Article In:
Diachronica: Online-First Articles

Tracing the development of the perfect alternation in Early Modern English

ORCID logo | University of Zürich
ORCID logo | Kyoto University
On the basis of just under 5,050 examples of perfect constructions, this paper traces the development of the be:have -perfect alternation in English between the 1620s and 1750s. For a core group of 18 verbs, the study investigates the role that language-internal and language-external predictor variables played in the choice of auxiliary. Multifactorial modelling reveals that language-internal factors such as modality, negation, clause-type and tense are among the most important predictors favouring the choice of have as auxiliary; there is also some indication of diachronic, lexical and idiosyncratic variation within Early Modern English. A close investigation of perfects that combine both auxiliaries strengthens the view that ambiguity-avoidance did not play a major role in the loss of the be-perfect. The results of the multifactorial model suggest greater independence of negation and counterfactuality as factors than previously claimed. The study thus contributes a novel perspective on the demise of the be-perfect, with paradigmatic variability taking centre stage.
Keywords: be:have perfect alternation, generalized linear mixed model, syntactic loss, paradigmatic variability, lexical and individual variation, Early Modern English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background and research aim
    • 2.1The be:have perfect alternation in Early Modern English
    • 2.2Aims of the study
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1The EMMA corpus
    • 3.2Retrieving data on the be:have perfect alternation
    • 3.3Statistical modelling
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Summary statistics
    • 4.2Modelling variation and change: A multivariate approach
    • 4.3A close-up on have + been + past participle
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Sources
    • Electronic resources
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (33)
References
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2014. The decline of the be-perfect, linguistic relativity, and grammar writing in the nineteenth century. In Marianne Hundt (ed.) Late modern English syntax, 13–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Language between description and prescription. Verbs and verb categories in nineteenth-century grammars of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2021. AntConc 4.0 [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1994. The differentiation of statives and perfects in Early Modern English: The development of the conclusive perfect. In Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (eds.). Towards a standard English, 1600–1800, 135–170. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1997. The perfect and the preterite in comtemporary and earlier English. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fokkema, Marjorie & Achim Zeileis. 2019. Package “glmertree”. [URL] (accessed 8 December 2022).
Fokkema, Marjolein, Julian Edbrooke-Childs & Miranda Wolpert. 2020. Generalized linear mixedmodel (GLMM) trees: A !exible decision-tree method for multilevel and longitudinal data. Psychotherapy Research 311. 1–13.Google Scholar
Fokkema, Marjolein, Niels Smits, Achim Zeileis, Torsten Hothorn & Henk Kelderman. 2018. Detecting treatment-subgroup interactions in clustered data with generalized linear mixed effects model trees. Behavior Research Methods 501. 2016–2034. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2017. Frequencies in diachronic corpora and knowledge of language. In Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin & Simone Pfenninger (eds.). The changing English language: Psycholinguistic perspectives, 49–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hosaka, Michio, Shimpei Okuda & Kazutoshi Sasahara. 2020. Evolutionary forces in the development of the English perfect construction. In Andrea Ravignani (ed.), Chiara Barbieri, Molly Flaherty, Yannick Jadoul, Ella Lattenkamp, Hannah Little, Mauricio Martins, Katie Mudd & Tessa Verhoef (eds.). The evolution of language. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference, 168–170. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Hristov, Bozhil. 2020. Grammaticalising the perfect and explanations of language change. Have- and be-perfects in the history and structure of English and Bulgarian . Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2014. The demise of the being to V construction. Transactions of the Philological Society 112(2). 167–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “The next Morning I got a Warrant for the Man and his Wife, but he was fled”: Did sociolinguistic factors play a role in the loss of the be-perfect? In Tine Breban & Svenja Kranich (eds.). Lost in change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions, 199–233. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Geoffrey Leech. 2012. Small is beautiful: On the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.). The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 175–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1931. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part IV, Syntax, vol. 3, time and tense. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja & Tine Breban (eds.). 2021. Lost in change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1997. Be/have + past participle: The choice of the auxiliary with intransitives from late middle to modern English. In Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö & Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.). English in transition: Corpus-based studies in linguistic variation and genre styles, 16–85. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieberman, Erez, Jean-Baptiste Michel, Joe Jackson, Tina Tang & Martin A. Nowak. 2007. Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature 4491. 713–716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Artemis Alexiadou. 2006. Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in the history of English and Germanic. In Jutta M. Hartmann & László Molnárfi (eds.), Comparative studies in Germanic syntax: From Afrikaans to Zurich German, 237–262. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Perfects, resultatives, and auxiliaries in Earlier English. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3). 389–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2002. What happened to English? Diachronica 19(2). 217–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter & Lynn Anthonissen. 2020. Individuality in complex systems: A constructionist approach. Cognitive Linguistics 31(2). 184–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter, Lynn Anthonissen, Sara Budts, Enrique Manjavacas, Emma-Louise Silva, William Standing & Odile A. O. Strik. 2019. Early Modern Multiloquent Authors (EMMA): Designing a large-scale corpus of individuals’ languages. ICAME Journal 431. 83–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Roger Lass (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 31, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1991. The be/have variation in its crucial phases. In Dieter Kastovsky, (ed.). Historical English syntax, 343–54. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rydén, Mats & Sverker Brorström. 1987. The be/have variation with intransitives in English. With special reference to the late modern period. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Smith, K. Aaron. 2007. Language use and auxiliary selection in the perfect. In Raúl Aranovich (ed.). Split auxiliary systems: A cross-linguistic perspective, 255–270. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4). 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Harald Baayen. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 41. 273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Th. 1973. An historical syntax of the English language, Part 3, second half: Syntactical units with two or more verbs. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2022. Revisiting gradience in diachronic construction grammar: PPs and the complement-adjunct distinction in the history of English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 70(3). 301–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar