Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:02:58.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of the English be + V-ende/V-ing periphrasis: from emphatic to progressive marker?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2014

KRISTIN KILLIE
KRISTIN KILLIE*
Affiliation:
Department of Foreign Languages and Translation, University of Agder, N-4604 Kristiansand, Norwaykristin.killie@uia.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article discusses the grammaticalization of the be + V-ende/V-ing periphrasis as a progressive marker. On the basis of quantitative data, it is claimed that the periphrasis started out as an emphatic alternative to the simple tenses. Its length, unusualness and optionality made it well suited as an emphatic marker. In the Early Modern English period (c. 1500–1700), the periphrasis was reinterpreted as an emphatic progressive marker. The prototypical – so-called focalized – use of the construction gradually became obligatory (from the nineteenth century onwards). This caused the focalized use of the periphrasis to lose its emphasis, while the so-called durative use of the construction has remained optional and emphatic to this day, like the subjective uses of the periphrasis. The article also explores the question of influence from Latin on the periphrasis in the Old English period (i.e. up to c. 1100), concluding that any such influence is likely to have consisted in a reinforcing effect.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , November 2014 , pp. 361 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I wish to thank ELL's anonymous referees, editor Wim van der Wurff and Mona Markussen for helpful feedback.

References

Sources

VARIENG (The Research Unit for Variation and Change in English). 1991. The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Diachronic Part. In The ICAME Corpus Collection on CD-ROM. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities.Google Scholar
Additional Middle English corpus:Google Scholar
Banks, Mary Macleod (ed.). 1904, 1905. Alphabet of Tales: An English 15th century translation of the Alphabetum Narrationum of Etienne de Besançon, from additional MS. Add. 25719 of the British Museum ( = EETS, OS 126–127). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
Davies, John Silvester (ed.). 1856. An English chronicle of the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, and Henry VI written before the year 1471; with an appendix, containing the 18th and 19th years of Richard II and the Parliament at Bury St. Edmund's, 25th Henry VI and supplementary additions from the Cotton. ms. chronicle called ‘Eulogium’ ( = Camden Society 64). London.Google Scholar
Furnivall, Frederick James (ed.). 1969. The English Conquest of Ireland: A.D. 1166–1185: Mainly from the Expugnatio Hibernica of Giraldus Cambrensis: Part I, the Text ( = EETS, OS 107). New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Herrtage, Sidney J. H. (ed.). 1880–1. Lyf of the noble and Crysten prynce, Charles the Grete, Translated from the French by William Caxton ( = EETS, OS 36–37). London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Octavia (ed.). 1884. The right plesaunt and goodly historie of the foure sonnes of Aymon. Englisht from the French by William Caxton, and printed by him about 1489. Ed. from the unique copy, now in the possession of Earl Spencer, with an introduction by Octavia Richardson ( = EETS, ES 45). London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Warner, George F., Sir (ed.). 1889. The buke of John Mandeuill, being the travels of Sir John Mandeville, knight, 1322–1356: a hitherto unpublished English version from the unique copy (Egerton ms. 1982) in the British Museum ( = Roxburghe Club 119). Westminster: Nichols & Sons.Google Scholar
All the texts in the additional Middle English corpus are available at the University of Michigan's Humanities Text Initiative (HTI). Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse. www.hti.umich.eduGoogle Scholar

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.). 2006. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Amenta, Luisa. 2003. Perifrasi aspettuali in greco e in latino: Origini e grammaticalizzazioni. Milan: Francoangeli.Google Scholar
Anderson, John (ed.). 1982. Language form and linguistic variation: Papers dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnaud, René. 1998. The development of the progressive in 19th century English: A quantitative survey. Language Variation and Change 10 (2), 123–52.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2000. The progressive in Romance, as compared with English. In Dahl (ed.), 559–604.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Ebert, Karen H. & de Groot, Casper. 2000. The progressive in Europe. In Dahl (ed.), 517–58.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blatt, Franz. 1957. Latin influence on European syntax. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague 11, 3–69.Google Scholar
Braaten, Bjørn. 1967. Notes on continuous tenses in English. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 21, 167–80.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere Dale & Pagliuca, William (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Dahl, Östen. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13 (1), 51–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 1995. On the foregrounded progressive in American conversational narrative: A new development? In Riehle & Keiper (eds.), 229–45.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen (ed.). 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. Tense in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 2000. Combining English auxiliaries. In Fischer, Rosenbach & Stein (eds.), 111–47.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer & Diewald (eds.), 103–20.Google Scholar
Elspass, Stephan, Langer, Nils, Scharloth, Joachim & Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.). 2007. Germanic language histories ‘from below’ (1700–2000). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Wilkins, David. 1998. The knowing ear: An Australian test of universal claims about the semantic structure of sensory verbs and their extension into the domain of cognition. Arbeitspapier 32, Neue Folge. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani & Pitkänen, Heli (eds.). 2002. The Celtic roots of English. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette & Stein, Dieter (eds.). 2000. Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 1998. Grammaticalisation, textuality and subjectivity: The progressive and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. In Stein & Sornicola (eds.), 21–49.Google Scholar
Freckmann, Norbert. 1995. The progressive and adverbial collocations: corpus evidence. In Riehle & Keiper (eds.), 255–67.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina & Dury, Richard (eds.). 2008. English historical lingistics 2006: Selected papers form the Fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14); Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006, vol. I: Syntax and morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37 (6), 1043–68.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1994. Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In Pagliuca (ed.), 255–87.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer & Diewald (eds.), 83–101.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2003. On contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27 (3), 529–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The genesis of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel. 1998. The expressivity of grammar: Grammatical devices expressing emotion across time. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jendraschek, Gerd. 2006. Basque in contact with Romance languages. In Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds.), 143–62.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–49. A modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. [Reprinted 1961, 1965, 1970, 1974; London: George Allen & Unwin]Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2004. Subjectivity and the English progressive. English Language and Linguistics 8 (1), 25–46.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2006. Internal and external factors in language change: present participle converbs in English and Norwegian. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 107 (4), 447–69.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2007. On the history of verbal present participle converbs in English and Norwegian and the concept of change from below. In Elspass, Langer, Scharloth & Vandenbussche (eds.), 149–62.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2008. The English progressive and PROG imperfective drift. In Gotti, Dossena & Dury (eds.), 69–88.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2012. Old English–Late British language contact and the English progressive. In Stenroos, Mäkinen & Særheim (eds.), 117–40.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin & Swan, Toril. 2009. The grammaticalization and subjectification of adverbial -ing clauses (converb clauses) in English. English Language and Linguistics 13 (3), 337–63.Google Scholar
Klegraf, Josef & Nehls, Dietrich (eds.). 1988. Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel's 60th birthday. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2008. The progressive in Modern English: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization and related changes. PhD dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization, vol. 2. Rev. edn. Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9.Google Scholar
Mittendorf, Ingo & Poppe, Erich. 2000. Celtic contacts of the English progressive? In Tristram (ed.), 117–45.Google Scholar
Mossé, Fernand. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germanique, vol. 1: Introduction: ancien germanique – vieil-anglais. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno. 1960. A Middle English syntax, vol. 1: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nehls, Dietrich. 1974. Synchron-diachrone Untersuchungen zur Expanded Form im Englischen: Eine structural-funktionale Analyse. Munich: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Nehls, Dietrich. 1988. On the development of the grammatical category of verbal aspect in English. In Klegraf & Nehls (eds.), 173–98.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Kahlas-Tarkka, Lena (eds.). 1997. To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nickel, Gerhard. 1966. Die expanded Form im Altenglischen: Vorkommen, Funktion und Herkunft der Umschreibung beon/wesan + Partizip präsens. Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag.Google Scholar
Pagliuca, William (ed.). 1994. Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pertejo, Paloma Nuñez. 1996. On the origin and history of the English prepositional type a-hunting: A corpus-based study. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 9, 105–17.Google Scholar
Poppe, Erich. 2002. The ‘expanded form’ in Insular Celtic and English: Some historical and comparative considerations, with special emphasis on Middle Irish. In Filppula, Klemola & Pitkänen (eds.), 237–70.Google Scholar
Poppe, Erich. 2003. Progress on the progressive? A report. In Tristram (ed.), 65–84.Google Scholar
Pratt, Lynda & Denison, David. 2000. The language of the Southey–Coleridge circle. Language Sciences 22, 401–22.Google Scholar
Riehle, Wolfgang & Keiper, Hugo (eds.). 1995. Anglistentag 1994 Graz: Proceedings. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ritt, Nikolaus, Schendl, Herbert, Dalton-Puffer, Christiane & Kastovsky, Dieter (eds.). 2006. Medieval English and its heritage: Structure, meaning and mechanisms of change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rostila, Jouni. 2006. Storage as a way to grammaticalization. Constructions. www.constructions-online.de/articles/345: Digital Peer Publishing.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1997. On the panchronic core meaning of the English progressive. In Nevalainen & Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.), 419–29.Google Scholar
Scheffer, Johannes. 1975. The progressive in English. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota S. 1997. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. Aaron. 2007. The development of the English progressive. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19 (3), 205–41.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. The progressive in 19th-century English: A process of integration. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter & Sornicola, Rosanna (eds.). 1998. The virtues of language: History in language, linguistics and texts. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja, Mäkinen, Martti & Særheim, Inge (eds.). 2012. Language contact and development around the North Sea. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1982. Some aspects of the history of the be + ing construction. In Anderson (ed.), 427–74.Google Scholar
Sørensen, Knud. 1957. Latin influence on English syntax. The classical pattern of modern Western civilization: language. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Copenhague 11, 131–55.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1891–8. A new English grammar: Logical and historical. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tristram, Hildegard (ed.). 2000. The Celtic Englishes II. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Tristram, Hildegard (ed.). 2003. The Celtic Englishes III. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2006. Grammaticalisation and language contact in the history of English: the evolution of the progressive form. In Ritt, Schendl, Dalton-Puffer & Kastovsky (eds.), 165–87.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar