PE and deontic necessity of þearf

the source of the necessity can be determined with better or worse precision. In other words, general PE necessity does not play any crucial role in the occurrences of the verb in the DOE Corpus. With the exception of nine examples where the source of necessity is nebulous and circumstantial, necessity emerging from the remaining occurrences of the verb in the sample is deontic. As the weakest instances of deontic necessity of þearf border on general PE necessity, the circumstantial nature of the source of necessity will be touched upon in the following discussion.

Þearf with the sense of deontic necessity embraces various degrees of the force of necessity and a diversified extent of subjectivity and speaker involvement. For this reason, a cline showing the gradience of deontic necessity proves the best means of doing justice to this meaning of þearf.

Without too much distortion, the range of deontic necessity is illustrated by the following examples:

(3.2.16) ic eow secgan mæg þoncwyrðe þing, þæt ge ne þyrfen I you say may pleasing thing, that you not need leng murnan on mode.

longer mourn in spirit

‘I can tell you a pleasing thing, you need no longer mourn in your spirits’

(Jud 146) (3.2.17) Ða cwæþ he Crist to me, Ne þearft þu þe ondrædon,

then said he Christ to me, not need thou thee fear forþon þe ic eom mid þe,

because I am with thee

‘then Christ said to me, »You need not fear because I am with you«,’

(LS 32 358) (3.2.18) him þincð on his geþance, þæt he þam abbode ne þyrfe him seems on his mind, that he to-the abbot not need hyran,

hear

‘it seems to him in his mind that he is not obliged to obey the abbot’

(BenR 65.124.12) (3.2.19) Ne us ne þearf na twynian, þæt we gebyrian ne

not us not need not have-doubts, that we belong not sceolon oððe heofonwarena cyninge oððe hellewites shall either heaven-inhabitants king or hell-torment deoflum

devil

‘we need not doubt that we will belong either to the king of the inhabitants of heaven or to the devil of hell’

(HomU 27 (Nap 30) 261) (3.2.20) se þegen [...] moste his hlaford aspelian 7 his onspæce the servant must his master substitute-for and his law-suit

geræcan mid rihte, swa hwar swa he þorfte.

obtain with right, so where so he needed

‘The servant was allowed to substitute for his master and have his lawsuit wherever he needed to’

(LawGeþyncþo 3) (3.2.21) Micele maran gyltas man mæg gebetan her on þisum life, many more guilts man may repair here on this life, and þone Hælend gegladian, þæt he ne þurfe þrowian on and the Savior gladden that he not need suffer on ðam toweardan life.

the future life

‘A man may compensate for many more sins here in this life and thus gladden the Savior so that he will not have to suffer in the future life’

(ÆHom 16 157) (3.2.22) Petrus cwæð: nis nu ofer þis naht, þæt þurfe beon

Peter said: not-is now over this nothing, that need be andswared swa openre gesceadwisnesse

answered so open sagacity

‘Peter said, »There is nothing about it now that need be answered with such open sagacity«’

(GDPref and 4 (C) 46.336.28) Example (3.2.16) figures high on the scale of subjectivity as the speaker is shown to have some involvement even though he is only reporting the lack of necessity which is dictated by a third party. The meaning of ge ne þyrfen, paraphrasable as ‘you needn’t’ or ‘you don’t have to’ could be labeled as prototypical among the negated examples of the deontic necessity of þearf.

Note that given the authority and involvement of the speaker and despite the fact that the main verb is not a typical activity verb, the sentence verges on performativity in that the subject is positively urged to stop mourning.

