development of the locative possessor; this was, however, not within the scope of this research. Importantly, the somewhat restricted nature of this study necessarily implies that it can only yield preliminary results. A

26 more thorough examination of the corpora could, perhaps, change these results; however, as indicated before, the text sample was selected in order to represent the corpora as a whole, and therefore, this research could be expected to yield relatively accurate results.

3.2.1.1. PPCME2

The first corpus that was examined, the PPCME2, splits the ME period up into four main subperiods: M1, M2, M3 and M4 (see table X). It should be noted that the PPCME2 uses two sets of dates: composition dates and manuscript dates. When these dates differ for one text, a more specific period designation code is used. These are all listed in table X below.

Period Composition date Manuscript date (copied from PPCME2 web designation info) MX1 unknown 1150-1250 M1 1150-1250 1150-1250 M2 1250-1350 1250-1350

M23 1250-1350 1350-1420

M24 1250-1350 1420-1500 M3 1350-1420 1350-1420 M34 1350-1420 1420-1500 MX4 Unknown 1420-1500 M4 1420-1500 1420-1500

The Middle English texts which I have selected can be found in table X. This selection contains texts from the four main periods, M1-M4, only; in other words, their composition dates and manuscript dates do not differ in any relevant way. In doing this, I have tried to ensure that all selected texts clearly represent one time period only.

Text Date Genre Kentish Homilies. 1125-1150 Homily Peterborough Chronicle. 1150 History Lambeth Homilies. 1225 Homily Vices and Virtues. 1200-1225 Religious Treatise Kentish Sermons. 1275 Homily Earliest Prose Psalter. 1350 Bible The New Testament. 1388 Bible (Wycliffe) John of Trevisa’s 1387 History Polychronicon. Mandeville’s Travels. 1425 Travelogue The Cloud of Unknowing. 1400-1425 Religious Treatise Malory’s Morte Darthur. 1470 Romance Gregory’s Chronicle. 1475 History

As the Kentish Homilies and the Peterborough Chronicle are the only texts in the corpus from the 12th century, these were both selected in order to represent the century, even though the Peterborough Chronicle is not from around the ’25 or the ’75 year mark. However, the texts do each represent a different genre. The corpus contained only one text from around 1275: the Kentish Sermons. Therefore, only this one text was examined. A similar problem occurred for the ’25 year mark of the 14th century: the only appropriate text from around this time was the Earliest Prose Psalter, and therefore I have included it, even though it was written c. 1350. I did not consider the Ayenbite of Inwyt (1340) an appropriate text, as the information on the PPCME2 webpage states that “the language may be representative of the late 13th century” (PPCME2 info). As no texts within ten years of the ’75 year mark of the 14th century were available, John of Trevisa’s Polychronicon (1387) and Wycliffe’s New Testament (1388) were selected.

3.2.1.2 PPCEME

The second corpus that was examined for this study was the PPCEME. In this corpus, the Early Modern English period is divided into three 70-year time periods, which are listed in table X below. The text sample can be found in table X. Letters were not included in the Early Modern English selection, in order to avoid overlap with the PCEEC, which consists solely of letters.

Period designation Date (from PPCEME web info) E1 1500-1569 E2 1570-1639 E3 1640-1710

Author Title Date Genre / A Hundred Merry Tales. 1526 Fiction Elyot, Thomas The Boke named the Gouernour. 1531 Educational Treatise Madox, Richard The Diary of Richard Madox. 1582 Diary (Private) / The Statutes of the Realm. (1570) 1571- Law 1572 Taylor, John All the works of John Taylor. 1630 Travelogue Brinsley, John Ludus literarius or The Grammar 1627 Educational Treatise Schoole. Fox, George The journal of George Fox. 1673- Autobiography 1674 Locke, John Directions concerning education. 1685 Educational Treatise

3.2.1.3 PPCMBE The third corpus, the PPCMBE, divides the Modern British English period into three periods of 70 years each: 1700-1769, 1770-1839 and 1840-1914. Unlike the previously discussed corpora, these periods are not given a name or code. The texts that were selected for this research are listed in table X.

Author Title Date Genre Ryder, Sir The Diary of Dudley Ryder. 1716 Diary Dudley / The Statutes at Large. (171x) 1715-1716 Law Boswell, James Boswell in Extremes. 1776 Diary Chapman, A Treatise on Education with a Sketch 1774 Educational George of the Author’s Method. Treatise O’Keeffe, John Recollections of the life of John 1826 Autobiography O’Keeffe. / The Statutes of the United Kingdom of 1835 Law Great Britain and Ireland. (1835) Thring, Edward Edward Thring, headmaster of 1870-1872 Diary Uppingham School. Life, diary, and letters Bain, Alexander Education as a science. 1878 Educational Treatise Benson, Arthur The Diary of Arthur Christopher 1905-1906 Diary C. Benson. Benson, Arthur The Schoolmaster. A commentary 1908 Educational C. upon the aims and methods of an Treatise assistant-master in a public school.

The PPCMBE contains three texts from the 20th century, the youngest of which is from 1913 (Weahers’ Commercial Gardening). Despite the fact that these texts are not from around the ’25 year mark, two were included in the sample, in order to give an indication of the usage of the locative possessive in the early 20th century. Two texts by Benson were selected, rather than Weathers’ text, as it was my opinion that Benson’s texts fit the genre categories better.

3.2.1.4 PCEEC

The final English corpus under investigation was the PCEEC. This corpus contains letters with composition dates ranging from c.1410 to 1695. Thus, it partly covers Middle English, partly Early Modern English language use. As noted before, overlap with the PPCEME was avoided by not selecting letters for the Early Modern English sample. A further issue with this corpus could not be avoided: as all texts are letters, is was not possible to distinguish genres. Hence, only time was considered as a factor in making a selection. I still chose to select two sets of letters per ‘25/’75 year mark, as this provided two different writing styles per time mark to compare. However, as these sets of letters often covered several years’ writing, it was in some cases not possible to select texts solely from within a 10-year margin after the ’25 and ’75 year marks, as I have attempted to do with the previously discussed corpora. The sets of letters chosen are listed in table X.

Collection Date Marchall 1440?-1476

Cely 1474-1488 Elyot 1528-1536 Brereton 1520?-1539? Harvey 1573 Parkhurst 1569-1575 Barrington 1628-1632 Pory 1610-1632 Haddock 1657-1673 Essex 1675-1677

3.2.2 Methodology

The program used to conduct this research was CorpusSearch2 (reference). The query that was written to run the program searched first of all for possessive NPs, secondly, for NPs in the genitive case and thirdly, for PPs containing an NP which in its turn could contain a possessive noun, a possessive marker or a genitive case marker. This third part of the query was repeated four times, with four different prepositions: “at”, “to”, “by” and “in”. The query was run on all corpora included in this study, and the results of the selected texts were manually extracted and reviewed. Not only elliptical, but also non-elliptical locative possessive constructions were extracted from these results, in order to establish whether the frequency of one construction varied in relation to the other. If, for instance, the number of elliptical locative possessives is larger than the number of non-elliptical constructions at one particular point in time, this could mean that the elliptical construction was used more often than the non-elliptical one, and vice versa.

3.2.3 Results and discussion In what follows, the results of my research regarding the locative possessive in English will be presented. A complete chronological overview of the results can be found in appendix 1, along with and all results per corpus.

Before the results can be presented, however, a few remarks must be discussed. Firstly, as mentioned before, it is important to note that this research can only yield preliminary results due to the restricted nature of the data. Secondy, the results of this study will be addressed chronologically, rather than per corpus, as the PCEEC covers Late Middle English to Early Modern English language use. Thus, the corpora will be merged where necessary, and all data will be presented in chronological order. Thirdly, the spelling of the possessive morpheme was not considered a distinguishing factor for this study. Several different spellings were encountered in the data: both attached (-s, -es, -ys) and separated (‘s, ys, his) spellings. All constructions containing any of these were included in the results of this study.

3.2.3.1 Middle English

The first occurrence of an elliptical locative possessive in Middle English was found in Malory’s Morte Darthur, from 1470: at Saynt Albons (PPCME2: Malory, Morte Darthur). Gregory’s Chronicle (1475) contained twenty more instances of locative possessors, all which were most likely names of churches, cathedrals, monasteries or similar religious institutions. Two hits do not contain any form of “Saint”: to Powlys and at Powlys (PPCME2, Gregory’s Chronicle); However, from the context, it can be inferred that St. Paul’s cathedral in London is meant. A further source from this time, Cely’s letters (1474-1488) also included ten locative possessors. Only three of these were names of religious institutions, however; six personal names were found, and one NP denoting a person, at Bornellys wyedows (PCEEC, Cely). From these results, it could, arguably, be inferred that the locative possessive was mainly used to denote religious institutions in Late Middle English. One might then consider the possibility that this construction may have originated as a way of shortening names of religious institutions. It could be argued that, since the names of these institutions were in all likelihood unique in the area, there could be no doubt what was meant when one shortened the name.

Interestingly, no locative possessives were found in the corpora before 1470, although Allen places the first occurrence of the locative possessor at 1280 (351). This lack of results before 1470 may, however, be attributed to the selective nature of this research, and it is likely that the construction is attested in other sources, which were not included in my text sample. A second noteworthy aspect of the results is the fact that in the 1475 and the 1474-1488 texts, the number of instances is quite high. This seems strange, compared to the complete lack of results before 1470. It could have been expected that the number of occurrences started rather low, and grew higher with time, as it can be assumed that the integration of this construction in language use developed gradually. Instead, the locative possessive appears suddenly, and in a relatively large number. Furthermore, both Gregory (PPCME2) and Cely (PCEEC) use the elliptical form significantly more often than the non-elliptical form, which indicates that the construction was, in all likelihood, already established as a normality in their language use. The frequency of the locative possessive also remains high in later texts, and therefore, it cannot be attributed to idiosyncratic language use. However, we must again exercise caution and bear in mind that this research examined a limited number of texts; some instances of locative possessives may occur in other corpus texts from before 1470. In order to map the early usage of the locative possessive, more exhaustive research would need to be conducted, which was outside the scope of this study.

3.2.3.2 Early Modern English

In Early Modern English, usage of the locative possessive becomes quite frequent. The results now contain a relatively great number of proper names denoting persons, rather than almost solely names of religious institutions. Names of such institutions are, naturally, still found rather frequently as well. Furthermore, two instances of nouns denoting professions were

31 found in locative possessive constructions: at the stacioner’s (PCEEC: Barrington, 1628- 1632) and at my lord Treasurers (PCEEC: Pory, 1610-1632).

However, no instances of locative possessives were found in A Hundred Merry Tales (PPCEME), Elyot’s The Boke named the Gouernour (PPCEME), or Elyot’s letters (PCEEC), however. A Hundred Merry Tales (PPCEME) did contain a number of instances with a non- elliptical construction, which could arguably mean that this is the preferred construction in this work. Neither elliptical, nor non-elliptical locative possessives were found in The Boke named the Gouernour (PPCEME), or in Elyot’s letters1. Hence, we cannot make claims about whether Elyot uses the elliptical form or not, and whether he has a preference for one construction. A few further sets of letters did not contain any locative possessives either: Brereton and Haddock’s2 letters (PCEEC) did not contain locative possessors, neither elliptical, nor non-elliptical constructions, at all; Harvey’s letters provide two non-elliptical possessives, to Sir Thomas Smyths hous and in kings college (PCEEC: Harvey, 1573), yet no elliptical forms.

Strikingly, texts written in non-literary or administrative genres did not yield any results. Elyot’s 1531, Brinsley’s 1627 and Locke’s 16853 educational treatises, and the 1571 Statutes, all lacked instances of locative possessives, both elliptical and non-elliptical forms. Hence, the use of the locative possessive could, arguably, be considered genre-dependent. One could argue that it is the register of the language use in the non-literary or administrative genres may be more formal, and that the (elliptical) locative possessive was perhaps considered a more informal form. However, this suggestion may be rejected, as these genres not only lack elliptical forms, but non-elliptical ones as well. A more plausible explanation could be that these genres simply do not easily lend themselves to expressions of location or direction. It seems obvious that locative possessives appear in literary or more narrative genres, which tell stories, and these stories could easily describe persons going from one location to another, or locations where other persons live. Non-literary genres, however, do not often allow for such a topic. Hence, such constructions probably appear less often.

3.2.3.3 Modern British English

Modern British English language use in the examined corpus texts contained a large amount of locative possessives. Importantly, the number of elliptical constructions is significantly higher than the number of non-elliptical forms. No instances of non-elliptical locative possessives were found before 1826, and in total, only six occurred in Modern British English.

1 One instance of a PP containing a possessive pronoun, rather than a noun, was found: at his house (PPCEME: Elyot, 1531). Though it indicates location, the head noun cannot be elided. Thus, this was not considered a locative possessive. 2 Haddock’s text provides a PP containing a possessive pronoun: at his howse (PCEEC: Haddock, 1657-1673). 3 Two instances of possessive PPs without ellipsis were found, yet the possessive noun was indefinite: into a Cutlers shop and at a friends house (PPCEME: Locke, 1685). As the head noun cannot be ellided in these cases, these constructions were not considered locative possessives. 32

The locative possessives in the PPCMBE were predominantly proper names and nouns denoting kinship (e.g. to brother’s: PPCMBE: Ryder, 1716). One noun denoting a profession was found, although it also contained a proper noun: at Mr. Donaldson the bookseller’s (PPCMBE: Boswell, 1776).

However, as in Early Modern English, the locative possessives appear almost solely in literary or narrative genres. The same reason for its lack in non-literary or administrative genres is assumed for Modern British English: the topics discussed in these texts usually do not contain many descriptions of persons going to a location where another person resides. Nevertheless, one locative possessive did appear in the 1715-1716 Statutes: at St. Albans (PPCMBE).

In conclusion, it can be argued that this research shows a rather clear development from little use of the locative possessive in Middle English, to the predominant use of the construction. The first instances of English locative possessives that were found in this study were from the 1470s, and were used to denote names of religious institutions. After this time, the construction gradually became increasingly frequent, and came to be used for proper nouns denoting persons, nouns denoting profession and nouns denoting kinship. By the early 18th century, the elliptical forms of the locative possessive were used significantly more frequently than the non-elliptical forms.

4. Dutch and West-Flemish

In this fourth chapter of this study, I will focus on the locative possessive construction in Standard Dutch and West-Flemish. Chapter 4.1 will first of all provide a theoretical discussion of the English and West-Flemish possessive constructions, and will then focus on the locative possessive in West-Flemish. As was the case for the English possessive, the Dutch and West-Flemish possessive constructions will be discussed from a diachronic viewpoint as well. Chapter 4.2 will focus on the corpus research that was conducted in order to map the diachronic development of the West-Flemish locative possessive.

4.1 Possessives in Dutch and West-Flemish

The present chapter will address the Dutch and the West-Flemish possessive constructions and the locative possessive in West-Flemish. While this research specifically investigates West-Flemish, a discussion of the Standard Dutch -s possessive and its diachronic development has been included, as this study will argue that the possessive marker used in the West-Flemish locative possessive is, in fact, of the same type as the Dutch -s possessive marker. The usual West-Flemish possessive markers, by contrast, are, as we shall see, of a different kind. Section 4.1.1 of this study will focus on the theoretical status of the Standard Dutch -s possessive marker, and section 4.1.2 on its diachronic development from a genitive case to a suffix as part of a determiner. In section 4.1.3, the standard possessive markers of West-Flemish will be discussed, and finally, section 4.1.4 will focus on the locative possessive and its occurrence in present-day West-Flemish.

4.1.1 The Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive

In Modern Standard Dutch, possessive meaning is, in most cases, expressed by means of the preposition van (Weerman & de Wit 1999). The -s possessive, which is the focus of this chapter, is still used in some particular contexts, however. According to Booij (2005), the only nouns that can take the -s possessive are proper nouns, nouns which can be used as forms of address (such as mother ’moeder’, vader ‘father’, buurman ‘neighbour’, etc.) and quantifying personal nouns (e.g. iemand (somebody), which are, as Booij (2002: 45) indicates, “words functioning as proper names with an inherent referential value.” Two

34 further restrictions apply to the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive: first of all, nouns preceded by articles cannot take the -s possessive. For instance, *de buurmans huis ‘the neighbour’s house’ is ungrammatical. Only possessive pronouns can precede -s possessors, as in e.g. mijn moeders huis ‘my mother’s house’. A second restriction is that the -s possessive can only be used in prenominal position: *Dit huis is Jans ‘This house is John’s’ is ungrammatical as well (Booij, 2002).

It is generally agreed upon that the Standard Modern Dutch -s possessive is no longer a case marker, as Dutch no longer has morphological case (Allen 2008; Booij 2005; Weerman & de Wit 1999). Arguably, Dutch does still show signs of the remnants of a genitive case in phrases like de ontwikkeling der hemellichamen ‘the development of the stars’ (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1184, their (58)c.). However, this kind of genitive usually occurs in written language only, and is not part of the core system of the language (Weerman & de Wit 1999). In fact, according to Weerman & de Wit (1999), this type of genitive is different from the ‘original’ Old Dutch genitive case. First of all, it is acquired relatively late, and learned as a way of converting the normal possessive pattern (with the preposition van) into a different phrase, not as part of a “full genitive paradigm” (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1184). Secondly, the genitive in such constructions is more restricted in terms of morphology and syntax than in Middle Dutch: most forms use the determiner der followed by a plural noun (Weerman & de Wit 1999), as exemplified in (x1), though not always, as indicated in example (x2). According to Weerman & de Wit (1999), the form using des with a singular masculine noun only appears in idiomatic expressions (see example (x3)). This type of genitive is thus not as productive as the Old and Middle English genitive was.

(x1) het beleid der Nederlandse universiteiten The policy the-GEN Dutch universities (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1184, their (58)b.) (x2) het Dictee der Nederlandse Taal The dictation the-GEN Dutch Language (x3) de heer des huizes The man the-GEN house-GEN (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185, their (59)b.)

A third restriction in comparison with the ‘original’ genitive is that the forms with der cannot occur in prenominal positions (Weerman & de Wit 1999), as indicated in example (x4) below.

(x4) *der Nederlands universiteiten beleid The-GEN Dutch universities policy (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185, their (62)b.)

A somewhat more productive form of the des genitive is the reduced form of des, ‘s, which can appear in prenominal position, as exemplified in (x5)

(x5) ‘s rijks schatkist ‘s government-S treasure (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185, their (61)a.)

Finally, the form des is restricted in the sense that it is often used in academic, formal style, where it is used to describe a certain characteristic or behaviour. This type of construction is used with des only, even, strangely, with feminine nouns, as shown in example (x7).

(x6) Zo’n optreden is des ministers Such behaviour is the-GEN minister-GEN (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1185, their (63)a.) (x7) Dat is nu eenmaal des vrouws That is now once the-GEN:MASC woman-GEN:MASC (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1186, their (63)c.)

Thus, what is left of the genitive in Modern Standard Dutch is hardly productive, and of a very restricted nature, both on a morphological and a syntactic level.

Turning back to the -s possessive in Modern Standard Dutch, it should be noted that the Dutch -s possessive cannot be analysed as a phrasal affix, as we have done for the English ‘s possessive. The reason for this is that, unlike the English ‘s possessive, the Dutch -s possessive is, as has been indicated before, quite restricted in its attachment to nouns (Booij 2002). The English possessive, by contrast, can attach to most types of nouns and even phrases. It can furthermore be argued that the Dutch -s possessive does not quite fit the description of a clitic, either. The main criteria for clitics, as suggested by Zwicky and Pullum (1983: 504-505) were the following:

(1) The degree of selection between the clitics and words preceding them is low. (2) There are no arbitrary gaps in the set of host-clitic combinations. (3) No morphophonological idiosyncrasies exist within clitic groups. (4) There are no semantic idiosyncrasies for clitic groups.

