Domsettend, worulddema or dempster? Medieval English references to the noun judge

The present paper examines references to medical doctors in the history of English. Particular attention will be given to less formal expressions to trace the changing attitudes towards those involved in the healing art. Also, we will take a look at different ways of forming the terms under scrutiny, including the most productive word building processes (e.g. derivation, compounding, abbreviation) and formations characteristic of non-standard medical vocabularies. The study is based on the lexical material collected from dictionaries (the Historical Thesaurus of English (HTE), Thesaurus of Old English (TOE), Bosworth Toller's Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (B-T), Middle English Dictionary (MED), Oxford English Dictionary (OED), and Green’s Dictionary of Slang (GDS)).

When the history of a particular word is under investigation, the first tool to be consulted is the Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter OED). Spelling variants in historical and typological classification, etymology with the appropriate length of additional explanation, significations according to historical principles with minutely subdivided shades of meaning, dates of the first and the last (in the case of obsolete words) quotations, phrases, and compounds — all this information is given under a headword. The Middle English Dictionary (hereafter MED) has a somewhat different presentation of information; some headwords are n t identical with modern forms, and some of the first quotations under each headword or each signification predate those in the OED. Quotations of Middle English documents are, of course, enriched by way of the variety of manuscript variants of the text quoted. The Dictionary of Old English (hereafter DOE) shows quite a different disciplinary approach. Its uniqueness lies in providing significations which emphasize phrasal expressions and glosses on Latin words. Though a comparison among the three dictionaries is feasible only for headwords from A to G at this stage, it seems worth trying, particularly when another historical tool, the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary (hereafter HTOED), based on the categories proposed by the Thesaurus of Old English(TOE) and the Historical Thesaurus of English (HTE), has been available since autumn 2009.1 The aim of this paper, then, is to make a comparison among the significations of OED, MED, and DOE, in particular using quotations which exemplify the subdivided senses. On the one hand, we may hope to learn to use these dictionaries properly, with a sufficient knowledge of both their individual merits and peculiarities and their shared proclivities. On the other, it may also be possible to suggest some better ways of structuring the significations, particularly for those headwords which undergo significant change in the transition from Old English to Middle English. The examples for this study are mainly taken from among the words of emotion, which I have been working with for some years, in the DOE fascicles for A to G, in order to keep the comparisons clear. The examples will be presented alphabetically, since that seems the most coherent method of organizing the relevant evidence and assessing the differences among the dictionaries for the significations of the relevant headwords. If the ideal is to gain a sense of the whole history of a given word by “simply pushing a button of your PC,” then the three diachronically based dictionaries need to work from a common basis of understanding, especially with respect to signification.

The present paper analyses the fates of the Middle English synonyms of the adjective happy. The group of the examined words contains adjectives beneurous, benewred, felicious, gracious, seely and the key item happy. Focusing on their fates in the period under question, the study uses data from the Innsbruck Corpus of Middle English, a collection of 129 Middle English digitised texts, preserved in 159 files, to determine token frequency, text distribution and semantic changes of the examined adjectives. Other sources used in the study are Middle English Dictionary (MED), The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Historical Thesaurus of English (HTE) and AntConc, a freeware corpus analysis program. The evidence from the Innsbruck Corpus of Middle English Prose shows considerable discrepancies in the token frequency of the analysed terms and the number of attestations employed in the sense ‘happy’. Although the position of the adjective gracious was extraordinarily strong (354 attestations), the termyielded only 13 attestations used in the sense under study. The marginal status of benewred (2 attestations)and lack of beneurous in the Middle English texts examined announce their loss at the end of the period.