Example (3.2.17) is representative of quite a large group of 24 occurrences which contain the second person singular subject, hence they are expected to be the most subjective and to have the sense of necessity strongest. The reality only partly lives up to the expectations. (3.2.17) has no overt marker of the involvement of the speaker who, however, undoubtedly speaks from a position of authority and generates the necessity himself. The status of such use of þearf is only marginal, though. This can be gathered from the fact that for the speaker to be interpreted as the source of necessity in a given instance of þearf, an explicit indication must be provided by the context. Christ, designated as the speaker in (3.2.17), is clearly in a position to lay obligations, which is yet

enhanced by the clause forþon þe ic eom mid þe, which precisely elucidates the grounds of the lack of necessity and points back to the speaker as the source of the modality. What drags the necessity force down the scale is the non-agentivity of the main verb following þearft. As is clear from Table 12, ondrædan is one of the three most frequent verbal complements of þearf in general and the most frequent complement of þearf with the meaning of PE/deontic necessity. A common denominator of those three verbs in Table 12 is that none of them is an activity verb, a trend which runs through the majority of the occurrences of þearf (in the group of the 118 instances of þearf, an activity verb follows the pre-modal 39 times). The meaning of þearf in (3.2.17) approximates to that in (3.2.16) to the extent that it could be paraphrased as ‘you needn’t/you don’t have to.’ It is also of significance that in this case the source of the necessity can be linked to the authority of the speaker.

Further, (3.2.18) is of interest since it has a third person singular subject as well as the meaning that can be seen essentially along the same lines as those in (3.2.16) and (3.2.17). There is no speaker involvement and the necessity is conditioned by the official regulations, which renders this example more objective. It is noteworthy, however, that the main verb is at least an activity verb. (3.2.19) goes further down the cline on the virtue of its being a pseudo-exhortation of which COATES (1983: 35) says that “such examples seem weak in their imperative force [...].” Formally the sentence belongs to the class of

“impersonal constructions which have oblique arguments, but which lack a nominative subject” (WARNER 1993: 122), example (3.2.19) being one of 18 appearances of this construction that I find in the DOE Corpus. The logical subject of (3.2.19) is us, which indicates that the speaker counts himself as a member of his audience with a view to implying that he is subject to the same external necessity. Purely a rhetorical device, it fails to carry any strong modality.

The only non-negative example among the ones that I have selected as the best illustrations of the cline, (3.2.20) has þearf with the meaning referred to by TELLIER (1962: 114) when he observes that “dans quelques contextes son sens apparaît comme étonnamment proche de celui qu’aurait SCULAN” [in some contexts the sense of the verb appears surprisingly close to that of

Verbal complement Meaning

wenan ondrædan tweogan Other Total

PE/deontic necessity 8 13 7 90 118

other meanings 17 11 6 75 109

Table 12.Frequency of verbal complements of þearf

SCULAN — translation J.N.]. This assessment tallies with MOLENCKI’S (2002:

12) observation that “þearf often expressed the idea of compulsion, or where the inevitability of consequence is expressed, and is thus synonymous with sceal in the sense of modern ‘should, ought to’.” With the third person singular subject, a past reference and the necessity which is a concomitant of the legal regulations, (3.2.20) is located toward the periphery of the cline, though.

Subsequently, example (3.2.21) is a member of quite a numerous set of occurrences with a clearly future reference. It implies the necessity to suffer from some unfavorable conditions in the future unless appropriate precautions are undertaken in the present. Note that the future necessity derives from the generally accepted system of religious rules which are not to be questioned.

Obviously, with the necessity projected far upon the future, (3.2.21) is devoid of any performative value and subjectivity and hence figures very low on the cline. Finally, the bottom of the cline is occupied by examples such as (3.2.22), which can be seen to contain an inanimate subject and a passive construction.

With the Agonist being demoted, the obligative force of (3.2.22) turns out very weak. Moreover, (3.2.22) fails to unequivocally locate the source of the necessity. Given this, it seems most likely that the speaker reports a necessity arising out of vague external circumstances. If this interpretation is accepted, we have to do with an instance of þearf extending beyond mere deontic necessity to general PE necessity.

Once the occurrences of þearf of deontic necessity have been shown to vary in the amount of necessity and subjectivity, the next step is to balance these occurrences against the parameters set out by COATES (1983: 36) in a way no different than in the case of agan. The aim of this task is to make an attempt at determining the force of the modality of the particular instances of þearf by laying them out on a matrix. The parameters need to be rearranged slightly so that they will reflect the true nature of the semantics and syntax of þearf. The final order, after some necessary adjustment, is presented below:

(a) second person subject, (b) speaker involvement,

(c) speaker has authority over subject/Agonist*

(d) verb is agentive,

(e) paraphrasable by ‘it is obligatory/absolutely essential that’

(f) animate subject/Agonist occurring as oblique NP*

(g) paraphrasable by ‘it is important that’, (h) paraphrasable by ‘it is not necessary that’, (i) inanimate subject.

