Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 31:2 (2014) ► pp.159–191

Lexical expansion in the HAVE and BE perfect in Dutch

A constructionist prototype account

| University of Gothenburg

This article investigates lexical expansion in the HAVE and BE perfect in Dutch. It is known from previous research that early perfects show more lexical restrictions than their modern counterparts. The aim of this article is to uncover how perfects change their collocational preferences over time. The present study tackles this issue taking a quantitative corpus perspective. The empirical basis for this study is a sample of HAVE and BE perfects taken from a corpus of Dutch legal texts (1250–1800). The sample is analyzed using the method of diachronic distinctive collexeme analysis. The statistical analysis indicates that both perfect constructions show fine-grained shifts in collocational preferences over time. The observed lexical expansion has the following properties: it proceeds (a) gradually, (b) through semantically related verb classes, (c) away from a prototype. These properties are accounted for making use of insights from prototype theory and construction grammar.

Keywords: collostructional analysis, transitivity, perfect, lexical expansion, construction grammar, semantic compatibility, grammaticalization, prototype
Published online: 5 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.2.01cou
References
de Acosta, Diego
2011 Rethinking the genesis of the Romance periphrastic perfect. Diachronica 281. 143–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 The Old English have-perfect and its congeners. Journal of English Linguistics 411. 133–164.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald
2008 Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1968 Mutations of linguistic categories. In Winfred Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 85–94. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny
1996 Aspect and temporal ordering: A contrastive analysis of Dutch and English. Amsterdam: VU University Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & David Eddington
2006 A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language 821. 323–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Östen Dahl
1989 The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 131. 51–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003 Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, vol. 21, 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
2010 Language, usage and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carey, Kathleen
1994 Pragmatics, subjectivity and the grammaticalization of the English perfect. San Diego: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976 Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspects and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coussé, Evie
2008 Motivaties voor volgordevariatie: Een diachrone studie van werkwoordsvolgorde in het Nederlands. Ghent: Ghent University dissertation. DOI logo.Google Scholar
2010 Een digitaal compilatiecorpus historisch Nederlands. Lexikos 201. 123–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 On ambiguous past participles in Dutch. Linguistics 491. 611–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 The grammaticalization of the have perfect in Dutch: A corpus study of contextual extension and semantic generalization. Language Sciences 361. 103–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Devin M. Casenhiser & Nitya Sethuraman
2004 Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 151. 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch
2004 Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 91. 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2007 Coll.analysis 3.2. A program for R for Windows 2.x.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn
1997 Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C
2003 Cross-linguistic perspectives on syntactic change. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 529–551. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2006 Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 21. 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P
2004 Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its components and its fringes, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson
1980 Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 561. 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kern, Johan Hendrik
1912 De met het participium praeteriti omschreven werkwoordsvormen in ‘t Nederlands. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
1995 Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google 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, 237–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Perfects, resultatives, and auxiliaries in Earlier English. Linguistic Inquiry 411. 389–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej Jaxontov
1988 The typology of resultative constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions, 3–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1902 Die Umschreibung des Perfektums im Deutschen mit haben und sein. Munich: Verlag der k. Akademie.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David
1978 Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 41. 157–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijnenburg, Willy J.J. & Tanneke H. Schoonheim
1998 Het Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek: De geschiedenis van een project. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 1121. 152–164.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1987 The strategy of chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin. In Martin Harris & Paola Ramat (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries, 193–223. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2012 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reenen, Pieter Th. van & Maaike Mulder
1993 Een gegevensbank van 14de-eeuwse Middelnederlandse dialecten op de computer. Lexikos 31. 259–281.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F
1989 Perfect auxiliary variation as a function of transitivity and Aktionsart. In Joseph Emonds, P.J. Mistry, Vida Samiian & Linda Thornburg (eds.), Proceedings from the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL), 254–266. Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar
1990 The unaccusative hypothesis and the history of the perfect auxiliary in Germanic and Romance. In Henning Andersen & Konrad Koerner (eds.), Historical linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL), 461–488. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993a  To be or not to be in Dutch: A cognitive account of some puzzling perfect auxiliary phenomena. In Robert S. Kirsner (ed.), Beyond the Low Countries, 85–96. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
1993b Split intransitivity in German and Dutch: Semantic and pragmatic parameters. In Rosina Lippi-Green (ed.), Recent developments in Germanic linguistics, 97–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Towards a cognitive explanation of perfect auxiliary selection: Some modal and aspectual effects in the history of German. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 71. 129–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella
2000 Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 761. 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 81. 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2006 Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony: A comment. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 21. 257–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1975 Hierarchies in the genitive of negation. The Slavic and East European Journal 191. 123–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C
1972 A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel
1982 The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance. In Nigel Vincent & Martin Harris (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb, 71–96. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Yoon, Soyeon
2012 Constructions, semantic compatibility and coercion: An empirical usage-based approach. Houston: Rice University dissertation.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Broekhuis, Hans
2021. Chapter 11. The rise of the periphrastic perfect tense in the continental West Germanic languages. In The Perfect Volume [Studies in Language Companion Series, 217], ► pp. 262 ff. DOI logo
Coussé, Evie
2018. Chapter 4. Grammaticalization, host-class expansion and category change. In Category Change from a Constructional Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language, 20], ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Dekalo, Volodymyr
2021. Exploring relative degrees of auxiliarization empirically in German modal constructions with wissen and verstehen. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Fonteyn, Lauren & Stefan Hartmann
2016. Usage-based perspectives on diachronic morphology: A mixed-methods approach towards English ing-nominals. Linguistics Vanguard 2:1 DOI logo
Gillmann, Melitta
2018. Manner of motion and semantic transitivity. In Reorganising Grammatical Variation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 203], ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin, Bert Cappelle & Ilse Depraetere
2021. Modality in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Larsson, Ida
2021. Chapter 12. On the emergence of auxiliary selection in Germanic. In The Perfect Volume [Studies in Language Companion Series, 217], ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo
Sommerer, Lotte
2019. Van Goethem, Kristel, Muriel Norde, Evie Coussé & Gudrun Vanderbauwhede (eds.). (2018).Category Change from a Constructional Perspective. Constructions and Frames 11:2 ► pp. 317 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.