Historical Perspectives in the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Elizabeth M. Knowles A he New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (NSOED), published in 1993 by the Oxford University Press, is a historical dictionary of Modern English. The inclusion of information on the age and life history of words current at any time between 1700 and the present day is a major feature, and every headword is traced back to its first point of record (in many cases, to a manuscript source of the Old or Middle English period). The first Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, published in 1933, was similarly chronological in approach, but was closely tied to the precise lexicographical and semantic structure of the parent OED. It was intended primarily as an abridgement of the OED, and for many years its projected title was the "Abridged Oxford Dictionary." The NSOED editors, while using the OED as its primary source material, pursued a program of systematic research using both manual and automatic methods. (The project began in 1980, and online searching facilities became available in 1989.) The text is completely new, and presents considerably enhanced historical information. The ordering of the senses of each word is chronological, and the dating of first and last uses is recorded in conventionalized date ranges. After the three larger early divisions of Old English, Middle English, and late Middle English, there is a tripartite division of centuries: material from the period up to 1 149 is dated as Old English (OE), Middle English (ME) covers the period from 1150 to 1349, and late Middle English (LME) represents the period from 1350 to 1469. The last years of the 15th-century are designated as late 15th-century (l15), and after that each century has three divisions, so that for example 1600 to 1629 is early 17th-century (e17), 1730 to 1769 is mid 18th-century (m18), and 1870 to 1899 is late 19th-century (l19). All headwords and main sense 48Elizabeth M. Knowles divisions are dated items, as are derivatives that are not themselves headwords but which are subsumed at the end of the entry for the root word. (Thus painfully and painfulness (both LME) are found in a derivative block at the end of the entry for ME painful.) The basic OED material was first enhanced by a systematic examination of such major historical dictionaries as the Middle English Dictionary (MED), the Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue (DOST), and the Scottish National Dictionary (SND). These dictionaries were read against the OED, and antedatings and postdatings that affected the first or last date-range of a word or sense were noted on paper slips and filed to await editorial attention to the word. It was clear from the outset of the project that constraints of time would not permit the NSOED editors to undertake the task. Freelancers were therefore recruited to work in advance of the editorial process, so that all relevant material was in the file before any editor reached that particular alphabetical point. The work was complex, requiring not only a knowledge of Middle English and a capacity to cope with Older Scottish, but an ability to "match" OED senses with MED or DOST senses that resulted from a very different semantic analysis. This combination of specialist knowledge and what might be described as a lexicographer's eye was seldom encountered among the Oxford graduate students from whom freelance workers were recruited, and general unfamiliarity with the major period dictionaries was an additional difficulty . Variant spellings and indeed the whole treatment of variants also presented a considerable challenge. (For example, early uses of both the OED's staff n. and stave n. appear in MED under the entry form staf.) It was, however, an extremely fruitful process, as the following random samples show: alpine adj. was antedated from e17 to LME, Arab n. from m17 to LME, Englishwoman from m16 (a glossarial use) to ME, foliage (the representation of the leaves of a branch) from l16 to LME, nasturtium (a kind of cress) from l16 to OE, paganity from m16 to LME, and panful from l19 to ME. Material from DOST included an antedating of defiant a. from m19 (the OED has the...

Sirrah, as a form of address aimed at inferiors, is fairly frequent in Shakespeare's plays and those of the seventeenth century, but its etymology has, surprisingly, never been convincingly identified. To date, the only explanation available is that sirrah was a composition of sir and the interjection ah or ha. This hypothesis, often uncritically quoted, even by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), goes back to John Minsheu, a lexicographer of the early seventeenth century. But this paper tries to show that Minsheu's opinion, based on word formation, is far-fetched and that sirrah is merely a phonetic variant of sir. Both words have the same Old French etymological origin, namely sire. Sirrah is, in fact, an ironical and mimicking pronunciation of sire. Sir, for its part, though generally an honourable title, was also not entirely free of derogatory connotations in Late Middle and Early Modern English. The evidence for the close proximity of sir and sirrah will be taken from historical English phonology, semantics, pragmatics and sociolinguistics. The retrieval of the key data is based on Open Source Shakespeare and, for Late Middle English, on both the Middle English Dictionary and the OED, as well as the Innsbruck Middle English Prose Corpus.

THE two large dictionaries of Scots which are now being produced in Edinburgh owe their existence to the late Sir William Craigie, co-editor of the Oxford English Dictionary from 19go0. A suggestion of Craigie's in a lecture given in Dundee in 1907 led to the formation of the Scottish Dialects Committee, out of which there was to come some twenty years later the Scottish National Dictionary. Then in I9I9 Craigie propounded his historic plan for following the Oxford English Dictionary with a series of large and detailed 'period dictionaries', one for each of the main stages or periods in the history of English and Scots. This plan has been so far fulfilled in the Dictionary of American English (edited by Craigie himself and J. R. Hulbert), the University of Michigan's Middle English Dictionary, now published to F, and the two Scottish dictionaries. The latter are the Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue (D.O.S. T.), a record of the old national literary and official language of Scotland down to the Union of the Parliaments, and the Scottish National Dictionary (S.N.D.), of the Scottish regional dialects of the last two and a half centuries and of modern Scots vernacular literature since Allan Ramsay. D.O.S.T., which was edited from i919, when he began collecting the material, until 1955 by Craigie himself, had its first Part published by the University of Chicago Press in I931. Meantime, in 1928 William Grant, who had been Convener of the Scottish Dialects Committee since its inception, retired from his post as Phonetics Lecturer in Aberdeen Training Centre and began assembling the material for S.N.D. round the Committee's collections as its nucleus. The first Part of S.N.D. also appeared in 1931, published by a non-profit-making limited company formed for the purpose. Both dictionaries are now published as far as M. The principal predecessors of the new Scottish dictionaries are respectively the Oxford English Dictionary completed in 1928, and

