Semantic Predecessors of Need in the History of English (c750-1710)

Lucía Loureiro-Porto teaches grammar and linguistic variation within the Department of Spanish, Modern Languages and Latin at the Universitat de les Illes Balears (Balearic Islands, Spain). She has previously held teaching and research positions at Reed College, Portland, and at the Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Her main research interests are the study of grammaticalization processes in the history of English, English historical syntax and semantics, and sociolinguistic variation from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective.

• Acknowledgements. Foreword by Manfred Krug.List of tables.List of figures.List of abbreviations.1 Introduction.1.1. Preliminary considerations.1.2. Present-Day English need and need to.1.2.1. Traditional approaches.1.2.2. Modern considerations.1.2.3. Conclusion.1.3. A diachronic corpus.1.4. Organization of chapters.2 Theoretical Foundations.2.1. Introduction.2.2. Modality in English.2.2.1. Types of modality: root and epistemic.2.2.2. Semantic features of Present-Day English need and need to.2.3. Grammaticalization.2.3.1. Processes and parameters of grammaticalization.2.3.2. English Modals: a paradigmatic case of grammaticalization.2.4. Impersonal verbs and constructions.2.4.1. Terminological issues.2.4.2. Impersonal constructions: definition and structure.2.4.3. Allen’s (1995) classification.2.5. Summary.3. Tharf and Betharf.3.1. Introduction.3.2. Preterite-presents and pre-modals: morphology, syntax and semantics.3.2.1. Morphology.3.2.2. Syntax.3.2.3. Semantics.3.3. Tharf and betharf diachronically.3.3.1. Semantic implications of tharf and betharf: the constraint of polarity.3.3.1.1. Tharf.3.3.1.1.1. Barriers.3.3.1.1.2. External forces.3.3.1.1.3. Internal forces.3.3.1.1.4. General forces.3.3.1.2. Betharf.3.3.2. Syntactic evidence for auxiliarihood: the importance of complementation.3.3.2.1. Tharf.3.3.2.1.1. Types of theme selected by tharf.3.3.2.1.2. Experiencer verb constructions found with tharf.3.3.2.2. Betharf.3.4. Conclusions.4. Behove and Mister.4.1. The evolution of behove.4.1.1. Introduction: The myth of an impersonal verb (Allen 1997).4.1.2. The rise and fall of a Germanic verb in English.4.1.2.1. Semantic richness of a verb condemned to marginality.4.1.2.1.1. Old English: Preference for internal forces.4.1.2.1.2. Middle English: Peak in semantic richness.4.1.2.1.2.1. General forces in Middle English.4.1.2.1.3. Early Modern English: specialization of general forces.4.1.2.2. Syntactic evidence for a potential grammaticalization.4.1.3 Conclusions.4.2. The ephemeral pass of mister through the English language.4.2.1. Semantics.4.2.2. Syntax.4.2.3. Conclusion.5. Need in the History of English.5.1. Introduction: Need v.1 and need v.2: one or two verbs?5.2. Semantic evolution of need.5.2.1. Physical forces.5.2.2. Root forces.5.2.2.1. External forces.5.2.2.2. Internal forces.5.2.2.3. General forces.5.2.3. Epistemic forces.5.3. Syntactic evolution of need v.1 and need v.2.5.3.1. Need v.1.5.3.1.1. Active need v.1.5.3.1.2. Passive need v.1.5.3.2. Need v.2.5.3.2.1. Need v.2: experiencer verb without an experiencer.5.3.2.2. Need v.2: experiencer verb with an experiencer.5.3.2.2.1. Types of themes, experiencer, and experiencer verb construction.5.3.2.2.2. Need v.2 in Type ‘Personal’ Constructions: evidence for auxiliarihood.5.3.2.2.2.1. EModE auxiliaries.5.3.2.2.2.2. Need v.2 in the ‘Personal’ Type in early Modern English.5.4. Conclusions.6. Conclusions.Appendices.References.List of Tables.Index.