The Dutch -s possessive shows a high degree of selection towards its host. This selection is, as we have seen, not purely morphological or phonological, but also semantic: not only are possessive pronouns the only elements that are allowed in prenominal position (as in mijn moeders huis ‘my mother’s house’), but the nouns need to have the quality that they can be used in address (which include proper names, and nouns like vader ‘father’ and dominee ‘reverend’) (Booij 2002). Arbitrary gaps with relation to the Dutch -s possessive can be found as well, as not all forms that can be used as an address can take the -s possessive. For instance, the noun agent ‘policeman’ can be used as a form of address, but a phrase like agents fiets ‘policeman’s bike’ is nevertheless ungrammatical (Booij, 2005). Morphophonological and semantic idiosyncrasies within the possessive NP were not found; rather, it might perhaps be argued that, because of the morphophonological and semantic restrictions to the -s possessive, this construction in itself is a morphophonological and semantic idiosyncrasy within the system of possessives in Modern Standard Dutch. In sum, the Dutch -s possessive does not carry the characteristics of a clitic to a significant extent. Thus, an analysis of the -s possessive as an affix seems more appropriate. However, as Dutch no longer inflects for case, the possessive marker cannot be analysed as a case marker.

An analysis which has often been suggested for this type of possessive, is that the possessive NP functions as a determiner (Allen 2008, Booij 2002, de Wit 1999). Specifically, it is the construction [(possessive pronoun) + proper name + s] which can be considered a determiner (Booij 2002), or, as Weerman & de Wit (1999: 1172) argue, this construction is “a morphological complex that occurs in D and -s is a bound definite suffix that binds the nominal predicate in syntax. This view also provides an explanation for the fact that no determiner (other than a possessive pronoun) can precede the possessor noun, as exemplified in (x8). (x8) a. *de jongens boek The boy-S book b. *iedere jongens boek every boy-S book

c. *de man met die gekke brils caravan the man with those funny glasses-S caravan (Weerman & de Wit 1999:1171, their (38)) Since the possessive NP is, in this view, interpreted as a determiner, prenominal possessors which already have a determiner, such as de jongen ‘the boy’ in (X8a.), cannot take -s in addition to their first determiner (Weerman & de Wit 1999).

4.1.2 Development of Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive The present chapter will focus on the development of the Dutch possessive from a genitive case marker to a suffix which is part of a determiner. It should be noted that only the main types of genitives or -s possessives will be discussed, which contributed to my aim of discussing the development of the possessive marker. Some idiomatic genitive constructions, or remnants of such constructions, which are, for instance, visible in the Dutch word steeds, tevens, ‘s namiddags, or constructions like ten zevenen, ten achten will not be addressed. Old and early Middle Dutch still had a case system, which means that a possessive meaning was still expressed through the genitive case. Van Der Horst (2008) distinguishes six types of Old Dutch genitives:

(1) Genitive objects (x1) lasteris beida herta min (WP4 68, 21) (Van der Horst 2008: 148) Disgrace-GEN expects heart my My heart expects disgrace (2) Pronominal genitives, which refer to subclauses (x2) ande begunde ine thes flen, that se then thufel nedorfte gesen (CF5 460) (Van der Horst 2008: 149) And began him this-GEN to beg, that she the devil not-be allowed to see And began to beg this of him, that she might not be allowed to see the devil (3) Gentives dependent on adjectives (x3) Ik thes uurdig ni bium (HE6 2104) (Van der Horst 2008: 149) I this-GEN worthy not am

4 Wachtendonckse Psalmen 5 Mittelfränkische Reimbibel (Central Franconian Rhyming Bible) 6 Heliand 38

I am not worthy of this (4) Genitives dependent on a substantive (x4) fan uuambun muodir minro (WP 70,6) (Van der Horst 2008: 149) from womb mother-GEN my-GEN from my mother’s womb (5) Partitive genitives (x5) thu bist scona an thinen werchen, wanda thu niet scandliches neduost (LW7 54, 3-4) (Van der Horst 2008: 149) You are beautiful in your works, because you nothing shameful-GEN not-do You are beautiful in you works, because you do nothing shameful. (6) Genitives as predicate nouns (x6) sithor siu mannes uuarth (Van der Horst 2008: 149) Since she man-GEN became Since she became of a man: i.e. since she got married

In early Middle Dutch (1200-1350), the genitive case is used in more or less the same fashion, but some changes have occurred. Van Der Horst (2008) once again distinguishes six types of genitives:

(1) Genitive object (x7) Uwes goet raets hebbet danc (R8 547) (Van der Horst 2008: 352) Your-GEN good-GEN council-GEN have thanks Have thanks for your good council (2) Genitives in impersonal constructions (x8) sijns ontfarmede hem gereet (Maerlant, Franc. 260) (Van der Horst 2008: 353) It-GEN overcame him readily It overcame him readily (3) Genitives dependent on adjectives (x9) ghi en wert niet zijnre hulpen vro (BR9 693) (Van der Horst 2008: 353))

7 Leiden Willeram 8 Van den vos Reynaerde 9 De reis van Sint Brandaan 39

You not will not his-GEN help-GEN cheerful You will not be cheerful of his help (4) Genitives dependent on substantives or pronouns (x10) onser alre oorsprong (RU10 51) (Van der Horst 2008: 353) us-GEN all-GEN origin the origin of us all (5) Partitive genitives (x11) ende vele quader gheeste die ut uoeren (LD11 62,23) (Van der Horst 2008: 353) And many evil-GEN spirits-GEN who out drive Any many evil spirits who drive out (6) Adverbial genitives (x12) Des ander daghes voer de zone up ganc (R 2927) (Van der Horst 2008: 353) The-GEN other-GEN day-GEN before the sun up went The other day, before the sun came up

Van der Horst (2008) further notes that genitive forms with the -s suffix, instead of the true genitive inflection, also appear already:

(x13) in keyser Vrederijx tiden (SI12 25) (Van der Horst 2008: 354) In emperor Vrederik-S times In emperor Vrederik’s times

The genitive in the late Middle Dutch period (1350-1500) can still be used in the same ways as in the early Middle Dutch period: (1) Genitive objects (x14) Maer zal my alleine verboden zijn mijns rechts te ghenietene? (GB13 204, 368) (Van der Horst 2008: 574)

10 Ruusbroec de Wonderbare 11 Het Luikse Diatesseron 12 Het boek van Sidrac in de Nederlanden 13 Gentse Boethius 40

But will to me alone forbidden be my-GEN right-GEN to enjoy? But will I alone be forbidden to enjoy my right? (2) Genitives in impersonal constructions (x15) soe mach hem sarbeits wel verdrieten (HI14 193, 23) (Van der Horst 2008: 574) So makes him work-GEN quite sadden So does work quite sadden him. (3) Genitives dependent on adjectives (x16) des seker sijt (HI 30, 15) (Van der Horst 2008: 574) It-GEN sure is Is sure of it (4) Genitives dependent on substantives (x17) (hij) was op dese tyt op des bisscops hoff (BD15 84) (Van der Horst 2008: 575) (he) was on this time on the bishop-GEN court (he) was on this time on the bishop’s court (5) Partitive genitives (x18) want hi en hadde niet veel volcks by hem (BD 77) (Van der Horst 2008: 575) Because he NEG had not many people-GEN with him Because he did not have many people with him (6) Adverbial genitives (x19) Endi si ginghen des Manendaghes savonts omtrent vier uren van den toern (BD 79) (Van der Horst 2008: 575) And they went Monday-GEN evening-GEN around four hours from the tower And they went Monday evening around four o’clock from the tower Van der Horst (2008) indicates that, during this period, the -s possessive is increasingly often used, and presents the following example:

(x20) (ze) hebben Jan de Coninck Godertssen […] in her Dirck van Zulens stede geset (BD 84) (Van der Horst 2008: 577) (they) have Jan de Coninck Godertssen [] in Lord Dirck van Zulen-S stead put

They put Jan de Coninck Godertssen in Lord Dirk van Zulen’s place

14 Gedichten van Willem van Hildegaersberch 15 Bisschop David van Bourgondië en zijn stad 41

Weerman & de Wit (1999) furthermore argue that from the 13th century onwards, the genitive was gradually replaced by a van-construction: by the end of the 13th century, there is, according to them, an almost 50/50 distribution between the uses of the genitive and the van- construction. Van der Horst demonstrates this as well, as he finds constructions like the following:

(x21) dien tijd van haerre baringhen (CH 941, 38) (Van der Horst 2008: 574) this time OF her bearing This time of her bearing During the fourteenth century, the use of van increases rather drastically, so that the distribution of the genitive versus the prepositional possessive is more or less 16% and 84%, respectively. By the end of the fifteenth century, the difference has increased even further, and the genitive is only used 4% of the time, whereas the van-construction is used in 96% of cases. In sum, during the Middle Dutch period, the genitive is gradually replaced by van (Weerman & de Wit 1999), whilst a possessive using the -s suffix also arises (Van der Horst 2008).

One possible explanation for the rise of -s as a possessive marker, is provided by Weerman & de Wit (1999). The paradigm of Middle Dutch genitives (copied from Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1165, their (23)) shows that the phonemes /s/, /r/ and /n/ played an important role for the genitive case formation.

Form Genitive Nominative Translation singular, masculine, strong dies wormes die worm the worm singular, masculine, weak dies cnapen die cnape the boy singular, feminine, strong dier gifte die gift the gift singular, feminine, weak dier sielen die siele the soul singular, neuter, strong dies brodes dat broot the bread singular, neuter, weak dies beelden dat beelde the statue plural, strong dier worme die worme the worms plural, weak Dier cnapen die cnapen the boys

The /s/ phoneme gradually became more typical of the genitive case due to two phonological processes. First of all, the difference between the weak and the strong paradigm became gradually less clear, because of the phonological process of schwa deletion in word-final position. When the schwa on the nominative weak forms, such as cnape or beelde disappeared, the nouns cnap or beeld could be reinterpreted as strong forms. These strong forms require an /s/-ending in the genitive, as can be seen in the paradigm. Weerman & de Wit (1999: 1165) argue that “a reinterpretation of this kind, triggered by the process of schwa deletion, occurred quite frequently.” Thus, more nouns received an -s ending in the genitive. A second phonological process that was going on during the Middle Dutch period, was the deletion of /n/ at the end of nouns. This process is, according to Weerman & de Wit (1999) comparable to the Modern Dutch /n/-deletion in some dialects: for example, the plural noun boeken ‘books’ is often pronounced /bukə/ ‘boeke’. Because the /r/ was also used to form the dative, it logically follows that the /s/ gradually became the most characteristic sound for a genitive.

During the 16th century, the deflexion that was started in Middle Dutch continues, and the genitive case is used less and less. The same genitive constructions as in the Middle Dutch period still exist: genitive objects, genitives in impersonal constructions, genitives dependent on adjectives and genitives dependent on substantives, partitive genitives and finally, adverbial uses of the genitive (Van der Horst 2008). The use of the -s possessive, however, increases, and examples such as the following are more frequently found:

(x22) ende hy roemden hem oock seer van des keysers ende coninck van Spaengiens gewelt ende rijckdom (HC16 143) (Van der Horst 2008: 798) And he praised to him very much as well of the emperor and king of Spain’s power and richness

The 17th century shows even less use of the genitive case. Genitive objects are still used sometimes, along with genitives depending on substantives and adjectives. Genitives as predicate nouns occur sometimes as well. Partitive genitives, however, are still used relatively frequently (Van der Horst 2008). The use of -s possessives increases, and sometimes already occurs with feminine nouns, as in:

16 De historie van Christoffel Wagenaer discipel van D. Johannes Faustus 43

(x23) indien men op haar moeders komste wacht (V17 409b) (Van der Horst 2008: 1076) If one for her mother-S coming would wait If one would wait for her mother’s coming In the 18th century, the use of the genitive has declined significantly since the 17th century. Genitive objects are quite rare by this point, and are generally used in fixed expressions only. Genitives dependent on adjectives are rather rare as well, but genitives dependent on substantives do still occur sometimes. Remarkably, partitive constructions still maintain a relative high frequency; they are formed with either substantives (x24a), infinitives (x24b) or nominalised adjectives (x24c) in the genitive case (Van der Horst 2008).

(x24a) dat zulke hoofden vol waans zijn (B18 25) (Van der Horst 2008: 1357) That such heads full delusion-GEN are That such heads are full of delusion (x24b) Na nog wat pratens ging Marten Neef heen (WD19 542) (Van der Horst 2008: 1357) After more some talking-GEN went Marten Neef away After some more talking, Marten Neef left (x24c) Ik heb u wat nieuws te zeggen (WL20 7) (Van der Horst 2008: 1357) I have you something new-GEN to say I have something new to say

As can be expected, -s possessives are used more often, including with feminine nouns, as Van der Horst (2008) indicates (see example x25). (x25) myn broeder heeft zyn vaders goedaartigheid (WD 765) (Van der Horst 2008: 1356) My brother has his father-S kindness My bother has his father’s kindness

17 Vondel, VW 18 Verjaard Briefgeheim. Brieven aan B. Huydecoper 19 Historie van mejuffrouw Sara Burgerhart 20 Historie van de heer Willem Leevend 44

Finally, by the 19th and 20th century, the genitive case has, as Van der Horst (2008) argues, almost entirely disappeared from the language. As in the 18th century, partitive genitives are still widely used in the 19th century, with substantives (x27a), infinitives (x27b) and nominalised adjectives (x27c) in the genitive case. (x27a) een prachtig stuk werks (MM21 45) (Van der Horst 2008: 1623) A beautiful piece work-GEN A beautiful piece of work (x27b) na twee uren gaans (L 100) (Van der Horst 2008: 1623) After two hours walking-GEN After two hours of walking (x27c) alleen was er iets kouds in zijn blik (MM 68) (Van der Horst 2008: 1623) Only was there something cold-GEN in his look Only there was something cold in his look

The -s possessive is, of course, used as well, in constructions such as (x28), but according to Van der Horst (2008), this type of construction may have been considered somewhat informal. (x28) met haar hoofd tegen heur zusters schouder (L. Couperus, Extaze 1892; 1994, 36) (Van der Horst 2008: 1622) With her head against her sister-S shoulder With her head against her sister’s shoulder

Now that the diachronic development of the genitive and the -s possessive in Modern Standard Dutch has been presented, it may be useful to consider what caused the change from possessive meaning being expressed through the genitive case, to it being expressed by means of an -s possessive marker, which we have analysed as part of a determiner. As noted before, the -s possessive marker most likely developed out of the genitive -s case marker. According to Weerman & de Wit (1999), the genitive –s case marker was probably reanalysed at the time another language change was already taking place in many Germanic language: the “rise of the determiner system” (Weerman & de Wit 1999: 1169). In older stages of the Germanic languages, they argue, the D slot could remain empty, and Middle Dutch texts show that, at this time, the determiner system had not developed entirely either, since the article die could

21 Multatuli, Max Havelaar 45 not, in those texts, clearly be distinguished from the demonstrative die. The demonstrative article die developed into the definite article de when the determiner system had developed, and the D position needed to be filled by a lexical item. The development of the possessive marker -s is analysed in a similar fashion: the genitive -s was reanalysed as a determiner -s, as it needed to fill the D position. Weerman & de Wit (1999) argue that the reason why the determiner system developed is that the case system disappeared. Cases coded semantic distinctions syntactically, so when the cases disappeared, the semantic distinctions needed to be coded in another way: the determiner system codes them functionally.

To conclude, since the early Middle Dutch period, cases have started to disappear, and as a result, a determiner system developed for Dutch. The genitive case, consequently, also disappeared, except in some partitive constructions and some fixed expressions. The -s genitive case marker was gradually reanalysed as a suffix, which is part of the determiner.

4.1.3 Two prenominal possessors in West-Flemish In West-Flemish, possessive relations are usually expressed differently than in Modern Standard Dutch. The West-Flemish possessive system will only be discussed rather briefly, as I will argue that the locative possessive is, in fact, similar to the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive. While in Modern Standard Dutch the van construction and the -s possessive marker are the standard means of expressing possession, in West-Flemish, this is done by means of two constructions: the possessive pronoun zenen (x1) and the possessive marker sen (x2) (Haegeman, 2013).

(x1) Valère zenen oto (Haegeman 2013: 219) Valère his car

(x2) Valère sen oto (Haegeman 2013: 219) Valère se cat

The first construction, using the possessive pronoun zenen is considered a “doubling construction” (Haegeman 2013: 220), as the possessive pronoun effectively doubles the possessor NP. The pronoun agrees in person and number with the possessor, and in number and gender with the possessum. The second construction is labelled by Haegeman (2013: 220) as the “sen construction”. It is important to note that, synchronically, sen is not analysed as

46 the phonologically reduced form of zenen, as sen can also be used with feminine nouns (Haegeman 2013), as in (x3) (x3) Marie sen hoed (Haegeman 2013: 220, her (1)e) Marie sen hat Marie’s hat The three main differences between the doubling construction and the sen construction, according to Haegeman (2013), are first of all that zenen can occur with both plural and singular possessor nouns, while sen can only take a singular noun. Secondly, sen requires adjacency to the possessor noun, whereas zenen does not. Finally, sen can be realised with the reciprocal possessor mekaar, whereas zenen cannot (Haegeman 2013).

An appealing historical analysis for the existence of the two possessive construction is perhaps that sen has derived from the possessive pronoun zijn through grammaticalisation processes, as a consequence of which a historically agreeing possessive pronoun was no longer capable of indicating the gender of number of the possessor. However, Allen (2008) rejects this claim, as zijn was originally a reflexive possessive pronoun, and was not specified for gender or number. In some Middle Dutch texts, zijn is, in fact, used both with singular and plural, and masculine and feminine nouns. Sen, then, has been argued to have developed, not “from a specifically masculine third person form to an invariant form, but rather from a form which was never specified for gender or number, but only for person” (Allen 2008: 201). In this view, the sen construction may easily have been a doubling construction, which originated when the zijn form did not yet specify for gender (Allen 2008).

4.1.4 The locative possessive in West-Flemish The following section will focus on the locative possessive in West-Flemish. The theoretical nature of this possessive construction has been addressed in section 3.1.4.1 of chapter 3; hence, the present discussion will only briefly repeat the core characteristics of the locative possessive. I will furthermore provide an outline of the occurrence of the locative possessive in present-day West-Flemish. Finally, I will argue that the West-Flemish locative possessive is rather similar to the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive, and thus differs from the usual West-Flemish possessive constructions.

The locative possessive is a type of possessive construction which expresses a meaning of location, which is headed by a preposition and characterised by ellipsis of the head noun of

47 the possessive construction. This elided head noun usually carries the meaning of house or place, and in some cases the elided noun can refer to shops or businesses, or other places where a profession is being carried out. Examples (x1) and (x2) present two instances of locative possessives, with elision of the head noun of the possessive construction (indicated by means of square brackets).

a. I’m going to John’s [house] b. I’m at the butcher’s [shop]

Such constructions exist in West-Flemish as well, and in order to establish how exactly these were used, a small survey was conducted with speakers of West-Flemish. Eleven speakers, who all used the locative possessive to some extent, were presented with a number of possible locative possessive constructions, and were asked to indicate which of these constructions were acceptable in their dialect, and which were not. The survey included proper nouns, nouns referring to kinship, nouns denoting professions, complex PPs and pronouns. For every instance, a few different prepositions or types of constructions in which the locative possessive might appear were suggested in order to investigate whether, for instance, the choice of preposition influences the grammaticality of the locative possessive. Four different prepositions in different constructions were included in the survey:

a. K ga naar Rogers b. K ben bi Rogers I go to Roger-S I am at Roger-S I am going to Roger’s I am at Roger’s

c. K ben22 to Rogers I am at Roger-S I am at Roger’s

d. Ie woont daar an Rogers He lives there near Roger-S He lives there near Roger’s

One further type of construction that was included uses the prepositions to or bi (I have chosen to include to only):

e. K è t to Rogers gehoord I have it at Roger-S heard I have heard it at Roger’s

Not all constructions were combined with each noun in the survey; for instance, construction e. was only investigated in combination with nouns denoting professions, as it was expected that all users who used constructions a. to d. with proper nouns, would also combine construction e. with proper nouns. Nouns denoting professions, however, were expected to combine not as easily with the locative possessive. The full survey and its results can be found in attachment 3. Note that this survey was of a rather restricted nature, and thus no definite conclusions can be drawn regarding the usage of the locative possessive in West-Flemish. However, the survey can give an indication as to what constructions are most likely grammatical, and what constructions are not.