The present paper analyses the fates of the native nouns illness and sickness and those of the French borrowing malady in Middle English. Focusing on the regional and temporal dimensions of their rivalry, the study uses the evidence from the Innsbruck Corpus of Middle English Prose (ICMEP, Markus 2008), a collection of 129 works of Middle English prose. The analysis also makes use of other databases such as Collins English Dictionary (CED), the Historical Thesaurus of English (HTE), Middle English Dictionary online (MED), Merriam-Webster Dictionary (MWD), and the Oxford English Dictionary online (OED). The degree of the adaptability of the terms in question is best reflected in their varied frequency in the ICMEP’s texts. The tentative research results place malady (107 attestations in total) far behind its Germanic equivalent sickness (701 attestations). A single instance of illness testifies to its low recognisability in the Innsbruck Corpus of Middle English Prose, probably due to its being often replaced by sickness, which leads to a considerable reduction in the use of the term.

Chapter 4 outlines the aims, material, and methodology of the different studies of motion expression in Old and Middle English presented in chapters 5–6: The inventories of motion verbs (based primarily on the Thesaurus of Old English and a definition search in the Middle English Dictionary) investigate which kinds of verbs can be used to talk about motion, including various non-motion verbs coerced into motion readings by the construction. They also allow a first impression of the combinability of manner verbs and path satellites and of the general manner salience of Old and Middle English. The analysis of roughly 1000 motion expressions in exemplary Old and Middle English texts, which are presented in this chapter (chronicles, saints’ lives, non-imaginative narration, and fiction), shows which verbs and structures are typically used to talk about motion in different text types.

The Dictionary of Old English: From Manuscripts to Megabytes Antonette diPaolo Healey ^he successful completion of the Middle English Dictionary (MED) is a cause for celebration. In that celebration we take note of a major human endeavor, an enormous intellectual enterprise . It is an important moment, in fact an historic occasion, for all of us engaged in basic research on our language. Surmounting many challenges , the editors of the MED progressed through the alphabet to the triumphant conclusion of their dictionary — despite the intractability of language, the uncertainties of funding, and the losses in personnel over time. The hopes and labors of many over so many years have now been fulfilled through the steady determination of the research team of the MED and through the resolve of its funding agencies that this was a venture of lasting scholarly significance. To mark this memorable event, I offer to Bob Lewis, and to all who have furthered the work of the MED at the University of Michigan, reflections on another lexicographic endeavor, the Dictionary of OldEnglish (DOE) at the University of Toronto, with the collective good wishes of our staff. It is not always easy to describe to the general public what we, as lexicographers, do in satisfying the "taxonomic urge" (McArthur 1986). This task is harder still when the language seems foreign even diough it is the earliest form of die audience's own. Several years ago, after the Canadian High Commission invited our project to be showcased at Canada House, London, we needed to find a succinct yet memorable phrase for describing what we do to a gathering of diplomats , politicians, business executives, academics, board members of foundations and University of Toronto alumni. Our research team deDictionaries :Journal oftheDictionary Society ofNorth America 23 (2002) ______The Dictionary of Old English: From Manuscripts to Megabytes 157 vised the slogan "From manuscripts to megabytes." We believed it accurately described the material culture, both old and new, with which we work and, equally important, it had a good alliterative ring to it. We also hoped that it revealed our rootedness in the past and, simultaneously , our willingness to embrace the new expressive technologies of the present and future. Also, on a more personal level for us in Toronto, it was an acknowledgment, once again, of the brilliant insight of our founding editor, Angus Cameron (1970-83), that computer technology might allow us to reconceptualize how dictionaries are made and used (Cameron 1983, 18-20), an insight sustained and strengthened by the project's second editor, Ashley Crandell Amos (1983-89). Finally, we had firmly in mind a colleague's wise counsel, that the goal of these emerging technologies should be to increase the knowledge available and not simply multiply the tools and tasks (Frantzen 1990, 88). All this was certainly a heavy freight for four words to bear, but all this we were trying to capture in that phrase. This essay attempts to describe what the movement from manuscripts to megabytes, from script to print to digits, has entailed for our project, focusing on the tools we have created in the recent past to aid our writing of the DOE. Much as we longed to leap like sure-footed gazelles over the mountaintops of corporate roll-outs, our experience has been a delicate balancing act over the years, trying to keep abreast of the technology curve, yet not be so far in front that things do not work. Achieving this balance is never easy, but we have been greatly aided in our technological efforts by the expertise of colleagues in the field, of the computer scientists who advise us and, most recendy, by the particular talents of the project's systems analyst, Peter Mielke, who has a gift for structural tagging and special characters. Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form At the center of our work is the Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form, a database comprising at least one copy of every known text in Old English, according to our present count 3037 texts or 40MB. This text corpus forms the citation base for the DOE. The comprehensiveness of its coverage is perhaps the most significant difference between our...

