ABSTRACT
Stoffel’s, Zeitlin’s (etc.) and also Visser’s main interest is in the description of the data, on the basis of which they hint at possible causes of the change. Lightfoot is specifically interested in providing an explanation for change within restrictive and falsifiable theory of grammar. In this respect Lightfoot’s approach, working as he does within the restrictive framework of the Extended Standard Theory, is more fruitful, provided one does not fall into the trap of misinterpreting data to suit one’s theory. The re-interpretation of NP to V was also helped by another factor, which could not have assisted the re-analysis of for NP to V. Because of loss of inflexions in late Old English, early Middle English, it was no longer possible to distinguish between dative and accusative case forms, either in NPs or in pronouns. This chapter provides an explanation for the rise of the for NP to V construction both as a ‘benefactive’ and as a ‘subject’ construction.