A first category which was investigated was that of proper nouns, i.e. names of persons. All speakers considered locative possessives with proper names as grammatical, although one speaker did not use the preposition to. This preposition was not part of her dialect, and thus, she did not use it in locative possessive constructions. This does not mean that it was the locative possessive, which she considered ungrammatical, but rather the preposition itself. Secondly, kinship nouns (such as zuster ‘sister’, meme ‘nan’, or cozijn ‘cousin’) within locative possessives were regarded as grammatical by the majority of speakers, though not by

22 Some speakers use the verb zin (‘am’) instead. 49 all. Especially the word broer ‘brother’ was not always used in combination with locative possessives: merely half the speakers considered locative possessives containing broer as grammatical. The most likely explanation for this is that in West-Flemish, ‘brother’ is often realised as broere, and not just as broer. It can be argued that the -s possessive marker cannot easily attach to broere, for phonological reasons. Interestingly, a parallel can be observed between this phonological restriction and the phonological process of schwa-deletion in Middle Dutch: nouns ending in schwa could not take the genitive, but as soon as the schwa was dropped, these words were capable of taking an -s ending (see 4.1.2). Thus, broere can, arguably, not take the -s possessive because it ends in schwa, and since broere is, to many West-Flemish speakers, the most commonly used form, it could not be used in a locative possessive construction.

A third type of nouns that was investigated was nouns denoting professions. Such nouns were only rarely used in constructions of the a., b. and c. types. However, professional nouns in constructions of the e. type were considered grammatical by some, depending on the lexeme. For instance, k è t bi den doktoors gehoord (‘I heard it at the doctor’s’) and k è t to den bakkers gehoord (‘I heard it at the baker’s) were considered grammatical by four and three speakers respectively. Construction d. in combination with professional nouns was considered to be grammatical more often: examples (x1-x5) were all considered to be grammatical:

(x1) Hij woont daar aan den coiffeurs He lives there near the (male) hairdresser’s (x2) Hij woont daar aan de coiffeuzes He lives there near the (female) hairdresser’s (x3) Hij woont daar aan den kosters He lives there near the sexton’s

(x4) Hij woont daar aan den pasters He lives there near the priest’s (x5) Hij woont daar aan den beenhouwers He lives there near the butcher’s

This may perhaps be explained by the fact that, in these particular constructions, the reference to a location is very overt, because the verb ‘to live’ clearly requires a complement that refers

50 to a location. Naturally, the construction without a possessive marker (hij woont daar aan den beenhouwer, ‘he lives there near the butcher’) is still grammatically correct, but a location is nonetheless implied rather strongly. By contrast, constructions such as bi den beenhouwer (‘with the butcher’) do not so much indicate a clear location: the example above does not indicate that the speaker is in the butcher’s shop, but rather, that the speaker is in the presence of the butcher, which is also illustrated by the different English translation of the preposition. With relation to nouns indicating professions, a parallel can be drawn to Modern Standard Dutch: the -s possessive in Modern Standard Dutch can only be used with proper nouns or nouns of address (see 4.1.1), and it seems that this may be the case for the West-Flemish -s possessive in locative constructions as well.

A fourth category which was investigated was that of noun phrases containing adjectives. These were usually considered ungrammatical within locative possessive constructions. Nouns denoting kinship in combination with adjectives were considered grammatical only by a few speakers in locative possessives, but noun phrases containing a professional noun and an adjective were not. Other complex noun phrases, which constitute the fifth category, were only rarely used in a locative possessive construction as well. One construction, k ben bi Rogers moeders (I’m at Roger’s mother’s), was considered grammatical by three speakers, but the construction using the doubling possessive instead of -s for the first possessive, as in k ben bi Roger zen moeders (‘I’m at Roger his mother’s’), was considered more grammatical than the former. Thus, the locative possessive is considered grammatical in combination with some complex phrases, all of which are formed by means of proper nouns or kinship nouns. In Modern Standard Dutch, however, this is not the case: the -s possessive cannot attach to complex noun phrases (see 4.1.1).

Furthermore, the construction k ben bi min zusters in Gent (‘I’m at my sister’s in Ghent’) was considered grammatical by the majority of speakers, whereas k ben bi min zuster in Gents (‘I’m at my sister in Ghent’s’) was considered ungrammatical by all. In the former cases, the possessive marker attaches to the head noun, and the postmodifier is not marked as a possessive. Thus, it can be inferred that in West-Flemish, the -s possessive marker must attach to the head noun, and, as opposed to the English possessive marker, cannot be used phrasally, The Modern Standard Dutch possessive -s is similar to the West-Flemish -s possessive in this respect: the Modern Standard Dutch -s cannot be used phrasally either.

Finally, the locative possessive in West-Flemish can also be formed with pronouns, as indicated in examples (x6-x8), and most speakers do use this construction. Note however that only plural pronouns can be used in combination with locative possessives: to t mines (‘at mine’), to t jonnes (‘at yours’), to de zins (‘at his’) are ungrammatical.

(x6) Hij komt naar toezens (he comes to ours) Hij is toezens (he is at ours) Hij is to toezens (he is at ours) Hij is bi toezens (he is at ours)

(x7) K ga naar tjunders / tjulders / tulders (I am going to yours) K ben tjunders / tjulders / tulders (I am at yours) K ben to tjunders / tjulders / tulders (I am at yours) K ben bi tjunders / tjulders / tulders (I am at yours)

(x8) K ga naar tunders (I am going to theirs) K ben tunders (I am at theirs) K ben to tunders (I am at theirs) K ben bi tunders (I am at theirs)

Interestingly, the West-Flemish pronouns as they appear in locative possessive constructions do not only take an -s possessive marker, but usually also a t- in word-initial position. What is further remarkable is that this type of pronoun does not necessarily need a preposition in order to express a locative meaning. Perhaps one could argue, then, that the t- represents a remnant of a preposition, possibly to, and that the t-pronouns are a contracted form of the preposition to and the pronouns oes, ulder, under. This could then be the reason why the pronoun can stand on its own whilst still carrying a locative meaning. However, these remarks are purely speculative, and more research would need to be done in order to establish the true origin of these t-pronouns.

In conclusion, the locative possessive marker in West-Flemish shows a number of significant similarities with the -s possessive of Modern Standard Dutch: first of all, it is realised by -s, whilst the usual possessive markers in West-Flemish are the doubling construction or the sen construction, as shown by Haegeman (2013). Secondly, the phonological constraint on the use

52 of the -s possessive in Modern Standard Dutch appears to hold true for the West-Flemish locative possessive marker as well. Furthermore, the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive can only occur with proper nouns and nouns that can be used in an address, which is the case as well for the West-Flemish -s possessive marker. Finally, the West-Flemish -s possessive marker cannot be used phrasally, like the Modern Standard Dutch -s possessive marker. One difference between the -s possessives in Modern Standard Dutch and West-Flemish is that, in a few cases, the West-Flemish -s possessive marker can attach to complex noun phrases, while the -s possessive marker in Modern Standard Dutch cannot. Finally, this study has found that in West-Flemish, pronouns can obtain a possessive marker, and be used in locative possessive constructions instead of a possessor noun. Further research regarding these pronouns may be necessary in order to determine when they were first used in the locative possessive construction, how they developed in this particular usage, and how their remarkable composition originated.

4.2 Corpus Research

In what follows, the locative possessive in Dutch and its development will be examined through diachronic corpus research. As indicated before, the locative possessive no longer exists in Modern Standard Dutch, yet Van Der Horst (2008) indicates that it did occur, though not very frequently, in Middle Dutch. In the modern West-Flemish dialect, however, the construction is used relatively often. Thus, while the locative possessive was lost in most Dutch dialects, it was retained in West-Flemish.

With regard to this corpus research, it should first of all be noted that Old Dutch texts were not examined for two reasons: not many Old Dutch texts survive to this day, and Van Der Horst does not mention the existence of a locative possessive in Old Dutch. A second remark regarding this study is again that, naturally, these texts do not represent spoken language, but rather, written language. It is quite likely that the development of the locative possessive from Dutch to West-Flemish will not be easily mapped, as it is a dialectal feature in West-Flemish, and dialects are usually spoken, not written. Furthermore, no corpus of West-Flemish written or spoken language exists today, which also hinders to some extent the accurate description of the locative possessive from a diachronic perspective. However, it may still be possible to draw some conclusions from this research with regard to the development of the locative possessive.

Section 4.2.1 will discuss the copora and data used in this research, and section 4.2.2 will present and discuss the results of this study.

4.2.1 Corpora and Data Two corpora were examined for this study: the Corpus Van Reenen-Mulder (CRM14), which contains 14th-century chancery documents, and the Compliatiecorpus Historisch Nederlands (CHN), which was compiled by Evie Coussé. The CHN is divided into two subcorpora: the Compliatiecorpus Historisch Nederlands: ambachtelijke teksten 1250-1800 (CHNa) and the Compliatiecorpus Historisch Nederlands: narratieve teksten 1575-2000 (CHNn). The CHN is a compliation corpus, i.e. it is made up of parts of several corpora. The CHNa contains parts of the Corpus Gysseling, containing Middle Dutch texts from 1250 to 1299, the Corpus Van Reenen-Mulder, and a corpus of judicial texts (Geschiedkundige rechtsbronnen), containing sources from 1400 to 1799. Of all these corpora, a representative sample was selected, and complied into one corpus, the CHNa. The CHNn consists of a compilation of narrative texts, taken from the Digital Library of Dutch Literature (Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren). As the CHN also contains part of the CRM14, overlap of the results is possible. When this was the case, both corpora were indicated as sources.

In contrast to the English corpora, no selection was made from the CRM14 and the CHN. The CHN already is a representative sample of several corpora, and therefore, I did not consider it necessary to make another selection from this sample. Furthermore, if it is the case that the locative possessive was not very frequent during the Middle Dutch period, and was only less used in later times, as Van Der Horst (354) claims, making a selection from the data would only lessen the chance that an instance of the locative possessive is found through corpus research.

4.2.2 Methodology

This research was conducted by running the concordance program AntConc on all corpora. I have chosen to enter prepositions in the program, rather than nouns and/or possessive markers. If nouns had been entered, the program would have yielded too many irrelevant results. The locative possessive is usually formed with the possessive marker –s, and since this is a single letter, entering this into the program would also have yielded too many

54 irrelevant results. Full locative possessive constructions, by contrast, would have yielded too few results, as there would be a significant chance that other constructions, with different words, would not be found in the corpus. Thus, a number of prepositions were selected, and run through the program. These were tot (cf. English to), bi (cf. English by, at), naar (cf. English to) and tussen (cf. English between). All prepositions were, of course, entered in their different spellings. The results were then manually reviewed, and all locative possessives, both elliptical and non-elliptical, were extracted.

4.2.3 Results and Discussion A number of locative possessives were encountered in this research.

One issue with the locative possessive in Middle Dutch is the fact that it is not always easy to distinguish between locative possessive markers and patronymic markers. Patronyms end in ‘- soen/-zoen’ (meaning ‘son’), which is sometimes abbreviated to (as in Jan Heermansz, CHNa: Leiden, 1439). This ‘z’ can often be elided, so that the possessive of the patronym is kept, as in henrics wouters (CHNa: Kuringen, 1393). In these cases, it is often unclear whether the name purely represents a patronym, or whether there is a locative possessive element attached to it as well. Nonetheless, a few types of patronyms which were clearly locative possessives were found in the results. A first type was a construction where the ‘- soen/-zoen’ had not been elided, and the locative possessive marker was placed at the end of the patronym, as e.g. in bi pieter jans zoens (CRM14: s-Gravenzande, 1353). A second type that was considered a clear locative possessive, was when the first proper noun in the NP had a possessive marker, while the patronym was only clearly marked as such. For instance, in hannekins henox, the , which is simply the spelling of /k/ - /s/, does not clearly represent a locative possessive marker. It could be argued that it does, if one presupposes that two possessive markers will not be spelled separately, but rather, that only one will be used to represent two. However, this example remains a clear instance of the locative possessive, as the first name carries the locative possessive marker. Furthermore, there is a type of locative possessives, which was rather prominent in the results, which are not patronyms, although they might look like they are. The first proper noun in this kind of constructions carries a possessive marker, and the second proper noun is a family name. An example is lodewijx van den boemghaerde (CHNa: Oudenaarde, 1370). The possessive marker of the first proper noun can hardly be considered a patronymic marker, as these are not usually attached to first

~~55 names, and the second proper noun is not a patronym, but a family name. Thus, such constructions were considered locative possessives.~~

It may be noted that many locative possessives in these results appear with the preposition tussen (between). Semantically, this preposition presupposes a binary structure: it always heads two elements. Hence, many instances of locative possessives within these results, which at first sight are not headed by a preposition (such as ende jans van den bossche, CHNa: Oudenaarde, 1370), are actually headed by tussen. A further remark, regarding tussen, is that the results of this research also included partly elliptical locative possessive constructions, in which one NP was elliptical, and the other non-elliptical. A few examples are tusschen jan boysts huus ende erue ende pieters van oeten (CRM14: Aalst, 1370) and tusschen lant wouters van den vynne ende wouters mersmans (CRM14: Donk, 1381). Constructions with tussen and two non-elliptical NPs were found as well, such as tusschen Dirc janszoens erue ende Claes peter clenerts zoens erue (CHNa: Amsterdam, 1410). It could be argued that the partly elliptical construction with tussen may represent an intermediate stage between the non-elliptical and elliptical locative possessive. The head noun of one of the possessive constructions can be elided, as it is present in the other, and therefore to a certain extent redundant: it can be left out without causing a change in meaning. It might therefore be considered a stage in between no ellipsis and full ellipsis, where the next step would be to elide the head noun in both constructions. However, the results do not indicate that the partly elliptical construction with tussen is, in fact, an intermediate stage at a diachronic level. Both possessive constructions with and without ellipsis appear to be used simultaneously throughout the Middle Dutch period; however, the non-elliptical locative possessive was found more frequently. Thus, while the partly elliptical possessive may be considered an intermediate stage on a synchronic level, this claim does not appear to hold true for the diachronic level. It must however be noted once more that this research uses a limited amount of data, and therefore, these results may vary to a certain extent, once a greater amount of data has been studied more comprehensively.

As opposed to the English results, locative possessives deriving from names of saints, and being used to denote religious institutions, are not very frequent in Middle Dutch. Furthermore, these constructions do not appear to be used previous to locative possessives with personal names; in fact, the first locative possessive indicating a religious institution is bij sente godelen (CHNa: Brussel, 1312), which still contains a genitive inflection (-en).

Hence, the idea that the Middle Dutch locative possessive could have originated from such names of religious institutions does not appear plausible. [Thus, if this is the case, it could be argued that English and Middle Dutch/West-Flemish do not have the same kind of development. This will be addressed in the “general discussion”]

Finally, the results show that the locative possessive was used in Middle Dutch for about a hundred years, from the late 13th century to the late 14th century. The first instance of the non- elliptical construction is from the mid-13th century, and it occurs regularly in the corpus until the late 15th century. One isolated instance from 1866 was found: naar t huis des Heeren (CHNn: Holland, 1866). Importantly, the results do not show any kind of preference of the use of the locative possessive per region, in West-Flemish, for instance. Only a few locative possessives were actually found in Flemish texts: Brabantine texts and northern Dutch texts contained several instances as well. Yet it is striking that, even though the construction still exists in West-Flemish today, it was not found in the corpora after 1378. For Middle Dutch, Van Der Horst (2008) provides a few examples from Van den vos Reynaerde and Jacob van Maerlant’s Rijmbijbel. The following examples were taken from the text of Van den vos Reynaerde that can be found in the Comburg Manuscript (Lulofs, 2001):

“Al sprekende quam dus gheloepen / Reynaert met sinen gheselle Brune / tote Lamfroits bi den tune (R 646)” (Van Der Horst, 2008: 354) “Hi hadde en vet hoen ghevaen / bi Lamfroyts an der heyden (R 879)” (Van Der Horst, 2008: 354) “Sint leedickene up eenen dach / tote des papen van Bloys (R 1509)” (Van Der Horst, 2008: 354)

Van Der Horst (2008) classifies these examples under the early Middle Dutch period, from 1200 to 1350. However, Lulofs (2001) states that the Reynaert manuscript in his edition, which is also the edition Van Der Horst (2008) references, was most likely written around 1400. A further example, according to Van Der Horst (2008), can be found in Maerlant’s Rijmbijbel, as it was written c. 1285, in the ms.15001 (van Dalen-Oskam, 1997):

~~“Ende voer te sijns hoems ward (MR2415)” (Van Der Horst, 2008: 354)~~

These examples are, however, from the same time period as the results of this study; hence, they cannot shed much further light on the development of the construction. Interestingly, Van Der Horst (2008) does refer to one more example of the locative possessive from the late 17th century, i.e. almost three centuries after its last occurrence c.1400.

~~“Ick sal eer corten tijdt u weer to vaeyers vinden” (De Swaen, Gecroonde Leerse 35)” (Van Der Horst, 2008: 1077)~~

This particular instance was found in De Swaen’s play De Gecroonde Leersse, which was first performed in 1688. The language of the play was French-Flemish; as was noted in chapter 2 [during the discussion of locative possessives in different languages], the locative possessive does exist in the French-Flemish dialect today, while it is no longer used in Standard Dutch. Hence, the construction may have undergone a more or less similar development as West-Flemish. This cannot be determined with any kind of certainty yet, however, as French-Flemish was not considered for this corpus research.

Turning back to the locative possessive in Middle Dutch, we have noted two remarkable issues with these corpus results. First of all, it would be expected that, while the construction gradually ceases to be used in most dialects of Middle Dutch, a preference for West-Flemish would be apparent, as it does survive in this dialect. This is however not the case, the later results are not necessarily West-Flemish ones. Secondly, except for the one instance in French-Flemish, the locative is absent from the corpora from 1400 onwards. Since the construction does exist in West-Flemish, however, it would be expected that results from West-Flanders would keep appearing in the corpora. Nonetheless, a tentative explanation could be provided for these remarkable results. Notably, van den Toorn et al. (2007) reject the claim that every writer always wrote in his own dialect. From the early Middle Dutch period onwards, writers adhered to a set of spelling conventions in most cases, which, arguably, made the text look more distinguished, and ascertained that the text was understood by those who spoke a different dialect (van den Toorn et al., 2007). For obvious reasons, this may have been of great importance for official chancery documents, and, since corpora that were used for this research mainly contain chancery texts, it may be of importance to this study as well. Note however that these spelling conventions do not necessarily mean that Dutch was in the process of being standardised; true standardisation only took place from the 16th century onwards (van den Toorn et al., 2007). Another factor may, arguably, be related to

58 the gradual gain in prestige of Brabant from the middle of the 14th century onwards. A consequence of this prestige was that writers often adapted their spelling, vocabulary and grammar to the Brabantine writing conventions (van den Toorn et al., 2007). A further factor lies in the fact that the CHNn was compiled in such a way, that only texts from Holland were incorporated (Evie Coussé reference). Hence, it was not possible for the corpus to generate West-Flemish results in a more narrative context, in which it is, arguably, less necessary to write in a distinguished and formal matter, as is the case for official documents. In a more informal context, dialectal features from West-Flemish might have been more prominent.

These three factors may to a certain extent account for both the fact that no results were found after 1400, and the fact that no preference was found for West-Flemish. Naturally, if no Flemish texts were incorporated into the CHNn, this corpus search could not yield any results. Furthermore, if the construction was no longer used in other Dutch dialects, Brabantine was more prestigious than West-Flemish, and writers often adapted their language to make it more intelligible, it would come as no surprise that later constructions in West-Flemish were remarkably absent. Their presence from the late 13th until the late 14th century onwards may be explained by the fact that the construction was widely used in that time, or, perhaps more interestingly, the fact that it was West-Flemish which had the prestige up until the early 14th century (van den Toorn et al., 2007). Hence, writers may very well have adapted their writing to West-Flemish conventions, and temporarily taken over the locative possessive until West- Flemish lost its prestige. Naturally, these remarks are purely speculative. Due to a lack of results from the corpus material, this research cannot show with much certainty when and how exactly the construction was, and remained to be, used in West-Flemish. In order to answer this question, more extensive research would need to be done.

~~5. Discussion~~

In this final chapter of my thesis, I will first compare the results of the English and West- Flemish corpus research within a cognitive framework (section 5.1). Then in section 5.2, an answer will be formulated to the question whether the locative possessive is an Ingvaeonic phenomenon, or whether its occurrence in Modern English and West-Flemish originated through a parallel independent development.