Corpus linguistics is “the sine qua non of historical linguistics” (McEnery and Wilson 2001: 123). Contemporary corpus linguistics has led to significant advances in historical linguistics, most notably in the speed and ease with which data can be retrieved. The English historical linguist has available for use a wide variety of corpora. However, none is entirely ideal. Only two corpora, the Oxford English Dictionary and the Helsinki Corpus, provide the full diachronic span from Old English to the present day. The OED quotation bank, though not a corpus strictly speaking, can – with caution – be fruitfully used by the historical linguist (Hoffmann 2004). At only 1.5 million words for 1000 years of language history, the Helsinki Corpus, a balanced general-purpose corpus, may prove too small for some types of searches. Apart from these sources, the historical English linguist must cobble together a variety of corpora from the individual periods of English, ranging from the Dictionary of Old English Corpus containing almost all extant Old English texts, to the Middle English Dictionary (sharing many of the weaknesses of the OED), to the rich Chadwyck-Healey corpora designed primarily for the literary scholar (and quite user-unfriendly for the linguist). After a review of the historical corpora available to the English linguist, this paper explores some of the problems encountered by a scholar wishing to apply corpus linguistic methodology in the field of historical pragmatics. I articulate the strategies that I have adopted in my work on pragmatic markers and, more recently, on comment clauses in the history of English (Brinton 2008). As a case study, I explore the development of the comment clause (as) you say in the history of English. The use of a mixed qualitative/quantitative corpus-based approach allows for a detailed, empirically based description of the rise of (as) you say; at the same time, it permits testing of the “matrix clause hypothesis”, the prevailing theory concerning the origin of comment clauses that has been extrapolated from Thompson and Mulac’s synchronic work on I think/guess. Frequency counts of the presumed source construction (i.e., you say that S) in the earlier periods cast doubt on the validity of the matrix clause hypothesis. Corpus data suggest a more nuanced view of the rise of this comment clause, namely, that a variety of structures, including relative/adverbial as you say, main clause you say, and you say following a fronted element all contributed to its genesis.

Lamed. O vos omnes qui transitis per viam, attendite, et videte si est dolor sicut dolor meus! quoniam vindemiavit me, ut locutus est Dominus, in die irae furoris sui. Lamed. O all ye that pass by t...

