earticle

영어

Impersonal constructions seem to be one of the subjects most frequently dealt with in English historical syntax. One of the reasons for this interest is probably that they stand out more than other constructions, since such impersonal constructions once widely used in early English but completely disappeared at the threshold of the Modern English period and are no longer found in Present-day English. There have been two hypothesis concerning the cause of impersonal-to-personal change. One was CONFUSIONIST hypothesis that the reanalysis of im-personals must have proceeded through the mediation of constructions that were ambiguous, that contained a preverbal NP which could morphologically be taken either as an object or a subject. But this hypothesis couldn’t explain the construction containing a dative or accusative object which has behavioral property of subject in the subject position of sentence. For solving these problems, we suggest other argumentation, Transparency Principle. Under the SVO rigidification the syntactic reanalysis occured first by transparency principle and then morphological, semantic shifts were accompanied. The syntactic reanalysis occured through a few stages, in the first stage preverbal object had no subject property and then acquired behavioral and coding property. For many impersonal verbs the oblique experiencer exhibits behavioral properties of subject before acquiring the coding properties of subject like nominative case. In other words, the impersonal construction contains an actual subject in itself, though the subject is in the oblique form. Semantic shift, accompanied by syntactic reanalysis, makes the communication between generations possible.