~~5.1 Discussion of corpus results~~

The first Dutch instances of the locative possessive that this study generated were from the late 13th century. According to the results, the construction was in use for about a hundred years, until it disappeared again in the late 14th century. However, we know that the locative possessive is still used today in West-Flemish. The lack of results after the 14th century and the fact that the results do not show any kind of preference towards the West-Flemish use of the construction, was explained with reference to the onset of language standardisation. A combination of new spelling conventions and prestige of the Brabantine dialect (Van den Toorn et al. 2007) made it less likely that West-Flemish instances would keep appearing in official documents, and thus in our results. The first English results occurred a century after the disappearance of the West-Flemish construction, in the late 15th century. In contrast to the Dutch results, the English locative possessive was used more and more frequently from the late Middle English period onwards, and by the Modern British English period, it appears to have become the default option to express location by means of a possessive, as opposed to the non-elliptical construction. Thus, while the locative possessive in Dutch was gradually restricted to West-Flemish only, the English locative possessive rapidly developed into a widely and often used construction.

The question may then be asked how the locative possessive originated in these languages, and why it was possible to omit the head noun of a possessive construction and still have a clear and easily understood construction. This question will be discussed within a cognitive framework, and the prototype theory. According to Langacker’s (1995) theory of cognitive grammar, two main participants are distinguished. The trajector is the primary participant within the profiled relationship, and the secondary participant is termed the landmark. In

60 possessive constructions, the possessor noun is analysed as the landmark, whilst the possessum is the trajector (Langacker 1995). In order to explain why it is possible to omit the head noun, or the trajectory, the prototype theory might be a useful tool. Heine (1997: 39) lists five prototypical properties of possession: I. The possessor is a human being. II. The possessee is a concrete item. III. The possessor has the right to make use of the possessee. IV. Possessor and possessee are in spatial proximity. V. Possession has no conceivable temporal limit.

Remarkably, all these properties seem to be characteristic of the locative possessive. First of all, the possessor is always a human being, as the construction refers to a person’s home or the place where he practices his profession. Secondly, the possessee is indeed a concrete item: a house, a doctor’s practice, a shop, etc. The locative possessive generally refers to a building which is owned by a person to live or practice his profession in. The third property is also rather straightforward: since the locative possessive refers to places where people live or work, the possessor has the right to make use of the possessee. The possessor and possesee are also usually in spatial proximity: as the possessor either lives or works in the referenced building, they are usually rather close to each other. However, it is possible to use the locative possessive to refer to a place when the possessor is not actually present in said location. For instance, it is possible to say I’m going to John’s when John is not home. However the possessive relation between a person and his home or the workplace that he owns does imply that he is there most of the time. Finally, possession has no conceivable temporal limit with reference to the locative possessive. A home or workplace is usually a rather permanent possession.

~~Heine (1997: 40) suggests the following schematic representation of possessive notions in a prototype framework:~~

~~Figure 1: A prototype characterisation of possessive notions. From: Heine 1997: 97, his Figure 1.1 PHYS PERM INAL Ss 61~~

IN/A IN/I TEMP According to this characterisation, permanent possessives are thus indeed the most prototypical kind of possessive constructions. Temporary, physical and inalienable possession (in which the possesee is inseperable from the possessor, e.g. a body part) are somewhat less prototypical, and inalienable animate, inalienable inanimate and abstract possession is the least prototypical (Heine 1997). In this view, the possessive relation between a person and his residence or owned workplace is, arguably, most prototypical. This notion might provide an explanation for why the trajector can simply be omitted, without having a significant impact on the semantics of the construction. It may be argued that, because the trajector noun with a meaning of ‘home’ or ‘owned workplace’ is so prototypical in locative constructions, that, when omitted, the hearer or reader of the construction will automatically supplement the most prototypical kind of noun in order to make sense of the meaning of the construction. In other words, when a person hears the construction I’m going to John’s, he will try to make sense of its meaning, and will think of the most prototypical noun in the first place: house. When this noun is successfully identified as the omitted trajector, the hearer can interpret this construction, and similar constructions without much difficulty. Since it is, arguably, relatively easy to interpret the omitted trajector correctly in locative possessive constructions, explicitly including the trajector in these constructions may be considered redundant, and consequently, the locative possessive construction without the trajector noun may become conventionally accepted and used. It may, then, be argued that the locative possessive with omission of the trajector originated in this fashion.

~~5.2 Ingvaeonism or parallel independent development~~

In chapter 2 of this thesis, I have presented the hypothesis that the locative possessive might be an Ingvaeonism. The argument in favour of this interpretation was that the locative possessive appears in most ingvaeonic languages and dialects. However, the use of the locative possessive was spread more widely than merely within the Ingvaeonic dialect areas: even during the Middle Dutch period, it was used in the entire Dutch language area. A second counterargument was that the locative possessive was in all likelihood too recent a construction to be considered an ingvaeonism.

My research has shown that the locative possessive does indeed only occur from the Middle Dutch and late Middle English periods onwards; in order to be an Ingvaeonism, the construction would have had to be much older. Furthermore, the West-Flemish construction

62 was first used two hundred years before the English locative possessive was, making it highly unlikely that the locative possessive in these languages originated out of the same ancient Ingvaeonic language. The fact that the locative possessive occurred in the entire Dutch language area before being restricted to West-Flemish can also indicate that it may not have been an Ingvaeonism. While Ingvaeonisms do exist in Dutch today, it would still be expected that the construction originated in West-Flemish, or another Ingvaeonic dialect, and then spread to the rest of the Dutch language area. However, this is not what the results show. The instances of locative possessives that were found in this study did not show any kind of preference towards West-Flemish, nor in the beginning, nor at the end of the century in which it occurred. Thus, it is my view that the locative possessive was a construction that was originally spoken across the entire Dutch language area, but was then restricted to West- Flanders (and French-Flanders) alone.

In other words, the development of the locative possessive in English and West-Flemish can be characterised as a parallel independent development, which means that it developed separately in both languages. As I have argued, the development of this construction may have been facilitated by the fact that it is such a prototypical construction, and that therefore the trajector noun can be easily elided. Furthermore, the fact that possessives are syntactically, morphologically and phonologically similar (though not identical) in most Germanic languages may also be considered as a factor which aided the development of locative possessives in English, West-Flemish, Frisian and French-Flemish: it seems likely that the prototypical characteristics of possessives are similar in most Germanic languages, and that the trajector noun is of a similar nature as the English and West-Flemish ones. This could perhaps have served as a catalyst in the development of the locative possessive in English, West-Flemish, Frisian and French-Flemish. That the locative possessive developed in these particular language may thus have been coincidental to a certain extent, rather than a consequence of the Ingvaeonic background of these languages. However, there is a second factor which might have facilitated the rise of the locative possessive: language contact. As was mentioned before, the Frisian Kingdom was rather powerful during the Middle Ages. Thus, the locative possessive may have been a Frisian phenomenon, which was spread across the Dutch and English language areas due to a significant amount of contact with these languages. In sum, the locative possessive might have been transferred from Frisian to English and Dutch during the Middle Ages due to language contact, and this transfer may have been facilitated by the nature of the possessive in these languages.

However, it is still unclear why the locative possessive remained in use in West-Flemish and French-Flemish, whilst it disappeared in the other Dutch dialects. In order to answer this question, more extensive research would need to be done.

~~6. Conclusion~~

In conclusion, this study has mapped the diachronic development of the locative possessive constructions in English and West-Flemish, and has argued that they are not Ingvaeonisms, but rather independent parallel developments. While the locative possessive does appear in most Ingvaeonic languages and dialects, the construction has arisen too recently to be considered an Ingvaeonism, and, in the Dutch language area, it was initially used as a general Dutch phenomenon, and its use became restricted to West-Flemish, the Ingvaeonic dialect, afterwards. The possessive constructions in English, Modern Standard Dutch and West- Flemish have been discussed both synchronically and diachronically. The English ‘s possessive was analysed as a phrasal affix, and originated out of the genitive case. However, as case inflections were lost in English during the Middle English period, the ‘s possessive was no longer considered an inflectional affix. The Modern Standard Dutch possessive morpheme was considered as a suffix that was part of a determiner phrase, and this possessive marker developed out of the genitive case marker as well. However, it no longer is an inflectional affix either. The West-Flemish doubling possessive and the sen possessive were briefly examined as well, but I have argued that the -s possessive of the West-Flemish locative construction was similar to the Modern Standard Dutch possessive instead.

The diachronic development of the locative possessive in West-Flemish and English was then examined by means of corpus research. The results of this research has shown that the English locative possessive originated in the late 15th century, and was increasingly often used until it was more or less the default option to express location by means of possessives. The West- Flemish locative possessive, however, originated in the late 13th century and was originally used in the entire Dutch language area. However, the construction disappeared in Dutch after the 14th century, and is only used in West-Flanders and French-Flanders today. The prototype theory was used to interpret these results, and I have argued that the locative possessive is one of the most prototypical possessive constructions in both English and West-Flemish. This may have been a catalyst in its development: if the trajector noun, which is omitted in locative possessive constructions, is of the most prototypical nature, then its omission does not pose significant problems for the interpretation of this construction, and thus, the trajector noun may, in time, have been considered redundant. I have also noted that the possessive constructions in most Germanic languages seem similar in syntax, morphology and

65 phonology, which may have aided the development of the locative possessive in English, West-Flemish, French-Flemish and Frisian. Another factor may have been language contact due to the powerful position of the Kingdom of Frisia. Further research on this topic may include an investigation of the locative possessive of Frisian and French-Flemish, both from a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. A further aspect of the locative possessive which still needs to be examined in more detail is the occurrence of pronouns as possessors.

~~References~~

~~Allen, Cynthia L. 2004. “A Note on ‘Ellipical’, ‘Absolute’, and ‘Independent’ Genitives in Earlier English.” English Language and Linguistics 8:2. 351-354.~~

~~Allen, Cynthia L. 2008. Genitives in Early English: Typology and Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.~~

~~Baugh, Albert C. & Thomas Cable. 2002. A history of the English language. Oxon: Routledge.~~

~~Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Geoffrey Leech. 2002. Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman, Pearson Education Limited~~

~~Booij, Geert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.~~

~~Booij, Geert. 2005. “Construction-dependent morphology” Lingue E Linguaggio 2. 1-16.~~

Börjars, Kersti, David Denison, Grzegorz Krajewski & Alan Scott. 2013. “Expression of Possession in English: The Significance of the Right Edge.” Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. (=Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 199.) ed. by Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan Sott, 123-148. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

~~Devos, Magda & Reinhild Vandekerckhove. 2005. West-Vlaams. Tielt: Lannoo~~

~~Fering-Öömrang Wurdenbuk. 2002. Kiel: Nordfriesische Wörterbuchstelle~~

~~Grafmiller, Jason. forthcoming. “Variation in English Genitives Across Modality and Genre”~~

Haegeman, Liliane. 2013. “Two prenominal possessors in West-Flemish” Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. (= linguistics today 199) ed. by Kersti Börjars, David Denison and Alan Scott. 219-251.

~~Heeroms, Klaas. 1972. “Zur Raumgeschichte des Inwgäonischen” Zeitschrift für DIalektologie und Linguistik 3. 267-283.~~

~~Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.~~

Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. “Possession and possessive constructions” Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World (=Studies and Monographs 82) ed. by John R. Taylor & Robert E. MacLaury. 51-80. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gryuter

Nevis, Joel A. 2000. “Clitics.” Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. (= HSK 17.1) ed. By Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, Vol. 1., 388-404. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, Parsed Version (2006). Annotated by Ann Taylor, Arja Nurmi, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk and Terttu Nevalainen. Compiled by the CEEC Project Team. York: University of York and Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

~~Sipma, P. 1913. Phonology & Grammar of Modern West Frisian. With phonetic texts and glossary. (= Publications of the Philological Society 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.~~

~~Taylor, John R. 1996. Possessives in English. An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.~~

~~The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) (2007). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.~~

~~The Magic sheet of Old English Inflections. http://faculty.virginia.edu/OldEnglish/courses/handouts/magic.pdf~~

~~The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (2000). Anthony Kroch and Ann Taylor, compilers. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.~~

~~The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2 (2000). Anthony Kroch and Ann Taylor, compilers. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.~~

~~The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (2000). Anthony Kroch and Ann Taylor, compilers. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.~~

~~Van Bath, B.H. Slicher. 1949. “Dutch Tribal Problems”. Speculum 24:3. 319-338.~~

~~Van der Horst, J.M. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlands Syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.~~

~~Van den Toorn, M.C., W. Pijnenburg, J.A. van Leunvensteijn en J.M. Van der Horst. 2007. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.~~

Van Keymeulen, Jan. 2003. “Geographical differentiation in the Dutch Language Area.” The Dawn of the Written Vernacular in Western Europe. ed by Michèle Goyens and Werner Verbeke. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

~~Weerman, Fred & Petra de Wit. 1999. “The Decline of the Genitive in Dutch” Linguistics 37:6. 1155-1192.~~

~~Weijnen, A.A. 1999. Oude Woordlagen in de Zuidelijk-centrale dialecten. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.~~

~~Zwicky, Arnold M. 1997. On Clitics. Ohio: Ohio State University~~

~~Zwicky, Arnold M. & Geoffrey K. Pulllum. 1983. “Cliticization vs. Inflection: English N’T” Language 59:3. 502-513~~

~~APPENDIX 1~~

~~RESULTS CORPUS RESEARCH: ENGLISH~~

~~TABLE 1: All results elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

1470 ROMANCE at Saynt Albons CMMALORY,6.164 1474-1488 LETTER at B. Pasmars CELY,17.013.197 1474-1488 LETTER at Bornellys wyedows CELY,26.022.426 1474-1488 LETTER to Dankortys CELY,41.034.723 1474-1488 LETTER by Thomas Kesteyns CELY,41.035.733 1474-1488 LETTER at Sente Johnys CELY,73.057.1225 1474-1488 LETTER to Sent Tomers CELY,98.077.1658 1474-1488 LETTER at Sent Tomors CELY,137.111.2436 1474-1488 LETTER at Twyssulltons CELY,143.114.2501 1474-1488 LETTER at Robard Torneys CELY,191.136.2992 1474-1488 LETTER at Thomas Clarkys CELY,191.136.2993 1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overeys CMGREGOR,104.185 1475 HISTORY be syde Syn Jonys CMGREGOR,108.299 1475 HISTORY at Syn Johnys CMGREGOR,157.676 1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overes CMGREGOR,157.682 1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,160.755 1475 HISTORY to Syn Gorgys CMGREGOR,164.845 1475 HISTORY at Syn Poulys CMGREGOR,176.1113 1475 HISTORY at Syn Poulys CMGREGOR,180.1229 1475 HISTORY to Powlys CMGREGOR,184.1308 1475 HISTORY to Synt Mychellys CMGREGOR,184.1308 1475 HISTORY at Syn Donstonys CMGREGOR,188.1391 1475 HISTORY at Syn Albonys CMGREGOR,188.1397 1475 HISTORY at Syn Kateryns CMGREGOR,188.1404 1475 HISTORY from Syn Johnys CMGREGOR,191.1447 1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,198.1576 1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,203.1701 1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overeyes CMGREGOR,211.1901 1475 HISTORY to Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,211.1921 1475 HISTORY to Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,212.1923 1475 HISTORY at Poulys CMGREGOR,230.2390 1569-1575 LETTER at St. Symon's PARKHUR,161.029.519 1569-1575 LETTER (betwene Mr. Downes his howse) PARKHUR,177.040.682 and one Tilneye 's

1569-1575 LETTER at St. Andrew's PARKHUR,216.061.1133 1582 DIARY at Besse Jenyns MADOX-E2-H,83.59 1582 DIARY at Robert Cavies MADOX-E2-H,86.95 1582 DIARY at M. Creswels MADOX-E2-H,132.241 1582 DIARY at M. Fownds MADOX-E2-P1,92.61 1582 DIARY at M. Fownds MADOX-E2-P1,94.103 1582 DIARY at sherif Martens MADOX-E2-P1,95.110 1582 DIARY at Mrs Lucars MADOX-E2-P1,95.116 1582 DIARY at M. sherif Martons MADOX-E2-P1,95.121 1582 DIARY at his brother Hudsons MADOX-E2-P1,96.130 1582 DIARY at my cosyn Thomas MADOX-E2-P1,98.164 1582 DIARY at Mrs Lucars MADOX-E2-P1,98.170 1582 DIARY at M. Carleyls MADOX-E2-P1,98.179 1582 DIARY at my cosyn Nycholas MADOX-E2-P1,98.187 1582 DIARY at M. Huntleys MADOX-E2-P1,99.196 1582 DIARY at M. Gilburns MADOX-E2-P1,101.255 1582 DIARY at Alderman Barns MADOX-E2-P1,101.258 1582 DIARY at M. Hankins MADOX-E2-P1,104.313 1582 DIARY at M. Greenes MADOX-E2-P1,107.363 1582 DIARY to M. Burdens MADOX-E2-P1,111.430 1582 DIARY to St. Ellyns MADOX-E2-P1,112.443 1582 DIARY to St. Crosses MADOX-E2-P2,117.38 1582 DIARY at M. Owtreads MADOX-E2-P2,117.45 1582 DIARY at M. Onleys MADOX-E2-P2,160.460 1582 DIARY at M. Dees MADOX-E2-P2,118.60 1582 DIARY at M. Owtreds MADOX-E2-P2,118.73 1610-1632 LETTER to the lordes PORY,69.002.58 1610-1632 LETTER at Sir Edward Parhams PORY,71.002.82 1610-1632 LETTER at my lord Treasurers PORY,128.004.186 1628-1632 LETTER at Nurse Bedle's BARRING,54.012.233 1628-1632 LETTER Sir Thomas Barrington's BARRING,56.014.277 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrard's BARRING,73.025.556 1628-1632 LETTER at my brother Lytton's BARRING,88.040.758 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,97.049.915 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,101.055.1009 1628-1632 LETTER to my brother Masham's BARRING,110.064.1170 1628-1632 LETTER in Saint Gyles BARRING,113.066.1191 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilberd Garretts BARRING,113.066.1193 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Richard Evered's BARRING,114.066.1211 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilberte Garrett's BARRING,114.066.1214 1628-1632 LETTER in St Giles BARRING,120.072.1313 1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Martin's BARRING,127.080.1407 1628-1632 LETTER at St Mary Overyes BARRING,132.084.1496 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,135.086.1527 1628-1632 LETTER From Mr Okelie's BARRING,145.096.1652

1628-1632 LETTER at the stacioner's BARRING,151.101.1724 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrard's BARRING,152.102.1741 1628-1632 LETTER at nurse Birde's BARRING,162.111.1852 1628-1632 LETTER at St James BARRING,191.129.2226 1628-1632 LETTER from my Lord of Bedford's BARRING,200.136.2341 1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Goodyer's BARRING,206.145.2465 1628-1632 LETTER From Mr Charneck's BARRING,207.145.2468 1628-1632 LETTER at Mrs Necton's BARRING,209.148.2508 1628-1632 LETTER from his master's BARRING,230.172.2954 1628-1632 LETTER unto theire master's BARRING,240.181.3150 1630 TRAVEL at one Master Iohn Archibalds JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,134.C1.168 1630 TRAVEL to the Lord Marquesse of JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.261 Huntleys 1630 TRAVEL at Sir William Sydleyes JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89 1630 TRAVEL at the Lord Woetons JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,145.C1.96 1672 BIOGRAPHY to Rich: Johnsons FOX-E3-H,151.181 1672 BIOGRAPHY to ye Lord maiors FOX-E3-H,156.298 1672 BIOGRAPHY to Grace Barwickes FOX-E3-P2,107.82 1672 BIOGRAPHY to Tho: Taylors FOX-E3-P2,108.118 1672 BIOGRAPHY to Jane Milners FOX-E3-P2,114.259 1672 BIOGRAPHY at Charles ffloydes FOX-E3-P2,114.262 1672 BIOGRAPHY at James Merrickes FOX-E3-P2,116.343 1675-1677 LETTER at Mr Neal's a Cooper ESSEX,68.013.351 1675-1677 LETTER at one Corporall Gaskins ESSEX,68.013.352 1715-1716 LAW at St. Albans STATUTES-171X,5,51.41 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,161.10 1716 DIARY at Mr. Henry's RYDER-1716,163.71 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,165.131 1716 DIARY Came to brother's RYDER-1716,165.151 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,166.164 1716 DIARY at brother's RYDER-1716,166.166 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,166.180 1716 DIARY at Aunt Bickley's RYDER-1716,170.285 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,171.328 1716 DIARY to Lord Molyneux's RYDER-1716,175.421 1716 DIARY at Bunkley's RYDER-1716,177.465 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,177.471 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,178.486 1716 DIARY to Mr. Bailey's RYDER-1716,178.489 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,178.517 1716 DIARY to Mr. Whatley's RYDER-1716,181.575 1716 DIARY at Sue's RYDER-1716,182.598 1776 DIARY at his mother's BOSWELL-1776,39.115 1776 DIARY at John Dykes's BOSWELL-1776,47.369 1776 DIARY at Swan's BOSWELL-1776,47.369