Phantom Dictionaries: The Middle English Dictionary before Kurath Wl Michael Adams forking late one May evening, perhaps proofreading the Middle English Dictionary's bibliography, Carlos Palmer, one of Hans Kurath's enterprising assistant editors, may have heard a rustle against the curtains in the Middle English Dictionary offices on the fifth floor of Angelí Hall. On a similar evening, another assistant editor, Margaret Ogden, while inspecting a microfilm copy of the Sloan manuscript version of Guy de Chauliac's Chirurgie, may have followed a sourceless shadow to a critical variant. Dick McKelvey, in charge of production, returning to his desk after managing the Mendelssohn Theater's box office one night, may have found his notes for the next day's work in disarray and, while straightening the mess, reassessed his priorities. An inaudible voice may have reminded Sherman Kuhn of this or that conclusion drawn in the survey of Middle English dialects that Samuel Moore, Sanford B. Meech, and Harold C. Whitehall had published nearly two decades earlier, compelling him to insertion, deletion, or emendation of items in die dictionary's list of regional texts. If these spectral speculations rise in the imagination, it's no surprise, for the ghosts of earlier editors and their phantom dictionaries , dictionaries of Middle English conceived yet disembodied, benignly haunt the Middle English Dictionary (MED) to this day. Today's MED is essentially Kurath's MED, a model of positivist language research.1 Kurath came to the MED an acknowledged expert 'Richard W Bailey has remarked that "Kurath's method as a lexicogrpaher had much in common witii his method as a dialectologist. 'Fine-spun distinctions,' Dictionaries:Journal oftheDictionary Society ofNorth America 23 (2002) 96Michael Adams in American English and, as the organizer and editor of the Linguistic Atlas of the United States and Canada, a proven manager of large publishing projects. But he was not a Middle English specialist and he had never edited a dictionary. The dictionary's future was thus necessarily borne of its past, and as Kurath devised a new plan and brought the MED to publication, he studied the materials that Samuel Moore and Thomas Knott, both of whose editorial periods ended prematurely, had left behind them. Kurath filled the MED with quotations that illustrated , not only Middle English usage, but the phonological, morphological , grammatical, and semantic development of Middle English terms, as well. He defined synonymically, eschewed encyclopedic information , minimized dialectal and etymological claims, while providing the evidence for future generations of scholars to untangle the web of Middle English in the fullness of time. He cast a bibliography so wide that it caught, not only the central literary texts of Medieval England, but those which represented the multiple registers of which Middle English was composed. He printed a dictionary for serious students of Middle English, one with little white space, no distinguishing fonts, and a baffling system of dates and stencils. In none of this did he follow Moore's or Knott's lead; each had intended to produce a dictionary different from each other's and from Kurath's. Yet, from plan to he wrote in his 1954 Plan which inaugurated the Dictionary, 'are apt to reflect personal bias or fancy rather than distinct meanings . . . Like the dialect fieldworkers , the editor should present the unvarnished evidence as fully as possible , with little irreversible theorizing, so allowing the consumer to interpret it as suited the need" (1992, 806) . According to David A. Hollinger, the MED is a "monument of specific information" (1989, 76). Hollinger argues that "the apotheosis of pluralism" at the post-war University of Michigan places the MED in the context of other apparendy "neutral" scholarship of the period and place, like The American Voter, by Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Donald Stokes, and Warren Miller, "a scientifically self-conscious, rigorously professional work of data and methods which made no compromises with the world of The New Republic" (1989, 75), that is, the world of "irreversible theorizing " and of heavily varnished evidence. Kurath, like Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons, "reflected the dominant mood" of the era, that "a scientific discipline ... 'is clearly primarily dedicated to the advancement and transmission of empirical knowledge and only secondarily to the...

THE READING PROGRAM OF THE MIDDLE ENGLISH DICTIONARY: EVALUATION AND INSTRUCTIONS David Jost The Middle English Dictionary, like any historical dictionary, is based on a large body of quotations that have been extracted from texts extant from the period covered by the dictionary.1 This body of quotations provides evidence for the use and formal characteristics of every word included in the dictionary. On the basis of this evidence editors write definitions and construct form sections, both of which are in turn illustrated and confirmed by quotations carefully chosen from the same body of evidence. The process, known as the Reading Program, by which the MED has gathered its enormous body of quotations has extended over the life of the MED. In this article I intend to treat the beginnings of the Program under Samuel Moore, editor 1930-34, at the University of Michigan. In particular I wish to discuss some of the procedures used to build the collection of 280,000 quotations amassed under Moore's direction. In my discussion I draw largely on unpublished documents kept at the MED.2 These documents give us a glimpse into the workings of a large historical dictionary such as the MED. We also gain from these materials a deeper appreciation of the good sense with which Moore approached the challenging task of gathering quotations for the MED. Contemporary lexicographers, many of whom must face challenges similar to Moore's in the early 1930's, should find his ideas and methods helpful and inspiring. 113 114Reading Program of the AiED The Reading Program was an essential task at the beginning of the Dictionary. For Moore, the difficulty of the task was both lessened and increased by the fact that the MED had received the collection of about 430,000 Middle English quotations gathered for the Oxford English Dictionary and a collection of about 175,000 quotations gathered under the leadership of C. S. Northup from 1925 to 1930 when the MED had been quartered at Cornell.3 Having such material obviously seemed to lessen the amount of new collecting that would have to be done. Moore realized, however, that before he could begin collecting new material, he had to know the nature of what was in these two previous collections. "The outstanding fact that impresses me in trying to analyze our problem of producing a Middle English Dictionary is that we inherit a large body of material over the collection of which we have had no control."4 Moore realized that both collections had their limitations: The Oxford Dictionary material was collected for a dictionary which was to show the development of the English language from 1050 to the present. The problems that it had in mind were not those that concern specifically a Middle English Dictionary, and to a great extent they were the problems that engaged the attention of the English language scholars between 1880 and 1900 rather than those that engage our attention today.... The material collected by Northup was collected for the purposes of producing a Middle English Dictionary but a considerable amount, perhaps the greater amount, of this material was collected before Northup had received the Oxford material and before he had definite information as to what Middle English texts the Oxford material was derived from. Moreover, we do not know what specific purposes Northup had in view in the collection of his material, other than the general aim of producing a Middle English Dictionary.5 David Jost115 With these difficulties in mind, Moore and his staff made preparations to analyze the material in both collections in order to ascertain its "value, adequacy, limitations, and defects"and discover what supplementary material was needed.6 He knew that some rereading of texts read for the OED would be necessary, but he wanted to avoid duplication of effort. He also wanted to base new reading on a knowledge of what he already had. Once he had this knowledge he would be ready to direct his readers as to what new and supplementary material they should obtain. Underlying this design was the assumption that because each quotation would require frequent handling, it was important to obtain "new material . . . of maximum...