* the second option applies to þearf in impersonal constructions

(adapted from COATES 1983: 36)

As can be seen, feature (h) has been added as it is implicated in the bulk of the negative occurrences of þearf.¹⁰ Also, it will not go unnoticed that feature (e), an indicator of strong necessity, is virtually absent from the meaning of þearf, yet it is preserved in the matrix as it makes comparisons with the matrix of agan more easily available.

An initial observation that can be made on the basis of Figure 13 is that the examples of þearf spread over the matrix somewhat less consistently than those of agan and PDE must (for the former, see Figure 12 for the latter, see COATES

1983: 37). The most subjective examples of þearf, for instance, such as (3.2.16) and (3.2.17), are responsive to the features typical of the low extreme of the cline, e.g. feature (h). Likewise, the only feature-(i)-positive example, (3.2.22), is at the same time sensitive to feature (d) which is indicative of stronger necessity. It is worth emphasizing that such a trend is not noticeable in the case of agan and must. Further, it can be noticed that examples (3.2.16) and (3.2.17) stand out by virtue of embracing the crucial features of the strong end of the cline. Considering that overall there are 31 cases of a second person pronoun used with a present indicative form of þearf with the sense of deontic necessity, I conclude that subjective contexts with þearf have quite a strong foothold in Old English. The remaining occurrences fail to show any significant internal divisions and thus can be lumped together as the residents of the skirt and periphery of the cline. Importantly, they make up the majority of all the instances of the verb.

Also, two points should be given some consideration in relation to Figure 13. Firstly, it cannot escape anyone’s attention that none of the

10 Feature (h) is indicative of much weaker and less intensive modality than feature (e) even though the former is only a negative variant of the latter. As shown by HORN(1989) and DEHAAN

(1997), however, negation of strong necessity results in weak modality equivalent to permission-not-to.

a b c d e f g h i

(3.2.16) + + + – – + – + –

(3.2.17) + + + – – + – + –

(3.2.18) – – – + – + – + –

(3.2.19) – – ? – – + – + –

(3.2.20) – – – – – + + – –

(3.2.21) – – – – – + – + –

(3.2.22) – – + + – – + – +

strong necessity/subjectivity weak necessity/subjectivity

(core) (periphery)

Figure 13. Matrix to show gradience of deontic necessity of þearf

examples of þearf yields a paraphrase ‘it is obligatory/absolutely essential that.’ Instead, the nature of the deontic necessity of þearf is best described in terms of features (g), i.e. paraphrasable by ‘it is important that,’ and (h), i.e.

paraphrasable by ‘it is not necessary that.’ The former applies to the affirmative instances whereas the latter is preferred by the negative ones. The deontic necessity which underlies the use of þearf is then not to be taken as very forceful. Witness examples (3.2.20) and (3.2.22) where it is relatively easy to overcome the force of the necessity. In the explicitly negative examples, e.g. (3.2.16), the subject’s freedom of choice is not significantly constrained either in that they are given an option: to act or not to act (to mourn or not to mourn in (3.2.16)). The final decision rests with the subject, a natural consequence of there being no necessity for the subject to act. The second point to be commented on centers on the inanimate subjects of þearf.

As can be seen in Figure 13, þearf+infinitive expands its use to the degree that it accepts inanimate subjects. Even if this innovation verges on negligibility in frequency terms (five times total, including four cases of deontic necessity and one case of indeterminacy between PE/deontic and PI necessity), in light of my discussion of wide and narrow scope with deontic modality in section 3.1.5, þearf proves a pre-modal mature enough to enter wide scope constructions. It should be remembered that, as shown by NORDLINGER and TRAUGOTT (1997) and TRAUGOTT and DASHER (2005), such a development is implemented only after the use of a deontic modal in conjunction with narrow scope is firmly established. With the Agonist being unexpressed, example (3.2.22) provides an illustration of wide scope with þearf.