1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,48.443 1776 DIARY at Mrs. Graham's BOSWELL-1776,49.480 1776 DIARY at Dr. Webster's BOSWELL-1776,50.514 1776 DIARY to Lady Colville's BOSWELL-1776,50.527 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,51.572 1776 DIARY at Mr. Baron Maule's BOSWELL-1776,52.601 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,52.629 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,53.648 1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,53.670 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,54.680 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,54.698 1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,54.702 1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,55.755 1776 DIARY at Mrs. Boswell of Balmuto's BOSWELL-1776,55.756 1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,56.799 1776 DIARY at Mr. Donaldson the bookseller's BOSWELL-1776,56.805 1776 DIARY at Macqueen's BOSWELL-1776,56.812 1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,56.814 1826 BIOGRAPHY at Mr. West's OKEEFFE-1826,1,2.35 1826 BIOGRAPHY At Lord Trimlestown's OKEEFFE-1826,1,5.71 1826 BIOGRAPHY At Mr. Stewart's OKEEFFE-1826,1,32.339 1826 BIOGRAPHY opposite this Captain Debrisay's OKEEFFE-1826,1,35.365

~~TABLE 2: All results non-elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

1150 HISTORY to Sancte Berhtines minstre (CMPETERB,50.253) 1225 RELIGIOUS ut of dines fader huse (CMVICES1,109.1317) TREATISE 1225 RELIGIOUS vt of tines fader huse (CMVICES1,111.1328) TREATISE 1350 BIBLE in te halles of our Goddes hous (CMEARLPS,163.7241) 1387 HISTORY in erle Hunbaldus his hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,65.452) 1387 HISTORY out of tat lost and corsede manis (CMPOLYCH,69.481) hous 1387 HISTORY in erl Hunbald his hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,71.491) 1387 HISTORY to Seynt Romayn his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,145.1022) 1387 HISTORY in Seint Peteris chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,155.1117) 1387 HISTORY in Seynt Iohn his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,181.1296) 1387 HISTORY to Seynt Mary Chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,259.1883) 1387 HISTORY at Seint Marye chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,327.2389)

1387 HISTORY in Seint Clement his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2467) 1387 HISTORY in his fader hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2470) 1387 HISTORY to Seynt Gueroun his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,359.2616) 1387 HISTORY to Seint German his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,387.2840) 1387 HISTORY to Seynt Peter his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,409.2998) 1387 HISTORY in Seynt Peter his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,419.3068) 1387 HISTORY out of Seynt Martyns abbay (CMPOLYCH,VIII,93.3616) 1425 TRAVEL in hire faderes hows (CMMANDEV,61.1520) 1440-1476 LETTER in Seynt Bartholomewys Spytyll MARCHAL,F263.004.102 1440-1476 LETTER at Seynt Bartolmews Spytyll MARCHAL,F73.008.182 1440-1476 LETTER in my lordes plase MARCHAL,F49.011.248 1470 ROMANCE at his faders lodgyng (CMMALORY,8.214) 1470 ROMANCE within kynge Uriens londe (CMMALORY,31.997) 1470 ROMANCE in kynge Pescheors house (CMMALORY,653.4404) 1474-1488 LETTER in the Dvke of Borgans londys CELY,23.018.357 1474-1488 LETTER to my masterys plasse CELY,54.046.1001 1474-1488 LETTER at his faders place CELY,131.104.2324 1474-1488 LETTER be the Est Wache Howsse CELY,167.126.2811 1474-1488 LETTER be Sent Nycolas Chyrche CELY,167.126.2811 1475 HISTORY in John Roetis Place (CMGREGOR,96.20) 1475 HISTORY in the byschoppys place of (CMGREGOR,96.40) Durham. 1475 HISTORY in Synt Petrys chyrche (CMGREGOR,128.554) 1475 HISTORY in the byschoppe ys place of (CMGREGOR,158.713) London 1475 HISTORY in Saynt Mary chyrche (CMGREGOR,161.783) 1475 HISTORY at Synt Edmondys Bury (CMGREGOR,188.1392) 1475 HISTORY unto a marchaunte ys place (CMGREGOR,191.1462) 1475 HISTORY be-syde Clopton ys Place (CMGREGOR,192.1481) 1475 HISTORY in Wycham ys college (CMGREGOR,203.1707) 1475 HISTORY in hys fadyrs place (CMGREGOR,204.1737) 1475 HISTORY to the Kynges paly (CMGREGOR,218.2079) 1475 HISTORY with yn the kyngys palys (CMGREGOR,221.2168) 1526 FICTION to the gentylmannys place MERRYTAL-E1-P1,8.101 1526 FICTION to her faders house MERRYTAL-E1-P1,48.360 1526 FICTION out of her faders house MERRYTAL-E1-P1,49.379 1526 FICTION to a prestes house MERRYTAL-E1-P2,141.488 1526 FICTION to a prestys house MERRYTAL-E1-P2,144.515 1569-1575 LETTER at one Mr. Frauncis Downes his PARKHUR,177.040.682 house of Tuddenham 1569-1575 LETTER betwene Mr. Downes his howse PARKHUR,177.040.682 (and one Tilneye 's) 1569-1575 LETTER in Christe 's Church PARKHUR,215.061.1127 1573 LETTER to Sir Thomas Smyths house HARVEY,20.001.306 1582 DIARY at M. secretaries lodging MADOX-E2-P1,96.128 1582 DIARY in my Lord chanselors lodging MADOX-E2-P1,101.238

1582 DIARY St. Swythens Abbey MADOX-E2-P2,116.23 1582 DIARY at M. Deas howse MADOX-E2-P2,118.55 1582 DIARY M. Georg Powlets howse MADOX-E2-P2,128.126 1628-1632 LETTER to his mother house BARRING,37.002.27 1628-1632 LETTER neere Lincolns Inne BARRING,42.005.67 1628-1632 LETTER at your worthie sonne his BARRING,56.014.277 lodgeing 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerard's house BARRING,83.033.678 1628-1632 LETTER att Sir Gilberd Garrett's howse BARRING,85.035.705 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrett his howse BARRING,90.041.785 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house BARRING,131.083.1479 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house BARRING,151.101.1727 1628-1632 LETTER in Mrs Scott 's house BARRING,199.135.2328 1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Necton 's house BARRING,220.158.2752 1628-1632 LETTER unto my brother William's house BARRING,230.172.2954 1628-1632 LETTER to Mr Pickering's house BARRING,252.191.3423 1630 TRAVEL to the Kings Palace JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.62 1630 TRAVEL at his Maiestis Palace JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.71 1630 TRAVEL at Master Iohn Gibb his house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,132.C1.138 1630 TRAVEL to the Bishop of Murray his house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.259 1630 TRAVEL at one Master Iohn Stuarts house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C1.277 1630 TRAVEL to Master Iohn Acmootye his JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.286 house 1630 TRAVEL at Master Iames Baylies house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.294 1630 TRAVEL at Master Nicholas Tempests JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,139.C2.324 house 1630 TRAVEL at his father in lawes (…) Sir JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.327 Robert Swifts house 1630 TRAVEL at the Post-masters house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.332 1630 TRAVEL In S. Iacobs and in Saint JOTAYLOR-E2-P1,3,84.C1.226 Katherines Churches 1630 TRAVEL at Sir Warrham Saint Leigers JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89 house 1672 BIOGRAPHY to Will Barnes his house FOX-E3-H,151.182 1672 BIOGRAPHY to other frendes houses FOX-E3-H,151.192 1672 BIOGRAPHY ye goalers house FOX-E3-P1,92.72 1672 BIOGRAPHY Into Gerard Roberts house FOX-E3-P1,161.346 1672 BIOGRAPHY by ye preists house FOX-E3-P1,164.415 1672 BIOGRAPHY att Peter Hodgesons house FOX-E3-P2,106.62 1672 BIOGRAPHY to ye Lady Mountagues house FOX-E3-P2,107.97 1672 BIOGRAPHY at one George Watkinsons house FOX-E3-P2,108.115 1672 BIOGRAPHY att Henry Gybbs his house FOX-E3-P2,114.270 1672 BIOGRAPHY att Justice Crispes house FOX-E3-P2,116.344 1675-1677 LETTER at Ran's house ESSEX,103.025.652 1826 BIOGRAPHY in St. James's church-yard (OKEEFFE-1826,1,22.230) 1826 BIOGRAPHY in R. B. Sheridan's "Camp" (OKEEFFE-1826,1,36.371) 1826 BIOGRAPHY of my cousin Kavanagh's house (OKEEFFE-1826,1,38.418)

~~1826 BIOGRAPHY in his mother's house (OKEEFFE-1826,1,44.478) 187x DIARY in Bishop Selwyn's palace (THRING-187X,237.677) 190x DIARY to the Master's Lodge (BENSON-190X,128.722)~~

~~TABLE 3: Results PPCME elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

1470 ROMANCE at Saynt Albons CMMALORY,6.164 1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overeys CMGREGOR,104.185 1475 HISTORY be syde Syn Jonys CMGREGOR,108.299 1475 HISTORY at Syn Johnys CMGREGOR,157.676 1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overes CMGREGOR,157.682 1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,160.755 1475 HISTORY to Syn Gorgys CMGREGOR,164.845 1475 HISTORY at Syn Poulys CMGREGOR,176.1113 1475 HISTORY at Syn Poulys CMGREGOR,180.1229 1475 HISTORY to Powlys CMGREGOR,184.1308 1475 HISTORY to Synt Mychellys CMGREGOR,184.1308 1475 HISTORY at Syn Donstonys CMGREGOR,188.1391 1475 HISTORY at Syn Albonys CMGREGOR,188.1397 1475 HISTORY at Syn Kateryns CMGREGOR,188.1404 1475 HISTORY from Syn Johnys CMGREGOR,191.1447 1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,198.1576 1475 HISTORY at Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,203.1701 1475 HISTORY at Synt Mary Overeyes CMGREGOR,211.1901 1475 HISTORY to Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,211.1921 1475 HISTORY to Synt Albonys CMGREGOR,212.1923 1475 HISTORY at Poulys CMGREGOR,230.2390

~~TABLE 4: Results PPCME non-elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

~~1150 HISTORY to Sancte Berhtines minstre (CMPETERB,50.253) 1225 RELIGIOUS ut of dines fader huse (CMVICES1,109.1317) TREATISE 1225 RELIGIOUS vt of tines fader huse (CMVICES1,111.1328) TREATISE~~

1350 BIBLE in te halles of our Goddes hous (CMEARLPS,163.7241) 1387 HISTORY in erle Hunbaldus his hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,65.452) 1387 HISTORY out of tat lost and corsede manis (CMPOLYCH,69.481) hous 1387 HISTORY in erl Hunbald his hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,71.491) 1387 HISTORY to Seynt Romayn his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,145.1022) 1387 HISTORY in Seint Peteris chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,155.1117) 1387 HISTORY in Seynt Iohn his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,181.1296) 1387 HISTORY to Seynt Mary Chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,259.1883) 1387 HISTORY at Seint Marye chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,327.2389) 1387 HISTORY in Seint Clement his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2467) 1387 HISTORY in his fader hous (CMPOLYCH,VI,337.2470) 1387 HISTORY to Seynt Gueroun his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,359.2616) 1387 HISTORY to Seint German his chirche (CMPOLYCH,VI,387.2840) 1387 HISTORY to Seynt Peter his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,409.2998) 1387 HISTORY in Seynt Peter his cherche (CMPOLYCH,VI,419.3068) 1387 HISTORY out of Seynt Martyns abbay (CMPOLYCH,VIII,93.3616) 1425 TRAVEL in hire faderes hows (CMMANDEV,61.1520) 1470 ROMANCE at his faders lodgyng (CMMALORY,8.214) 1470 ROMANCE within kynge Uriens londe (CMMALORY,31.997) 1470 ROMANCE in kynge Pescheors house (CMMALORY,653.4404) 1475 HISTORY in John Roetis Place (CMGREGOR,96.20) 1475 HISTORY in the byschoppys place of (CMGREGOR,96.40) Durham. 1475 HISTORY in Synt Petrys chyrche (CMGREGOR,128.554) 1475 HISTORY in the byschoppe ys place of (CMGREGOR,158.713) London 1475 HISTORY in Saynt Mary chyrche (CMGREGOR,161.783) 1475 HISTORY at Synt Edmondys Bury (CMGREGOR,188.1392) 1475 HISTORY unto a marchaunte ys place (CMGREGOR,191.1462) 1475 HISTORY be-syde Clopton ys Place (CMGREGOR,192.1481) 1475 HISTORY in Wycham ys college (CMGREGOR,203.1707) 1475 HISTORY in hys fadyrs place (CMGREGOR,204.1737) 1475 HISTORY to the Kynges paly (CMGREGOR,218.2079) 1475 HISTORY with yn the kyngys palys (CMGREGOR,221.2168)

~~TABLE 5: Results PCEEC elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

~~1474-1488 LETTER at B. Pasmars CELY,17.013.197 1474-1488 LETTER at Bornellys wyedows CELY,26.022.426~~

1474-1488 LETTER to Dankortys CELY,41.034.723 1474-1488 LETTER by Thomas Kesteyns CELY,41.035.733 1474-1488 LETTER at Sente Johnys CELY,73.057.1225 1474-1488 LETTER to Sent Tomers CELY,98.077.1658 1474-1488 LETTER at Sent Tomors CELY,137.111.2436 1474-1488 LETTER at Twyssulltons CELY,143.114.2501 1474-1488 LETTER at Robard Torneys CELY,191.136.2992 1474-1488 LETTER at Thomas Clarkys CELY,191.136.2993 1569-1575 LETTER at St. Symon's PARKHUR,161.029.519 1569-1575 LETTER (betwene Mr. Downes his howse) PARKHUR,177.040.682 and one Tilneye 's 1569-1575 LETTER at St. Andrew's PARKHUR,216.061.1133 1610-1632 LETTER to the lordes PORY,69.002.58 1610-1632 LETTER at Sir Edward Parhams PORY,71.002.82 1610-1632 LETTER at my lord Treasurers PORY,128.004.186 1628-1632 LETTER at Nurse Bedle's BARRING,54.012.233 1628-1632 LETTER Sir Thomas Barrington's BARRING,56.014.277 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrard's BARRING,73.025.556 1628-1632 LETTER at my brother Lytton's BARRING,88.040.758 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,97.049.915 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,101.055.1009 1628-1632 LETTER to my brother Masham's BARRING,110.064.1170 1628-1632 LETTER in Saint Gyles BARRING,113.066.1191 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilberd Garretts BARRING,113.066.1193 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Richard Evered's BARRING,114.066.1211 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilberte Garrett's BARRING,114.066.1214 1628-1632 LETTER in St Giles BARRING,120.072.1313 1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Martin's BARRING,127.080.1407 1628-1632 LETTER at St Mary Overyes BARRING,132.084.1496 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's BARRING,135.086.1527 1628-1632 LETTER From Mr Okelie's BARRING,145.096.1652 1628-1632 LETTER at the stacioner's BARRING,151.101.1724 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrard's BARRING,152.102.1741 1628-1632 LETTER at nurse Birde's BARRING,162.111.1852 1628-1632 LETTER at St James BARRING,191.129.2226 1628-1632 LETTER from my Lord of Bedford's BARRING,200.136.2341 1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Goodyer's BARRING,206.145.2465 1628-1632 LETTER From Mr Charneck's BARRING,207.145.2468 1628-1632 LETTER at Mrs Necton's BARRING,209.148.2508 1628-1632 LETTER from his master's BARRING,230.172.2954 1628-1632 LETTER unto theire master's BARRING,240.181.3150 1675-1677 LETTER at Mr Neal's a Cooper ESSEX,68.013.351 1675-1677 LETTER at one Corporall Gaskins ESSEX,68.013.352

~~TABLE 6: Results PCEEC non-elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

1440-1476 LETTER in Seynt Bartholomewys Spytyll MARCHAL,F263.004.102 1440-1476 LETTER at Seynt Bartolmews Spytyll MARCHAL,F73.008.182 1440-1476 LETTER in my lordes plase MARCHAL,F49.011.248 1474-1488 LETTER in the Dvke of Borgans londys CELY,23.018.357 1474-1488 LETTER to my masterys plasse CELY,54.046.1001 1474-1488 LETTER at his faders place CELY,131.104.2324 1474-1488 LETTER be the Est Wache Howsse CELY,167.126.2811 1474-1488 LETTER be Sent Nycolas Chyrche CELY,167.126.2811 1573 LETTER to Sir Thomas Smyths house HARVEY,20.001.306 1569-1575 LETTER at one Mr. Frauncis Downes his PARKHUR,177.040.682 house of Tuddenham 1569-1575 LETTER betwene Mr. Downes his howse PARKHUR,177.040.682 (and one Tilneye 's) 1569-1575 LETTER in Christe 's Church PARKHUR,215.061.1127 1628-1632 LETTER to his mother house BARRING,37.002.27 1628-1632 LETTER neere Lincolns Inne BARRING,42.005.67 1628-1632 LETTER at your worthie sonne his BARRING,56.014.277 lodgeing 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerard's house BARRING,83.033.678 1628-1632 LETTER att Sir Gilberd Garrett's howse BARRING,85.035.705 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Garrett his howse BARRING,90.041.785 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house BARRING,131.083.1479 1628-1632 LETTER at Sir Gilbert Gerrard's house BARRING,151.101.1727 1628-1632 LETTER in Mrs Scott 's house BARRING,199.135.2328 1628-1632 LETTER at Mr Necton 's house BARRING,220.158.2752 1628-1632 LETTER unto my brother William's house BARRING,230.172.2954 1628-1632 LETTER to Mr Pickering's house BARRING,252.191.3423 1675-1677 LETTER at Ran's house ESSEX,103.025.652

~~TABLE 7: Results PPCEME elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

~~1582 DIARY at Besse Jenyns MADOX-E2-H,83.59 1582 DIARY at Robert Cavies MADOX-E2-H,86.95 1582 DIARY at M. Creswels MADOX-E2-H,132.241~~

1582 DIARY at M. Fownds MADOX-E2-P1,92.61 1582 DIARY at M. Fownds MADOX-E2-P1,94.103 1582 DIARY at sherif Martens MADOX-E2-P1,95.110 1582 DIARY at Mrs Lucars MADOX-E2-P1,95.116 1582 DIARY at M. sherif Martons MADOX-E2-P1,95.121 1582 DIARY at his brother Hudsons MADOX-E2-P1,96.130 1582 DIARY at my cosyn Thomas MADOX-E2-P1,98.164 1582 DIARY at Mrs Lucars MADOX-E2-P1,98.170 1582 DIARY at M. Carleyls MADOX-E2-P1,98.179 1582 DIARY at my cosyn Nycholas MADOX-E2-P1,98.187 1582 DIARY at M. Huntleys MADOX-E2-P1,99.196 1582 DIARY at M. Gilburns MADOX-E2-P1,101.255 1582 DIARY at Alderman Barns MADOX-E2-P1,101.258 1582 DIARY at M. Hankins MADOX-E2-P1,104.313 1582 DIARY at M. Greenes MADOX-E2-P1,107.363 1582 DIARY to M. Burdens MADOX-E2-P1,111.430 1582 DIARY to St. Ellyns MADOX-E2-P1,112.443 1582 DIARY to St. Crosses MADOX-E2-P2,117.38 1582 DIARY at M. Owtreads MADOX-E2-P2,117.45 1582 DIARY at M. Dees MADOX-E2-P2,118.60 1582 DIARY at M. Owtreds MADOX-E2-P2,118.73 1582 DIARY at M. Onleys MADOX-E2-P2,160.460 1630 TRAVEL at one Master Iohn Archibalds JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,134.C1.168 1630 TRAVEL to the Lord Marquesse of JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.261 Huntleys 1630 TRAVEL at Sir William Sydleyes JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89 1630 TRAVEL at the Lord Woetons JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,145.C1.96 1672 BIOGRAPHY to Rich: Johnsons FOX-E3-H,151.181 1672 BIOGRAPHY to ye Lord maiors FOX-E3-H,156.298 1672 BIOGRAPHY to Grace Barwickes FOX-E3-P2,107.82 1672 BIOGRAPHY to Tho: Taylors FOX-E3-P2,108.118 1672 BIOGRAPHY to Jane Milners FOX-E3-P2,114.259 1672 BIOGRAPHY at Charles ffloydes FOX-E3-P2,114.262 1672 BIOGRAPHY at James Merrickes FOX-E3-P2,116.343