Javier E. DIAZ VERA : Lexicography, semantics and lexicology in English historical linguistics. 1. Dictionaries of Early English. Francisco CORTES RODRIGUEZ and Ricardo MAIRAL USON: A preliminary design for a syntactic dictionary of Old English on semantic principles. Javier E. DIAZ VERA: The semantic architecture of the Old English verbal lexicon: A historical-lexicographical proposal. Pamela FABER and Juan Gabriel VAZQUEZ GONZALEZ: Adapting functional-lexematic methodology to the structuring of Old English verbs: A programmatic proposal. Christian J. KAY and Irene WOTHERSPOON: Turning the dictionary inside out: Some issues in the compilation of a historical thesaurus. Louise SYLVESTER and Jane ROBERTS: Word studies on early English: Contexts for a thesaurus of Middle English. 2. Early Dictionaries of English. Maurizio GOTTI: The origin of 17th century canting terms. Anne MCDERMOTT: Early dictionaries of English and historical corpora: In search of hard words. 3. Semantic Change and Reconstruction. Isabel de la CRUZ CABANILLAS and Cristina TEJEDOR MARTINEZ: The HORSE family : On the evolution of the field and its metaphorization process. Malgorzata FABISZAK: A semantic analysis of FEAR, GRIEF and ANGER words in Old English. Caroline GEVAERT: The evolution of the lexical and conceptual field of ANGER in Old and Middle English. Paivi KOIVISTO-ALANKO: Prototypes in semantic change: A diachronic perspective on abstract nouns. Manuela ROMANO POZO: A morphodynamic interpretation of synonymy and polysemy in Old English. Juan Gabriel VAZQUEZ GONZALEZ: Using diachrony to predict and arrange the past: Giving and transferring landed property in Anglo-Saxon times. 4. Lexical Variation and Change in the History of English. Merja BLACK STENROOS: Words for MAN in the transmission of Piers Plowman. Claire COWIE and Christianne DALTON-PUFFER: Diachronic word-formation and studying changes in productivity over time: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Eulalio FERNANDEZ SANCHEZ: The cognitive etymological search for lexical traces of conceptual mappings: Analysis of the lexical-conceptual domain of the verbs of POSSESSION. Manfred MARKUS: The Innsbruck Prose Corpus: Its concept and usability in Middle English lexicology. Michiko OGURA: Words of EMOTION in Old and Middle English. Janne SKAFFARI: 'Touched by an alien tongue': Studying lexical borrowings in the earliest Middle English. 5. The interface between Semantics, Syntax and Pragmatics. Diana M. LEWIS: Rhetorical factors in lexical-semantic change: The case of at least. Silvia MOLINA PLAZA: Modal change: A corpus study from 1500 to 1710 compared to current usage. Anna POCH HIGUERAS and Isabel VERDAGUER CLAVERA: The rise of new meanings: A historical journey through English ways of looking at. Junichi TOYOTA: Lexical analysis of Middle English passive constructions.

Middle English Dictionaries