Chapter published in:
Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond
Edited by Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 352] 2020
► pp. 592–613

Calquing a quirk

The perfect in the languages of Europe

| University of Texas at San Antonio
The have-perfect, found almost exclusively in western Europe, has been identified as a “European quirk, unparalleled elsewhere in the world” (Cysouw 2011: 425). The spread of this highly marked construction to adjacent varieties provides us with an exceptional opportunity to observe the conditions under which this calquing occurred, and to assess the role of external as well as internal factors in the adoption of this structure in closely-related, distantly-related, and unrelated languages. After a general overview of the distribution of have-perfect calques across Europe, three representative instances are presented: Old High German and Old Saxon, Portuguese, and Czech. These examples illustrate, respectively, three important principles of social conditioning connected with the grammatical calquing: the role of prestige in the operation of ‘roofing’, the linguistic repercussions of political and confessional realignment, and the capacity of social motivation to outweigh internal linguistic factors.
Keywords: perfect, stratification, Charlemagne Sprachbund, roofing, confessional realignment, sociolinguistic motivation, West Germanic, Ibero-Romance, Arabic, West Slavic
Published online: 23 September 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.352.17dri
References

References

Ammann, Andreas
2002 Arabic verbal inflection: An essay in de-exoticizing. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55. 311–339.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan
(ed.) 1998 Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, eurotyp , 20–3). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Banniard, Michel
2004 Germanophonie, latinophonie et accès à la Schriftlichkeit (Ve-VIIIe siècle). In Dieter Hägermann, Wolfgang Haubrichs & Jörg Jarnut (eds.), Akkulturation: Probleme einer germanisch-romischen Kultursynthese in Spätantike und frühem Mittelalter, 340–358. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beale-Rivaya, Yasmine
2006 Mozarabic: Culture, contact, language and diglossia. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile
1960 [1971] ‘Être’ et ‘avoir’ dans leurs fonctions linguistiques. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 55. 113–134. [Reprinted in Problèmes de linguistique générale 1966 Vol. 1. Paris: Gallimard. 187–207] Translated by Mary Elizabeth Meek as: The linguistic functions of ‘to be’ and ‘to have’. Problems in general linguistics 1971 Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press, 163–179.Google Scholar
Berger, Tilman
2009 Tschechisch-deutsche Sprachbeziehungen zwischen intensivem Kontakt und puristischer Gegenwehr. In Christel Stolz (ed.), Unsere sprachlichen Nachbarn in Europa: Die Kontaktbeziehungen zwischen Deutsch und seinen Grenznachbarn, 133–156. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuvalay-Haak, Martine
1997 The verb in Literary and Colloquial Arabic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael
2011 Quantitative explorations of the world-wide distribution of rare characteristics, or: the exceptionality of northwestern European languages. In Horst J. Simon & Heike Wiese (eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, 411–432. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Viveka Velupillai
2013 Perfects. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.) 2013 http://​wals​.info​/chapter​/68. (April 3 2007.)
Dickey, Stephen M.
2011 The varying role of po- in the grammaticalization of Slavic aspectual systems: Sequences of events, delimitatives, and German language contact. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 19. 175–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 See, now they vanish: Third-person perfect auxiliaries in Old and Middle Czech. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 21. 77–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dieninghoff, Josef
1904 Die Umschreibungen aktiver Vergangenheit mit dem Participium praeteriti im Althochdeutschen. Bonn: Georgi.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget
2013 Sources of auxiliation in the perfects of Europe. In Freek Van de Velde, Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière (eds.), On multiple source constructions in language change (Special issue of Studies in Language 37/3). 599–644. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Republished in 2015 in Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière, and Freek Van de Velde (eds.), Benjamins Current Topics, 79, 129–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.]Google Scholar
2016 Perfects in Contact on the Iberian Peninsula: Ibero-Romance, Arabic, and the Charlemagne Sprachbund. In Carlota de Benito Moreno & Álvaro Octavio de Toledo y Huerta (eds.), En torno a ‘haber’: Construcciones, usos y variación desde el latín hasta la actualidad (Studia Romanica et Linguistica 46), 281–326. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2017 Language contact in Europe: The periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath
(eds.) 2013 The World Atlas of Language Structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://​wals​.info. (May 25 2014.)
Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader
2003 Arabic perfect and temporal adverbs. In Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Perfect explorations, vol. II, 69–99. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerhards, Agnès
1992 L’abbaye de Cluny. Bruxelles: Editions Complexe.Google Scholar
Harre, Catherine E.
1991 Tener + past participle. A case study in language description. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1998 How young is Standard Average European? Language Sciences 20. 271–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien. La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques, vol. II, (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20/2), 1492–1510. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johannisson, Ture Gustaf
1945 Hava och vara. Som tempusbildande hjälpverb i de nordiska språken. Lund: C.W. K. Gleerup & Leipzig: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kinberg, Naphtali
1992 Semi-imperfectives and imperfectives: A case study of aspect and tense in Arabic participial clauses. Lingua 86. 301–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mattoso Câmara, Joaquim
1972 The Portuguese language. Translated by Anthony J. Naro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine
1917/1970 Caractères généraux des langues germaniques. Paris: Hachette. [Translated by William Dismukes as General characteristics of the Germanic languages 1970 Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press.]Google Scholar
Norberg, Dag Ludvig
1943 Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des Frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala: Lundequistiska Bokhandeln & Leipzig: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Oubouzar, Erika
1974 Über die Ausbildung der zusammengesetzten Verbformen im deutschen Verbalsystem. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 95. 5–96. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pontius, Jason
1997 Language codification and the perception of otherness: The case of Czech and German. In Kora Singer, Randall Eggert & Gregory Anderson (eds.), Panel on linguistic ideologies in contact, 1997, Chicago, Ill.. Papers from the panels on linguistic ideologies in contact, universal grammar, parameters and typology, the perception of speech and other acoustic signals (Chicago Linguistic Society 33), 101–108. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Molina, Javier
2010 La gramaticalización de los tiempos compuestos en español antiguo: Cinco cambios diacrónicos. Madrid: Universidad Autonoma de Madrid dissertation.Google Scholar
Squartini, Mario, & Pier Marco Bertinetto
2000 The simple and compound past in Romance languages. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, eurotyp 20–6), 403–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sten, Holger
1973 L’emploi des temps en portugais moderne. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Thielmann, Philipp
1885 Habere mit dem Part. Perf. Pass. Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 2. 372–423, 509–549.Google Scholar
Thomas, George
2003 Puristic attitudes to German phraseological and syntactic calques in the Slavic languages of the former Habsburg empire. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes 45. 201–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman
1988 Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wiemer, Björn & Markus Giger
2005 Resultativa in den nordslavischen und baltischen Sprachen (LINCOM Studies in Language Typology 10). Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Wright, Roger
1982 Late Latin and early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Cairns.Google Scholar
Wünsch, Thomas
2008 Deutsche und Slawen im Mittelalter: Beziehungen zu Tschechen, Polen, Südslawen und Russen. Munich: Oldenbourg. CrossrefGoogle Scholar