~~TABLE 8: Results PPCEME non-elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

~~1526 FICTION to the gentylmannys place MERRYTAL-E1-P1,8.101 1526 FICTION to her faders house MERRYTAL-E1-P1,48.360 1526 FICTION out of her faders house MERRYTAL-E1-P1,49.379~~

1526 FICTION to a prestes house MERRYTAL-E1-P2,141.488 1526 FICTION to a prestys house MERRYTAL-E1-P2,144.515 1582 DIARY at M. secretaries lodging MADOX-E2-P1,96.128 1582 DIARY in my Lord chanselors lodging MADOX-E2-P1,101.238 1582 DIARY St. Swythens Abbey MADOX-E2-P2,116.23 1582 DIARY at M. Deas howse MADOX-E2-P2,118.55 1582 DIARY M. Georg Powlets howse MADOX-E2-P2,128.126 1630 TRAVEL to the Kings Palace JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.62 1630 TRAVEL at his Maiestis Palace JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,130.C1.71 1630 TRAVEL at Master Iohn Gibb his house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,132.C1.138 1630 TRAVEL to the Bishop of Murray his house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,137.C2.259 1630 TRAVEL at one Master Iohn Stuarts house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C1.277 1630 TRAVEL to Master Iohn Acmootye his JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.286 house 1630 TRAVEL at Master Iames Baylies house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,138.C2.294 1630 TRAVEL at Master Nicholas Tempests JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,139.C2.324 house 1630 TRAVEL at his father in lawes (…) Sir JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.327 Robert Swifts house 1630 TRAVEL at the Post-masters house JOTAYLOR-E2-H,1,140.C1.332 1630 TRAVEL In S. Iacobs and in Saint JOTAYLOR-E2-P1,3,84.C1.226 Katherines Churches 1630 TRAVEL at Sir Warrham Saint Leigers JOTAYLOR-E2-P2,1,144.C2.89 house 1672 BIOGRAPHY to Will Barnes his house FOX-E3-H,151.182 1672 BIOGRAPHY to other frendes houses FOX-E3-H,151.192 1672 BIOGRAPHY ye goalers house FOX-E3-P1,92.72 1672 BIOGRAPHY Into Gerard Roberts house FOX-E3-P1,161.346 1672 BIOGRAPHY by ye preists house FOX-E3-P1,164.415 1672 BIOGRAPHY att Peter Hodgesons house FOX-E3-P2,106.62 1672 BIOGRAPHY to ye Lady Mountagues house FOX-E3-P2,107.97 1672 BIOGRAPHY at one George Watkinsons house FOX-E3-P2,108.115 1672 BIOGRAPHY att Henry Gybbs his house FOX-E3-P2,114.270 1672 BIOGRAPHY att Justice Crispes house FOX-E3-P2,116.344

~~TABLE 9: Results PPCMBE elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

~~1715-1716 LAW at St. Albans STATUTES-171X,5,51.41 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,161.10 1716 DIARY at Mr. Henry's RYDER-1716,163.71 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,165.131~~

1716 DIARY Came to brother's RYDER-1716,165.151 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,166.164 1716 DIARY at brother's RYDER-1716,166.166 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,166.180 1716 DIARY at Aunt Bickley's RYDER-1716,170.285 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,171.328 1716 DIARY to Lord Molyneux's RYDER-1716,175.421 1716 DIARY at Bunkley's RYDER-1716,177.465 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,177.471 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,178.486 1716 DIARY to Mr. Bailey's RYDER-1716,178.489 1716 DIARY to brother's RYDER-1716,178.517 1716 DIARY to Mr. Whatley's RYDER-1716,181.575 1716 DIARY at Sue's RYDER-1716,182.598 1776 DIARY at his mother's BOSWELL-1776,39.115 1776 DIARY at John Dykes's BOSWELL-1776,47.369 1776 DIARY at Swan's BOSWELL-1776,47.369 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,48.443 1776 DIARY at Mrs. Graham's BOSWELL-1776,49.480 1776 DIARY at Dr. Webster's BOSWELL-1776,50.514 1776 DIARY to Lady Colville's BOSWELL-1776,50.527 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,51.572 1776 DIARY at Mr. Baron Maule's BOSWELL-1776,52.601 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,52.629 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,53.648 1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,53.670 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,54.680 1776 DIARY at Sir George's BOSWELL-1776,54.698 1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,54.702 1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,55.755 1776 DIARY at Mrs. Boswell of Balmuto's BOSWELL-1776,55.756 1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,56.799 1776 DIARY at Mr. Donaldson the bookseller's BOSWELL-1776,56.805 1776 DIARY at Macqueen's BOSWELL-1776,56.812 1776 DIARY at my father's BOSWELL-1776,56.814 1826 BIOGRAPHY at Mr. West's OKEEFFE-1826,1,2.35 1826 BIOGRAPHY At Lord Trimlestown's OKEEFFE-1826,1,5.71 1826 BIOGRAPHY At Mr. Stewart's OKEEFFE-1826,1,32.339 1826 BIOGRAPHY opposite this Captain Debrisay's OKEEFFE-1826,1,35.365

~~TABLE 10: Results PPCMBE non-elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

1826 BIOGRAPHY in St. James's church-yard (OKEEFFE-1826,1,22.230) 1826 BIOGRAPHY in R. B. Sheridan's "Camp" (OKEEFFE-1826,1,36.371) 1826 BIOGRAPHY of my cousin Kavanagh's house (OKEEFFE-1826,1,38.418) 1826 BIOGRAPHY in his mother's house (OKEEFFE-1826,1,44.478) 187x DIARY in Bishop Selwyn's palace (THRING-187X,237.677) 190x DIARY to the Master's Lodge (BENSON-190X,128.722)

~~APPENDIX 2~~

~~RESULTS CORPUS RESEARCH: WEST-FLEMISH~~

~~TABLE 1: All results elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

1273 OFFICIAL bi hannekins henox CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: brugge_1273_3 1290 OFFICIAL tusschen wouters van ombeke CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- ende wouters van reumste 1800: mechelen_1290_4 1291 OFFICIAL tusschen reiners witleders (ende CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- ten straetkine) 1800: mechelen_1291_3 1295 OFFICIAL tusschen pieter sagis ende wouters CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- van den houte 1800: mechelen_1295_4 1297 OFFICIAL achter wouters soelslagers CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: mechelen_1297_3 1307 OFFICIAL tusschen peters van der leyen CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- ende claus van hackendonc 1800: antwerpen_1307_1 1310 OFFICIAL tusschen meester wouter CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- bouwelings ende tusschen lams 1800: dordrecht_1310_3 van maldeghems 1310 OFFICIAL tusschen meester wouter CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- bouwelings ende tusschen lams 1800: dordrecht_1310_6 van maldeghems 1312 OFFICIAL bij sente godelen CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- (CHARTER) 1800: brussel_1312_1 and CRM14: Oorkonde P065p31201 Brussel, 1312 1312 OFFICIAL tusschen willem tays ende hughes CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- (CHARTER) van Coudenberghe 1800: brussel_1312_1 and CRM14: Oorkonde P065p31201 Brussel, 1312 1312 CHARTER te sente gorex CRM14: Oorkonde O738r31201 Sint-Kwintens-Lennik of omgeving, 1312 1334 CHARTER bi Claus Mynschards CRM14: Oorkonde P541r33401 Diest of omgeving, 1334 1338 OFFICIAL tuschen coppins schilts ende CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- (CHARTER) willems kusers 1800: gouda_1338_1 and CRM14: Oorkonde E209p33801 Gouda, 1338 1348 CHARTER tuschen jan leins […] en_ jan caps CRM14: Oorkonde O245p34801 Sint-Martens-Lennik, 1348

1352 CHARTER tot sente guerx CRM14: Oorkonde P065p35201 Brussel, 1352 1362 OFFICIAL bij sinte saluators CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: brugge_1362_1 1370 OFFICIAL tusschen lodewijx van den CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- boemghaerde ende jans van den 1800: oudenaarde_1370_1 bossche 1370 CHARTER by Ecberte vor-howens CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37001 Groningen, 1370

~~TABLE 2: All results non-elliptical locative possessive~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

1266 OFFICIAL bi smeiers huse CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: gent_1266_1 1266 OFFICIAL bi smeiers lande CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: gent_1266_1 1269 OFFICIAL bi heinekins longhe speis CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: brugge_1269_14 1271 OFFICIAL tusschen hughe arlebouds lande CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- ende ghiselins kinder lande van 1800: brugge_1271_2 boyderwaen 1279 OFFICIAL tusschen heinrix waldax lant CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: brugge_1279_2 1281 OFFICIAL tusschen Masins f basekins CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- wedewe lant ende gillis buys lant 1800: brugge_1281_26 1281 OFFICIAL [ove]r gherarts f gherarts kindre CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- lant 1800: brugge_1281_26 1290 OFFICIAL tusschen hughe bekelins lande CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- ende vermabelien dancards lande 1800: brugge_1290_12 1290 OFFICIAL tuschen pieter malins wedewe CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- lande ende […] tuschen den hus 1800: brugge_1290_15 lande van sinte marien magdalenen 1290 OFFICIAL tusschen hannins f ghuters kindere CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- land 1800: brugge_1290_8 1290 OFFICIAL tusschen lysebetten warregarens CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- hofstede ende tusschen margrieten 1800: brugge_1290_9 jans witten dochter hofstede 1290 OFFICIAL tusschen erenbouds guters CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- hofstede ende ghyselins kindre 1800: brugge_1290_9 vanden moere hofstede 1293 OFFICIAL tusschen [hen]ric gheilincs Ende CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- den vorseiden erue 1800: dordrecht_1293_4 1293 OFFICIAL tusscen Gocens erue ende wouters CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- stoppers erue 1800: mechelen_1293_2 1296 OFFICIAL up de hofstede dar ydier pots huus CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: gent_1296_2

1296 OFFICIAL naer dar jans vos cousemakers CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- huus 1800: gent_1296_2 1296 OFFICIAL tusscen gherarts erue van welline CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- ende maes erue van comene 1800: mechelen_1296_1 1296 OFFICIAL tuschen ians huuse van ypre (ende CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- den huus daer arnout martin nu in 1800: gent_1296_1 woent) 1297 OFFICIAL tusscen wouters zacdragers erue CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- (ende daer dese vornomde ian de 1800: mechelen_1297_3 weent woent ) 1299 OFFICIAL bi heinriics woninge CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: mechelen_1299_2 1299 OFFICIAL bi willems moure van den sveerde CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: mechelen_1299_4 1299 OFFICIAL den moure symoens van arterike CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: mechelen_1299_4 1306 CHARTER tuschen jacobs hofstede vern CRM14: Oorkonde E192p30601 mersende sone en_ tuschen hare_ Utrecht, 1306 jacobs hofstede van lichtenberch 1307 OFFICIAL tusschen peters huus vander leve CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- claus van ackendonc behouden 1800: antwerpen_1307_3 1317 CHARTER bi willams ? huse CRM14: Oorkonde E543r31702 Egmond-Binnen of omgeving, 1317 1317 CHARTER bi willams des ? huus CRM14: Oorkonde E543r31701 Egmond-Binnen of omgeving, 1317 1317 CHARTER tuschen mergrieten swreeden CRM14: Oorkonde O152p31701 ghelaghe ende ameloten huise Ninove, 1317 1318 CHARTER tuschen hofstede richaerds verren CRM14: Oorkonde E192p31801 oghen erfname […] (en_ tuschen Utrecht, 1318 de Smede~steghe) 1324 CHARTER tuschen hofstede belen die CRM14: Oorkonde E192p32401 pelegrims wiif […] en_ tuschen Utrecht, 1324 hofstede peters van + den putte 1328 OFFICIAL tusscen gherards lande van assche CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- ende machtelden lande ians honts 1800: dordrecht_1328_1 wedue 1328 CHARTER tuschen hofstede tideman CRM14: Oorkonde E192p32801 herboerds soens en_ amelijs siins Utrecht, 1328 broeders 1328 CHARTER tuschen hofstede ioncvrouwe CRM14: Oorkonde E192p32801 ermegaerden van damasche […] Utrecht, 1328 en_ ionghe wouters van voerscoten onderdeel 1330 OFFICIAL tusschen den lande beatrise balch CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- ende tusschen den lande margriete 1800: ieper_1330_1 herlebouds 1330 CHARTER tuschen hofstede niclaes horaers CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33003 […] ende tuschen hofstede Utrecht, 1330 herwiichs van damasche 1330 CHARTER tuschen (hofstede der heren van CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33002 oudemu_st__ tutrecht) […] en_ Utrecht, 1330 tuschen hofstede hildegonden van

hasenberch 1333 CHARTER tot wouters hofstede CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33301 Utrecht, 1333 1333 CHARTER tot wouters hofstede CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33301 Utrecht, 1333 1333 CHARTER tot wouters hofstede CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33301 Utrecht, 1333 1336 OFFICIAL tusschen clays spuuds lande […] CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- Ende den lande kanin lauwerins 1800: ieper_1336_1 1336 OFFICIAL tusschen jehan spuuds leene […] CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- Ende willems edewards land 1800: ieper_1336_1 1336 CHARTER tusschen hofstede bernds smeeds CRM14: Oorkonde E192p33601 […] en_ tusschen hofstede Utrecht, 1336 tydeman hasaerds 1339 OFFICIAL tusschen jehans van oost lande CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- […] En jehan pradels lande 1800: ieper_1339_1 1339 OFFICIAL tusschen wouters van den walle CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- lande […] Ende willems van den 1800: ieper_1339_1 hille kindre lande 1341 OFFICIAL tusschen simons lande van scoten CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- […] Ende jehan plateels lande 1800: ieper_1341_1 1343 CHARTER tusschen wycheers hofstede de CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34302 iacob ? ? beti_mert heeft […]en_ Utrecht, 1343 tusschen der stat steghe 1343 CHARTER (tusschen der stat strate ) en_ CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34302 abraems hofstede van conpestelle Utrecht, 1343 1343 CHARTER tusschen hofstede wouters CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34301 voerseyt […]en_ tusschen Utrecht, 1343 hofstede wouters voerseyt 1344 CHARTER bi erve Jans quaden CRM14: Oorkonde P051p34401 Lummen, 1344 1344 CHARTER tuschen peeters mersche van CRM14: Oorkonde O652r34401 meerehoutte (En_ vte den Ninove of omgeving, 1344 voerghenoemden mersche) 1345 CHARTER tusschen hofstede mathies en_ CRM14: Oorkonde E192p34501 auen voerseyt Utrecht, 1345 1349 OFFICIAL tusschen claes hauics erue […] CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- (CHARTER) ende peter leyts erue 1800: amsterdam_1349_1 and CRM14: Oorkonde E109p34901 Amsterdam, 1349 1350 CHARTER tuschen h_en jans van machareus CRM14: Oorkonde P565r35001 goed Brussel of omgeving, 1350 1351 CHARTER (tusschen der hofstede daer peter CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35101 de haen op + te woenen plach) Utrecht, 1351 […]ende tusschen hofstede iohans swerten erfnamen 1351 OFFICIAL tusschen albrecht vechters soens CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- erue […] ende diric gherit soens 1800: amsterdam_1351_1 erue 1352 CHARTER bi heinrics erue van beerse van CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35201 eenre siden en_ ihans gheheyte_ Oerle of omgeving, 1352 lappers erue van der anderre siden 1352 CHARTER bi johans lande hokels CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201

Sittard, 1352 1352 CHARTER tusschen . didderics lande van CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201 ghelene (ende hams lande) Sittard, 1352 1352 CHARTER bi johans lande hokels CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201 Sittard, 1352 1352 CHARTER tusschen didderics lande van CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p35201 ghelene (ende hams lande) Sittard, 1352 1353 CHARTER tuschen hughe slabbaerts huis en_ CRM14: Oorkonde E198p35301 erue (en_ des proests steghe ) Delft, 1353 1354 CHARTER tusschen hofstede Elyaes gans CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35401 kindere […] en_ tusschen Utrecht, 1354 hofstede hughe mouwers mengde heynen sone ) 1354 CHARTER tusschen ? peter mouwerkiins CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35401 kind_e […] (en_ ? der hofstede Utrecht, 1354 daer dat steenhuys op staet) 1354 CHARTER tusschen hofstede johan rychaerd CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35401 soens / ? ? ? […] tusschen Utrecht, 1354 hofstede ghisebrechts backers 1354 CHARTER tusscen iordaens erue van oerle CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35403 Oerle of omgeving, 1354 1354 CHARTER tusscen ihans sgr?ne_ erue en_ CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35403 wreynse_ erue van oerle Oerle of omgeving, 1354 1356 CHARTER bi lant Johans soens beetsen van CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602 waelhoven Groot-Loon, 1356 1356 CHARTER tussche_ lant h_en merttijns van CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602 loen Ridders […] end lant Groot-Loon, 1356 sautaers sint_ cloes van velme 1356 CHARTER bi lant ghilis altb?eter CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602 Groot-Loon, 1356 1356 CHARTER bi lant sheylichs~ghees van lewe CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602 Groot-Loon, 1356 1356 CHARTER bi lant h_en mertijns van loen CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602 Groot-Loon, 1356 1356 CHARTER lant der kind_re welne lambrechs CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602 van pa_brucge_ Groot-Loon, 1356 1356 CHARTER bi lant h_ mertijns van loen CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a35602 vorgh_ Groot-Loon, 1356 1356 CHARTER an wouters coelen zoe_s la_t CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35601 Oerle of omgeving, 1356 1356 CHARTER by hey_rics Didden raeue_s zoe_s CRM14: Oorkonde L724r35601 Oerle of omgeving, 1356 1358 CHARTER tusschen hofstede haren peters CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802 vten hamme […] ende onser stat Utrecht, 1358 strate 1358 CHARTER tusschen hofstede meyster CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802 gheraerd dymbouts […] ende Utrecht, 1358 tusschen hofstede mengde heynen erfnamen 1358 CHARTER tusschen hofstede stevens van CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802 groenenwoude […] ende tusschen Utrecht, 1358 hofstede johans pots ende gheraerds pots 1358 CHARTER tusschen hofstede stevens van CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802

zulen wouters sone van coelen Utrecht, 1358 […] ende tusschen hofstede / meyster aernouds voets 1358 CHARTER tusschen hofstede gherijts van CRM14: Oorkonde E192p35802 ameronghen […] ende onser stat Utrecht, 1358 strate 1359 OFFICIAL bi Heinrycs Maghermans huus CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: breda_1359_1 1359 CHARTER bi erve tshere_ van halbeke CRM14: Oorkonde P051p35901 Lummen, 1359 1359 CHARTER bi erve wouters hasen CRM14: Oorkonde P051p35901 Lummen, 1359 1360 CHARTER tuschen hughe slabbaerts huus CRM14: Oorkonde E198p36005 ende erue ende des proests steghe Delft, 1360 1362 OFFICIAL naesteN heynrix braderix huuse CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- wilen 1800: brugge_1362_2 1362 OFFICIAL tote philips Rijnvischs lande CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: brugge_1362_2 1362 CHARTER tusschen Scloesters land van CRM14: Oorkonde O652r36201 nieneue en_ des vorseids Jans Ninove of omgeving, 1362 ysenbaerds meerssche 1362 CHARTER tusschen h_en Gherarts kynder CRM14: Oorkonde L771r36201 lande van boycholt […] ende Venlo of omgeving, 1362 metten lande henekens dochter van lomme 1365 CHARTER tusschen hofstede braems (vter CRM14: Oorkonde E192p36501 core_marct) Utrecht, 1365 1366 CHARTER bi arnots Symons hoef CRM14: Oorkonde Q599r36601 Meerssen of omgeving, 1366 1366 OFFICIAL tussen Jans huyse van Mechlen CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- des Vleyshouwers […] ende den 1800: breda_1366_1 huse dat Jans van Woude Heynric Smoutkens sone plach te siin 1367 CHARTER bi erve willems va_ oesterhoven CRM14: Oorkonde P051p36701 Lummen, 1367 1367 CHARTER bi erve heyliven kindere Moens CRM14: Oorkonde P051p36701 Lummen, 1367 1367 CHARTER bi erve wouters eygrams CRM14: Oorkonde P051p36701 Lummen, 1367 1367 CHARTER tusschen de goede Jans van CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36703 zotteghem En_ de goede den Brussel, 1367 ghasthuse van sente goedelen 1367 OFFICIAL tuschen den goede des selfs CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- (CHARTER) Reyners […] en_ den goede joffr_ 1800: brussel_1367_3 lijsbetten droeghboschs and CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36706 Brussel, 1367 1367 OFFICIAL tusschen de goede willems van CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- (CHARTER) aelst Ende de goede Jans 1800: brussel_1367_2 herdenacke and CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36704 Brussel, 1367 1367 OFFICIAL tusschen de goede Gherats van CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- (CHARTER) frazene tsloetmak_s […] En_ de 1800: brussel_1367_1

goede lijsbette_ van viluoerden and en_ Jans van Erpe ghehuuschen CRM14: Oorkonde P065p36702 Brussel, 1367 1368 CHARTER tuschen jan vems huys en_ CRM14: Oorkonde D002p36801 aechten jan pieters zoens huys s-Gravenzande, 1368 1368 OFFICIAL tuschen peter byens erue […] CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- ende jonghe jan comans kinds 1800: breda_1368_1 erue 1369 CHARTER tuschen h_en willems huis van der CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p36901 stripen (ende tuschen jden huis) Sittard, 1369 1370 CHARTER bi Elsebeen hues Menoldes CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37002 Groningen, 1370 1370 CHARTER bi Metten hues Rotgers CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37002 Groningen, 1370 1370 CHARTER tusschen hofstede iohans erfnaem CRM14: Oorkonde E192p37002 van + den spieghel […] en_ Utrecht, 1370 tusschen hofstede roetaerds van + der sterre en_ ? kiindere 1370 CHARTER tusschen jan boysts huus ende CRM14: Oorkonde O061p37001 erue […] ende pieters van oeten Aalst, 1370 1372 CHARTER bi erve godevaerts va_ CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37201 wymeri_ghe_ Lummen, 1372 1372 CHARTER bi erve beateren colen CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37201 Lummen, 1372 1372 CHARTER bi erve johan coex CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37201 Lummen, 1372 1373 CHARTER tusschen andryes huys (end CRM14: Oorkonde Q601r37301 heylwige_ tijswijf ) Valkenburg of omgeving, 1373 1374 CHARTER bi erve joha_s kinder va_ der CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37401 eyken va_ wuestherke Lummen, 1374 1374 CHARTER bi erve ghylis van westerhove CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37401 Lummen, 1374 1374 CHARTER tusschen willems van den CRM14: Oorkonde O061p37401 merssche huus ende erue […] Aalst, 1374 (en_ boudiin boyst an dander side ) 1375 CHARTER bi erve der joffrouwe_ va_ Mille CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502 Lummen, 1375 1375 CHARTER bi erve johan coex CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502 Lummen, 1375 1375 CHARTER bi erve johan claes CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502 Lummen, 1375 1375 CHARTER bi erve clarissien va_ den venne CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502 Lummen, 1375 1375 CHARTER bi erve vreedwiven zeelmekers CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502 Lummen, 1375 1375 CHARTER bi erve reynken schuermans CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37502 Lummen, 1375 1375 CHARTER tusghen jans dobbelers huys […] CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37501 en_ Arnouts knoeps huys Lummen, 1375 1375 CHARTER tusschen h_en tydeman CRM14: Oorkonde E192p37502 blanckaerts husinghe […] (en_ Utrecht, 1375 fye voncken) 1376 CHARTER bi erve godevaerts va_ herla CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37601

Lummen, 1376 1376 CHARTER bi erve katherinen va_ de_ leene CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37601 Lummen, 1376 1377 CHARTER bi sente mertens kerchoue CRM14: Oorkonde P065p37704 Brussel, 1377 1377 CHARTER bi sente mertens kerchoue CRM14: Oorkonde P065p37703 Brussel, 1377 1378 CHARTER bi Emelrikes steenhuze Willams CRM14: Oorkonde C108p37802 sone van Lyenden Groningen, 1378 1379 CHARTER bi erve arnouts voers CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37901 Lummen, 1379 1379 CHARTER bi erve johans boghaerts arnouts CRM14: Oorkonde P051p37901 brueder voers_ Lummen, 1379 1379 CHARTER tusschen jans mersch voers_ (en_ CRM14: Oorkonde O652r37901 tskloesters mersch voerghenoemt) Ninove of omgeving, 1379 1379 CHARTER tusschen Arnolts Paresijs h?is […] CRM14: Oorkonde Q020p37901 (En_ Lynen br?nen) Sittard, 1379 1380 CHARTER Tusschen lande des heren van CRM14: Oorkonde E692r38001 abcoude […] (ende der heren Utrecht of omgeving, 1380 stripe van oudemvnster) 1380 CHARTER tuschen des vurg_ ger_ borske_s CRM14: Oorkonde Q613r38002 ho?e en_ henke_ moutz lande Heerlen of omgeving, 1380 ende muylkens lande 1381 CHARTER after den hof . henric christians CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101 van hendericke Kuringen of omgeving, 1381 1381 CHARTER tusschen erve poelmans van loen CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101 [….] (en_ Convent van graet) Kuringen of omgeving, 1381 1381 CHARTER bij lant wout_ mersmans CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38101 Donk, 1381 1381 CHARTER tusschen lant wouters va_ + den CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38101 vynne en_ wout_s mersmans Donk, 1381 1381 CHARTER bi dat erve rigart van millen CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101 Kuringen of omgeving, 1381 1381 CHARTER after den hof . henric christians CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101 van hendericke Kuringen of omgeving, 1381 1381 CHARTER bi erve her ghijsbrecht van CRM14: Oorkonde P557r38101 brokem Kuringen of omgeving, 1381 1382 OFFICIAL tuschen Wouters erve van CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- Berghen […] ende Jan Tierloets 1800: breda_1382_1 erve 1382 CHARTER tuschen Dierick Gruters erve […] CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- (ende Met Foyen erve) 1800: breda_1382_1 1382 OFFICIAL tuschen Willem Heynen soens CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- erve […] ende Rutten Sniders 1800: breda_1382_1 erve 1382 CHARTER by dat vu?rg_ h_en willems lant CRM14: Oorkonde Q599r38201 Meerssen of omgeving, 1382 1383 CHARTER bi erve des h_en va_ lu_me_ CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301 Lummen, 1383 1383 CHARTER bi erve jan smeets CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301 Lummen, 1383 1383 CHARTER bi erve tsh_en va_ lu_me_ voers_ CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301 Lummen, 1383

1383 CHARTER bi erve godevaerts kind_e va_ CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301 incslaer Lummen, 1383 1383 CHARTER aen di denkens haghe bi erve CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301 tsh_en van dyest Lummen, 1383 1383 CHARTER bi erve heinric kelbers CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301 Lummen, 1383 1383 CHARTER bi erve dyderics va_ zanthove_ CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301 Lummen, 1383 1383 CHARTER bi erve spersoens va_ linckout CRM14: Oorkonde P051p38301 Lummen, 1383 1383 CHARTER tusschen andere lant des cloest_s CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38301 van orienten voers_ […] (en_ op Sint-Truiden, 1383 die straete daer men gheet ter swertsmeren weert) 1383 CHARTER tuschschen gierkijn boerschijns CRM14: Oorkonde Q613r38301 houe Heerlen of omgeving, 1383 1383 CHARTER t?ssche_ g?ede of lant bas?ns van CRM14: Oorkonde Q595r38301 wijc Maastricht of omgeving, 1383 1383 CHARTER by g?et he_rics va_ Rode CRM14: Oorkonde Q595r38301 Maastricht of omgeving, 1383 1384 CHARTER tusschen jan ruuschen erue […] CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38403 en_ jan teten zoens erue Amsterdam, 1384 1384 CHARTER tusschen jan ruusschen erue op CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38404 die zuutzide en_ jan teten zoens Amsterdam, 1384 erue 1384 CHARTER by lande des he_en van duras […] CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401 En_ lande der kindere van lille Sint-Truiden, 1384 1384 CHARTER tusschen lande johans van landen CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401 […] en_ des he_en van duras Sint-Truiden, 1384 voers_ en_ willems van meerhout schepens sintruden 1384 CHARTER tusschen lande des goetsh?ys van CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401 herkenroyde op […] en_ des Sint-Truiden, 1384 p_soens lande van wilre 1384 CHARTER tusschen lande godijns voers_ CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401 […] en_ heyleven henrich godijns Sint-Truiden, 1384 wijf was 1384 CHARTER tusschen lande des Co_vents van CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401 herkenroyde Sint-Truiden, 1384 1385 CHARTER bi henrikes steenhuze bygordele CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38501 Groningen, 1385 1385 CHARTER aen katheline_ van + d_ rijst huys CRM14: Oorkonde P048p38501 […] en_ Jan costers hof Halen, 1385 1386 CHARTER in piet_ jacobs zoens steghe CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38605 Amsterdam, 1386 1386 CHARTER tot ? egbrechts erue CRM14: Oorkonde E109p38605 Amsterdam, 1386 1386 CHARTER bi ervenisse Renken thies CRM14: Oorkonde Q001p38601 Zonhoven, 1386 1386 CHARTER bi ervenisse johans van + der CRM14: Oorkonde Q001p38601 warden Zonhoven, 1386 1386 CHARTER bi ervenisse henric papen neve CRM14: Oorkonde Q001p38601 […] en_ ervenisse henric Zonhoven, 1386 haghedorne en_ Johan der hase

1386 CHARTER by Johans heme CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38602 Groningen, 1386 1386 CHARTER by henric clokes hues CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38604 Groningen, 1386 1386 CHARTER in sente Meertens kerke CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603 Groningen, 1386 1386 CHARTER by Jarich Coppiins zoens erve CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603 Groningen, 1386 1386 CHARTER by Hanneken Ydens hues CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603 Groningen, 1386 1386 CHARTER by Berneers steenhues Solleders CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603 Groningen, 1386 1386 CHARTER in sente Meertens kerke CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603 Groningen, 1386 1386 CHARTER in sente Meertens kerke CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603 Groningen, 1386 1386 CHARTER in sente Meertens kerspele CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38603 Groningen, 1386 1387 OFFICIAL tusschen reynoud Jan minneboden CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- soene lande […] ende witte dirx 1800: dordrecht_1387_1 zoens lande 1387 CHARTER tusschen de goede Gielijs van CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38701 rode en_ waut_s quad_mans vloes Donk, 1387 1388 CHARTER tot after an ysebrant claes zoens CRM14): Oorkonde E579r38802 wal Beverwijk of omgeving, 1388 1388 CHARTER bi des spape_ lant van loen CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801 Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388 1388 CHARTER bi den land jans van miest CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801 Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388 1388 CHARTER bi den land jans van putsinghen CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801 Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388 1388 CHARTER _ bi den land Arts van den CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801 drijsche Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388 1388 CHARTER bi den land jan mietellers CRM14: Oorkonde P119p38801 Sint-Lambrechts-Herk, 1388 1388 OFFICIAL tusschen mergrieten huse ende CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- herue vorseid […] ende jacops 1800: oudenaarde_1388_1 correelmakers huse ende herue 1388 CHARTER by sanders hues des smedes CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38802 Groningen, 1388 1389 OFFICIAL tusschen die goide wilen Heinrics CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- vander meeren […] (ende een 1800: brussel_1389_3 strate aldair sijnde) 1389 OFFICIAL tusschen heeren Aernds Bynstroes CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- huysinghe was ende erve […] 1800: breda_1389_1 ende Ghybe Fraays erve 1389 CHARTER alre~naest her Jacobs houe CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38903 Groningen, 1389 1389 CHARTER by Weringhers hofstede vors_ CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38902 Groningen, 1389 1389 CHARTER Oesterstrate by Kerstiaen Gelies CRM14: Oorkonde C108p38902 zoens steenhues Groningen, 1389 1390 CHARTER neven bosch Amelijs van lassheit CRM14: Oorkonde P049p39001 en_ arnouds va_ haesbroech vloes Donk, 1390

1390 CHARTER tusschen guede philips va_ CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39001 basyelisbu?r Maastricht, 1390 1390 CHARTER tuschen florijs poels hu?s (en_ jan CRM14: Oorkonde D002p39002 maselants zoens (onleesbaar) ) s-Gravenzande, 1390 1390 CHARTER by Wermer Hilleghen erve CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39003 Groningen, 1390 1390 CHARTER by Arolt bloten erfname_ erue CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39001 Groningen, 1390 1391 CHARTER tusschen husinghe en_ hofstede CRM14: Oorkonde E192p39103 johan bonten emmelrics soen […] Utrecht, 1391 (ende herristeghe) 1391 CHARTER tusschen husinghe en_ hofstede CRM14: Oorkonde E192p39103 mychiels voerscreuen […] (en_ Utrecht, 1391 wouter de ketellaer) 1391 CHARTER by her Jacops hof , CRM14): Oorkonde C108p39101 Groningen, 1391 1392 CHARTER bij lant Johans van nyele vors_ CRM14: Oorkonde Q656r39202 Borgloon of omgeving, 1392 1392 CHARTER bij lant Johan vrancken van CRM14: Oorkonde Q656r39202 voelen Borgloon of omgeving, 1392 1392 CHARTER bij lant der Abdissen van CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201 herkenRode Groot-Loon, 1392 1392 CHARTER achter Roes hoef CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201 Groot-Loon, 1392 1392 CHARTER bij lant Joha_s van nyele CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201 Groot-Loon, 1392 1392 CHARTER bij lant Andries ver Penxten […] CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201 en_ Robijn hoens lant va_ Groot-Loon, 1392 vrodelinghen 1392 CHARTER bij lant Govart melkartz CRM14: Oorkonde Q156a39201 Groot-Loon, 1392 1393 CHARTER tot pieter dirx zoens erue CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39301 Amsterdam, 1393 1393 CHARTER bi erve _ma_s CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301 Lummen, 1393 1393 CHARTER bi erve reyners va_ Meensele CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301 Lummen, 1393 1393 CHARTER bi erve h_en Michghiels kind_e CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301 en_ joha_nes nubeckers Lummen, 1393 1393 CHARTER bi erve sroeden kind_e CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301 Lummen, 1393 1393 CHARTER bi erve d_ kind_ va_ de_ vinne CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301 Lummen, 1393 1393 CHARTER bi erve kerstinen enkens va_ CRM14: Oorkonde P051p39301 attenrode Lummen, 1393 1393 CHARTER tusschen erve kenens droems en_ CRM14: Oorkonde P057p39301 Johans cupers Kuringen, 1393 1393 CHARTER tusschen erve desselfs heynens CRM14: Oorkonde P057p39301 lem_ens en_ henrics wouters Kuringen, 1393 1393 CHARTER bi den lande willem loueneers CRM14: Oorkonde P112p39301 Zoutleeuw, 1393 1393 CHARTER by lant heinric bachuys CRM14: Oorkonde P112p39301 Zoutleeuw, 1393 1394 CHARTER alre~naist wouters dircx zoens CRM14: Oorkonde E198p39401

hws en_ erue Delft, 1394 1394 CHARTER bi hof Jan bogarts CRM14: Oorkonde P175p39401 Gingelom, 1394 1394 CHARTER bi lant Joh_es sprute CRM14: Oorkonde P175p39401 Gingelom, 1394 1394 CHARTER tusschen guede Goedards CRM14: Oorkonde Q595r39401 haerewerck […] en_ guede dyerix Maastricht of omgeving, 1394 van haren 1394 CHARTER tusschen huyse kenen vetters ende CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401 henrics van tongren Hasselt, 1394 1394 CHARTER tusschen huyse Johans CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401 van~eelsrake ende willems van Hasselt, 1394 vor~de 1394 CHARTER tusschen erve des~selfs Johans CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401 (ende willems culsers wijf) Hasselt, 1394 1394 CHARTER tusschen (erve der beghinen van CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401 hasselt) ende Melis abraens Hasselt, 1394 1394 CHARTER tusschen gu?ede Reyners walne CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39404 van herborch […] en_ guede Maastricht, 1394 Geyelijs des scheres 1394 CHARTER tusschen dat steynen huys . CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39402 katherinen . en_ philips . van der Sint-Truiden, 1394 oyen 1394 CHARTER tusschen de goede Pet_ Jans CRM14: Oorkonde P049a39401 , voirs_ henrics beetsen en_ 1394 henrics va_ lare tsIonxstes 1394 CHARTER tusschen eerve meester Laureys CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401 voers_ […] en_ jans kempeners Sint-Truiden, 1394 1394 CHARTER tusschen husinge des voers_ CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401 laureys en_ siinre geerve_ en_ Sint-Truiden, 1394 jans kempeners 1394 CHARTER achter huys willems CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401 Sint-Truiden, 1394 1395 CHARTER van baernt claes zoens tv?ne tot CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39502 heynric dirx zoens lande Amsterdam, 1395 1395 CHARTER tot an aernt dirx zoens lijnbane CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39505 Amsterdam, 1395 1395 CHARTER tot vrederic gherijts zoens CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39501 viuersloete toe Amsterdam, 1395 1395 CHARTER van baernt claes zoens tv?ne tot CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39502 heynric dirx zoens lande toe Amsterdam, 1395 1395 CHARTER bi der zuste_n houe CRM14: Oorkonde E109p39502 Amsterdam, 1395 1395 CHARTER tusschen guede Ger?iggen […] CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39503 en_ guede Metten suydeweynds Maastricht, 1395 1395 CHARTER totter schueren h_en willems va_ CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39502 Eyne_berch Ridders Maastricht, 1395 1395 CHARTER /tusschen den gu?ede peter CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39502 ghewante des volres […] en_ den Maastricht, 1395 gu?ede belen bu?sscops 1396 CHARTER by Ecberd Ketelhodes steenhues CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39602 Groningen, 1396 1397 CHARTER alre~naist willem harmans zoens CRM14: Oorkonde E198p39701 hws en_ erue Delft, 1397

1397 CHARTER tuschen guede jacobs des ckers CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39702 […] en_ guede Arnolds des Maastricht, 1397 (onleesbaar) 1397 CHARTER by Egberd wilghen steenhues CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39701 Groningen, 1397 1398 CHARTER tot an ludolf oedwijns soen CRM14: Oorkonde E579r39802 Beverwijk of omgeving, 1398 1398 CHARTER tuschen gu?ede Mathijs van CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39801 byecht des beckers […] en_ Maastricht, 1398 tpanhuys leonards walne van lyechtenburch 1398 CHARTER tusschen den gueden Johans CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39802 stru?euers voers_ […] En_ den Maastricht, 1398 gu?eden Gerarts van Coelen 1398 CHARTER tusschen erve margrieten CRM14: Oorkonde P120p39801 grauwerocs (ende keuens Alken, 1398 kind_en) 1398 CHARTER tusschen erve en_ houz willem CRM14: Oorkonde Q165p39801 vleminx […] (en_ hueveners Hopmaal, 1398 steghe ) 1398 CHARTER by Egberd wilghen erue CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39801 Groningen, 1398 1398 CHARTER by wicboldes erue CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39802 Groningen, 1398 1398 CHARTER by senter Claes proffien kercken CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39802 Maastricht, 1398 1398 CHARTER by senter Claes proffien kercken CRM14: Oorkonde Q095p39802 Maastricht, 1398 1399 CHARTER bi die lande henrix van willene CRM14: Oorkonde P225p39901 Korsworm, 1399 1399 CHARTER tusschen erve Costins van Ranst CRM14: Oorkonde P048p39902 […] (en_ die ghemein beemde Halen, 1399 va_ zelke) 1399 CHARTER tusschen lant aelbrecht kiins […] CRM14: Oorkonde P048p39901 en_ lant henr_ van eltre Halen, 1399 1399 OFFICIAL tusschen jan jans soens lande […] CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- (ende den lande dat willem aernt 1800: dordrecht_1399_1 lycle soens sone daer legghende hadde ) 1399 CHARTER by berneer solleders steenhues CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39903 Groningen, 1399 1399 CHARTER by ghebbe smedes erue CRM14: Oorkonde C108p39901 Groningen, 1399 1400 CHARTER by Coppeken erue CRM14: Oorkonde C108p40003 Groningen, 1400 1408 OFFICIAL tusschen Monrijs Gheraetszoens CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- des marsmans huse […] ende 1800: dordrecht_1408_2 Gheraet Kemp Gheraetszoens huse 1408 OFFICIAL tusschen Henric des sniders huse CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- […] (ende der loeve die brueder 1800: dordrecht_1408_2 jan Boeye die Augustijn toebehoert) 1410 OFFICIAL tusschen Dirc janszoens erue […] CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250-

ende Claes peter clenerts zoens 1800: amsterdam_1410_1 erue 1430 OFFICIAL tusschen wouter willems soens CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- erue […] ende dirc gherijts zoens 1800: amsterdam_1430_1 erue 1439 OFFICIAL tusschen Willem cuper die CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- wantsnyders erue […](ende sinte 1800: amsterdam_1439_1 Johansstrate voirnoemt) 1439 OFFICIAL tot an alijdt gherijt deymans CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- weduwe ende hoirre kinderen 1800: amsterdam_1439_1 steynen camer ende erue toe 1455 OFFICIAL tot an willem die cupers after erue CHN): ambtelijke teksten 1250- toe 1800: amsterdam_1455_3 1455 OFFICIAL tusschen godeuairt willems zoens CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- erue […] ende ruusche albert 1800: amsterdam_1455_1 diers zoens erue 1455 OFFICIAL tot an adam die sale jans zoens CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- erue 1800: amsterdam_1455_1 1472 OFFICIAL tuschen meester willem bouwijns CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- zoen […] (die heylige geest) 1800: haarlem_1472_1 1492 OFFICIAL naer Sente Jacops costerie CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: gent_1492_1 1492 OFFICIAL naer Sente Niclaus costerye CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- 1800: gent_1492_1

~~TABLE 3: Results intermediate stage following ‘tussen’~~

~~Date Genre Result Corpus File~~

1268 OFFICIAL tuschen heinrix lande van den CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- poele ende outfards van der mude 1800: brugge_1268_4 1307 OFFICIAL tusschen Pieters huus van der CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- Leye ende Claus van Ackendonc 1800: antwerpen_1307_2 1309 CHARTER tuschen vern alide lant vrouwe CRM14: Oorkonde E692r30901 van den bosche en_ egbrechts Utrecht of omgeving, 1309 hoers soens 1370 CHARTER tusschen jan boysts huus ende CRM14: Oorkonde O061p37001 erue […] ende pieters van oeten Aalst, 1370 1378 OFFICIAL tusschen jehan lauwerins […] CHN: ambtelijke teksten 1250- Ende den lande der voorseider 1800: ieper_1378_1 catelinen 1381 CHARTER tusschen lant wouters va_ den CRM14: Oorkonde P049p38101 vynne en_ wout_s mersmans Donk, 1381 1384 CHARTER tusschen erve des g_ve_ va_ loen CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p38401 van veghtmale en_ Johan hulkens Hasselt, 1384 des Jonghen 1384 CHARTER tusschen lande der scholire van CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401 leuwe […] en_ godijns van wilre Sint-Truiden, 1384 voerschreven

1384 CHARTER tusschen (lande des Co_vents van CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401 herkenroyde) […] en_ johans Sint-Truiden, 1384 populers 1384 CHARTER tusschen (lande des co_vents van CRM14: Oorkonde P176p38401 herkenroyde) […] en_ henrich Sint-Truiden, 1384 borghers 1393 CHARTER tusschen erve kenens droems en_ CRM14: Oorkonde P057p39301 Johans cupers Kuringen, 1393 1394 CHARTER tusschen huyse kenen vetters ende CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401 henrics van tongren Hasselt, 1394 1394 CHARTER tusschen huyse Johans CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401 van~eelsrake ende willems van Hasselt, 1394 vor~de 1394 CHARTER tusschen (erve der beghinen van CRM14: Oorkonde Q002p39401 hasselt) ende Melis abraens Hasselt, 1394 1394 CHARTER tusschen dat steynen huys . CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39402 katherinen . en_ philips . van der Sint-Truiden, 1394 oyen 1394 CHARTER tusschen de goede Pet_ Jans CRM14: Oorkonde P049a39401 , voirs_ henrics beetsen en_ 1394 henrics va_ lare tsIonxstes 1394 CHARTER tusschen eerve meester Laureys CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401 voers_ […] en_ jans kempeners Sint-Truiden, 1394 1394 CHARTER tusschen husinge des voers_ CRM14: Oorkonde P176p39401 laureys en_ siinre geerve_ en_ Sint-Truiden, 1394 jans kempeners

~~APPENDIX 3~~

~~SURVEY: LOCATIVE POSSESSIVES IN WEST-FLEMISH~~

~~TABLE 1: Personal nouns~~

~~Occurrences Construction Occurrences Construction~~

~~11 k ga naar Rogers 11 k ben/zin bi Rogers 10 k ben/zin to Rogers~~

~~10 k ga naar Georges 0 k ga naar Georgens 9 k ben/zin bi Georges 1 k ben/zin bi Georgens 9 k ben/zin to Georges 1 k ben/zin to Georgens~~

~~10 k ga naar Frans 1 k ga naar Fransens 10 k ben/zin bi Frans 1 k ben/zin bi Fransens 7 k ben/zin to Frans 3 k ben/zin to Fransens~~

~~10 k ga naar Jeannes 10 k ben/zin bi Jeannes 10 k ben/zin to Jeannes~~

~~11 k ga naar Maries 11 k ben/zin bi Maries 11 k ben/zin to Maries~~

~~11 Hij woont daar aan Rogers 11 Hij woont daar aan Maries~~

~~TABLE 2: Nouns denoting kinship~~

~~Occurrences Construction~~

~~6 k ga naar min broers 6 k ben/zin bi min broers~~

~~5 k ben/zin to min broers 6 hij woont daar aan min broers~~

~~9 k ga naar min zusters 9 k ben/zin bi min zusters 8 k ben/zin to min zusters 9 hij woont daar aan min zusters~~

~~10 k ga naar memes 10 k ben/zin bi memes 9 k ben/zin to memes~~

~~10 k ga naar pepes 10 k ben/zin bi pepes 9 k ben/zin to pepes~~

~~9 k ga naar min cozins 9 k ben/zin bi min cozins 8 k ben/zin to min cozins~~

~~7 k ga naar min nunkels 7 k ben/zin bi min nunkels 7 k ben/zin to min nunkels~~

~~7 k ga naar min tantes 7 k ben/zin bi min tantes 7 k ben/zin to min tantes~~

~~TABLE 3: Nouns denoting professions~~

~~Occurrences Construction~~

~~0 k ga naar den coiffeurs 0 k ben/zin bi den coiffeurs 0 k ben/zin to den coiffeurs 6 hij woont daar aan den coiffeurs~~

~~0 k ga naar de coiffeuzes 1 k ben/zin bi de coiffeuzes 1 k ben/zin to de coiffeuzes 6 hij woont daar aan de coiffeuzes~~

~~100~~

~~1 k ga naar den kosters 0 ben/zin bi den kosters 0 k ben/zin to den kosters 6 hij woont daar aan den kosters~~

~~2 k ga naar den pasters 1 k ben/zin bi den pasters 1 k ben/zin to den pasters 6 hij woont daar aan den pasters~~

~~0 k ga naar den beenhouwers 0 k ben/zin bi den beenhouwers 0 k ben/zin to den beenhouwers 6 hij woont daar aan den beenhouwers~~

~~0 k ga naar den gendarms 0 k ben/zin bi den gendarms 0 k ben/zin to den gendarms~~

~~0 k ga naar de verpleegsters 0 k ben/zin bi de verpleegsters 0 k ben/zin to de verpleegsters~~

~~0 k ga naar de vroedvrouwes 0 k ben/zin bi de vroedvrouwes 0 k ben/zin to de vroedvrouwes~~

~~0 k ben/zin to den tantists 0 k è t to den tantists gehoord~~

~~0 k ben/zin to den doktoors 3 k è t to den doktoors gehoord~~

~~0 k ben/zin to den remplacants 0 k è t to den remplacants gehoord~~

~~1 k ben/zin to den boers 1 k è t to den boers gehoord~~

~~1 k ben/zin to den melkboers 1 k è t to den melkboers gehoord~~

~~0 k ben/zin to den bakkers 2 2 k è t to den bakkers gehoord~~

~~101~~

~~TABLE 4: Complex noun phrases~~

~~Occurrences Construction~~

~~2 k ga naar min odsten cozins 2 k ben/zin bi min odsten cozins 1 k ben/zin to min odsten cozins~~

~~4 k ga naar min jongste zusters 4 k ben/zin bi min jongste zusters 4 k ben/zin to min jongste zusters~~

~~1 k ga naar min groten broers 1 k ben/zin bi min groten broers 1 k ben/zin to min groten broers~~

~~0 k ga naar min zieke groovaders 0 k ben/zin bi min zieke groovaders 0 k ben/zin to min zieke groovaders~~

~~0 k ga naar den nieuwen melkboers 0 k ben/zin bi den nieuwen melkboers 0 k ben/zin to den nieuwen melkboers~~

~~0 k ga naar den rosten bakkers 0 k ben/zin bi den rosten bakkers 0 k ben/zin to den rosten bakkers~~

~~0 k ga naar den ouden pasters 0 k ben/zin bi den ouden pasters 0 k ben/zin to den ouden pasters~~

~~TABLE 5: Complex noun phrases with different types of possessives~~

~~Occurrences Construction~~

~~10 Meme ze kabaa 7 Meme eurne kabaa 2 Memes kabaa~~

~~102~~

~~10 Ma ze sjaal 7 Ma eurne sjaal 2 Mas sjal~~

~~10 Christine zen auto 8 Christine eurnen auto 1 Christines auto~~

~~0 Marie ze chacosse 10 Marie eur chacosse 1 Maries chacosse~~

~~3 k ben/zin to Rogers moeders 2 k ben/zin to Roger se moeders 3 k ben/zin to Roger zen moeders~~

~~0 k ben/zin to den doktoors remplacants 0 k ben/zin to den doktoor se remplacants 0 k ben/zin to den doktoor zenen remplacants~~

~~1 k ben/zin to de pasters zusters 0 k ben/zin to de paster se zusters 2 k ben/zin to de paster zen zusters~~

~~TABLE 6: Postmodification~~

~~Occurrences Construction~~

~~7 k ben/zin to min zusters in Gent 0 k ben/zin to min zuster in Gents~~

~~2 k ben/zin to men juffrouws 0 k ben/zin to men juffrouws van Frans 1 k ben/zin to men juffrouw van Fransens~~

~~4 k ben/zin to de meesters 0 k ben/zin to de meesters van Frans 1 k ben/zin to de meester van Fransens~~

~~103~~

~~TABLE 7: Pronouns~~

~~Occurrences Construction~~

1st person PL 8 hij komt naar toenzens 8 hij is toenzens 7 hij is to toenzens 8 hij is bi toenzens 2nd person PL 8 k ga naar tjunders / tulders 8 k ben/zin tjunders / tulders 7 k ben/zin to tjunders /tulders 8 k ben/zin bi tjunders / tulders 3rd person PL 8 k ga naar tunders 7 k ben/zin to tunders 8 k ben/zin bi tunders 1st person SG 0 k ga naar tminnes 0 k ben/zin to tminnes 0 k ben/zin bi tminnes 2nd person SG 0 k ga naar tjonnes 0 k ben/zin to tjonnes 0 k ben/zin bi tjonnes 3rd person SG 0 k ga naar de zins 0 k ben/zin to de zins 0 k ben/zin bi de zins

~~104~~

~~APPENDIX 4~~

~~BNC RESEARCH: LOCATIVE POSSESSIVES IN MODERN BRITISH ENGLISH~~

~~TABLE 1: Proper nouns~~

Query Nr. Result Corpus File at John’s/ 6 At John’s KC0 921 to John’s I don't, cos he's naughty at John's. KCT 7000 Bleary-eyed, at the appointed hour I loaded the G2Y 286 car at John's with two large display cases, posters, boxes of lead, a bag of pre-decimal coinage, two folding chairs, a roll of velvet material — and the kitchen sink! She'll be round on Friday afternoon or Saturday KDN 12 some time I said we'd be here from four o'clock on Friday so I'll take it down to John's today then it's away to work I've got the rubbish in the bins right? See when I go down to John's now I'm out like a KDN 5451 light there. He realizes he left it behind because he doesn't HGU 441 really want to go to John's. at Mary’s/ 1 I could see Dad was worried so after a couple of CDM 1843 to Mary’s hours of hanging about I offered to return to Mary's. at Ann’s/ 1 It's The Match on ITV, and Tommy and Iain FBM 3176 to Ann’s decide to watch it at Ann's.

~~TABLE 2: Nouns denoting kinship~~

Query Nr. Result Corpus File at my brother’s/ to 2 For instance when he visited Manchester in 1814 B3H 228 my brother’s he wrote 9th September — an exceedingly pleasant ride all the way from Leicester to Manchester…we found my poor mother (actually his step-mother) surprisingly well for a person of 80 — dined at Brother's and drank tea with my mother and Aunt Weston ‘Thomas, that night in the car, when you drove FNT 1109 me to my brother's, you showed me your…’

105 at my sister’s/ to my 5 At half-past twelve, Mum and Dad will be on AT3 227 sister’s their way to my sister's in Ipswich. I'd like just to pop round to my sister's — that EBR 1498 sort of thing…; My sister and me are very close, so this woman EG0 457 gave me a giro to go to my sister's — they took me to the station and put me on the train. I went to the shop yesterday, I was at my sister's KDV 148 but I, oh! Oh I had really good time at my sister's KDY 1158 at my nan’s/ to my 1 When I stayed overnight at my nan's, which I CHE 402 nan’s often did, I actually slept in a room next to where the old monastery used to be. at my granddad’s/ to 1 stay at granddad's for a little while, while daddy KD1 1606 my granddad’s watches that film and then go and see other nanny for a little while, cos you've got no playschool tomorrow so you haven't got to get up early have you? at my cousin’s/ to my 2 No we're stopping at my cousin's. KBC 467 cousin’s Erm er, no we're going to my cousin's. KBC 406 at my uncle’s/ to my 0 uncle’s at my aunt’s/ to my 1 ‘I'm going to my aunt's for tea.’ HGN 581 aunt’s

~~TABLE 3: Nouns denoting professions~~

Query Nr. Result Corpus File at the hairdresser’s/ 11 Before leaving London that morning she had HNK 1608 to the hairdresser’s spent time at the hairdresser's. I have even seen him at the hairdresser's, G2V 2197 supporting her head as her hair is washed. I should just about have finished at the G1W 1034 hairdresser's by then. The big dyeing job was done twice a year at the CH4 626 hairdresser's, but every month or so in between, Mrs Wormwood used to freshen it up by giving it a rinse in the washbasin with something called PLATINUM BLONDE HAIR-DYE EXTRA STRONG. Last night I dreamed I used a chair at the H9Y 2566 hairdresser's as a toilet and Maggie Smith was in the next chair. Last time I went to the hairdresser's I was so A0L 1050 crippled with period pains I drank three instant g & t's on the bus.

~~106~~

‘The latest idea is to actually take them out to B32 2416 the hairdresser's or shopping, so that happens every month without fail, sometimes more often. During a visit to the hairdresser's I realized that CCN 111 we women are prepared to put ourselves through the most extraordinary practices in order to improve our image. A double line of parked cars ran parallel to the CDB 98 pavements from the paper shop to the pub and the grocer's to the hairdresser's. He did not resent her visit to the hairdresser's. G1W 1077 When I came back, cos I went in on the way to KBK 4243 the hairdresser's, to find out about it, and I thought I'd buy him on the way back, when I went back it was still sitting in the same place with its tail hanging out at the priest’s/ to the 0 priest’s at the vicar’s/ to the 0 vicar’s at the butcher’s/ to 4 ‘She leads him a right dance,’ the nans would F9C 3156 the butcher’s say, during their daily exchange of news and analysis in the queue at the butcher's, until finally she danced off for good and all and left him with his mother and his clapped-out BSA and his jars of Brylcreem and his collection of 78 records and a lifetime's cumulation of unarticulated resentments. I saw her at the butcher's this morning. FRJ 788 At the butcher's. G0Y 1333 Across the road to the butcher's where they CCM 1141 looked in the window to see back at the reflection of Hogan's Outfitters and realise that Sean Walsh had gone back inside to the empire that would one day be his. at the baker’s/ to the 5 At the baker's I offered to exchange my leather FR6 2117 baker’s gloves for a small cake, but the baker's wife looked at my dirty clothes and said, ‘I'm sorry, but how do I know you haven't stolen them? I sent Peggy down to the village for yeast and H8X 2878 old Meg was at the baker's, first time in months, and she says her master's back. Got these at the baker's for next to nothin', by H8Y 1578 the by.’ That was next door next door to the baker's FYE 40 On Saturdays as a special treat Granpa would K8T 32 allow me to go along with him to the early morning market in Covent Garden, where he would select the fruit and vegetables that we would later sell from his pitch, just opposite Mr Salmon's and Dunkley's, the fish and chippy that stood next to the baker's.

107 at the fishmonger’s/ 0 to the fishmonger’s at the officer’s/ to the 0 officer’s at the nurse’s/ to the 0 nurse’s at the dentist’s/ to the 5 It was around this time that Seth began a new ABS 1215 dentist’s romance, with Susan Schilling, a preacher's daughter he met at the dentist's. Back at the dentist's the waiting-room was ABX 1182 packed. Where's the scruffy page I tore out of that BMS 112 magazine at the dentist's? MAX: She should be at the dentist's all day FRH 799 tomorrow. ‘You don't go to the dentist's because you've got A73 1427 toothache any more.’ at the doctor’s/ to the 20 at the doctor’s; CHR 196 doctor’s So beware at the doctor's. CHR 205 Jokes not to tell at the doctor’s; CHR 432 Don't be worried if you have to have an injection CJ9 2252 at the clinic or at the doctor's , because the syringes they use are sterilised and used only once. This says I was good at the doctor's today? GYD 270 You probably felt it today because you were up H9H 1611 and about at the doctor's. I always cry at the doctor's, have done for years. H9Y 494 At the doctor's I generally last four minutes H9Y 1366 before collapsing whilst trying to describe the muscle pain which he knows is a muscle pain but which I know he's only saying is a muscle pain to disguise the seriousness of his true diagnosis. She's always at the doctor's with her leg. HH9 243 ‘I'll pop in at the doctor's when I go down for HH9 249 my shopping,’ Mrs Hellyer said. ‘I saw it at the doctor's on the board — an’ I HJH 1677 wrote it down after last week — I didn't know what else to do. How did you get on at the doctor's? KC5 361 He collapsed at Debbie's on Wednesday night, KRO 28 well he fell, bumped his head sort of fall down so the doctor come yesterday, tt, and he had to stop in bed two or three days and go at the doctor's for ten minute appointment and he bloody test and to see why he's lost so much weight cos his legs are like that. Many children don't look forward to a visit to CB8 3288 the doctor's — not surprising, as they may associate it with illness or injections.

~~108~~

But you couldn't go to the doctor's until surgery FY1 468 time, that were six o'clock you see. I took I went to the doctor's and he gave me FYE 331 medicinal duty. And er I remember going to the doctor's with me FY1 491 Mother and where as we sat in the surgery which was packed, eventually the old doctor come out of the door I never know what it was to,not do anything, go, G4R 136 go to the doctor's and be bad or anything like that. Anyhow, my father's just taken her to the JY1 619 doctor's, so I thought I'd give you a ring. Claire said: ‘I had to take Rachel to the doctor's K54 2819 because she was so poorly. at the farmer’s/ to the 0 farmer’s

~~TABLE 4: Complex noun phrases~~

Query Nr. Result Corpus File at my eldest 0 cousin’s/ to my eldest cousin’s at my little sister’s/ 0 to my little sister’s at my late 0 grandfather’s/ to my late grandfather’s at my sick 0 grandmother’s/ to my sick grandmother’s at the tall baker’s/ to 0 the tall baker’s at the old priest’s/ to 0 the old priest’s at John’s mother’s/ 0 to John’s mother’s at my friend’s sisters/ 0 to my friend’s sister’s at my French 0 teacher’s/ to my French teacher’s

~~109~~