Article In:
Functions of Language: Online-First Articles

Emerging inferentials in English?

A study of the evolving uses of the present perfect and have to

ORCID logo | Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3
This paper investigates the evolution of the present perfect and have to in English to assess whether these forms may be considered emerging inferentials. Combining quantitative and qualitative analyses in diachrony and synchrony, it argues that the two forms may show incipient signs of the grammaticalization of inferential evidentiality. The present perfect is already fully grammaticalized in its morphology, and highly frequent. Inferential evidentiality is not part of its meaning, but a slightly rising implicature. The semi-auxiliary have to is less grammaticalized morphologically, but possesses a distinct function that is traditionally called ‘epistemic’, but is rather ‘logical inferential’. This function is still infrequent, but has been rising steadily in the past decades. Whether these changes will lead to a fully-developed evidential paradigm is unpredictable, but this study confirms that evidentiality is a necessary notion to describe English grammar and its evolution accurately.
Keywords: inferential, evidentiality, present perfect, have to , grammaticalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.State of the art
    • 2.1A definition of inferential evidentiality
    • 2.2The grammaticalization of inferential evidentiality
    • 2.3The inferential uses of the English present perfect and have to
  • 3.Two case studies: The present perfect and have to as emerging inferentials?
    • 3.1Inferential evidentiality and the present perfect
      • 3.1.1A semantic analysis
      • 3.1.2Is the present perfect an emerging inferential?
    • 3.2Inferential evidentiality and the semi-auxiliary have to in English
      • 3.2.1A semantic analysis
      • 3.2.2 Is have to an emerging inferential?
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (63)
References
Aarts, Bas. 2011. Oxford modern English grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1980. Evidence and the declarative sentence. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The grammaticalization of evidentiality. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 605–613. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2018. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.). 2003. Studies in evidentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Algeo, John. 2006. British or American English? A handbook of word and grammar patterns. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries. In Gunter Brettschneider & Christian Lehmann (eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung: Sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler, 292–299. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2009. Evidentiality: Linguistic categories and grammaticalization. Functions of Language 16(1). 9–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. The origin and development of quasimodal have to in English. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 10). Amsterdam, 12–16 August 1991.
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corre, Éric. 2006. Quelques réflexions sur le Present Perfect Puzzle. In Claude Delmas (ed.), Complétude, cognition, construction linguistique, 195–210. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Viveka Velupillai. 2013. The perfect. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. DOI logo ([URL]; accessed 16 June 2024).
de Haan, Ferdinand. 2001. The relation between modality and evidentiality. Linguistische Berichte 91. 201–216.Google Scholar
. 2013. Coding of evidentiality. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), WALS Online (v2020.3) [Data set]. Zenodo. DOI logo ([URL]; accessed 16 June 2024).
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. Tense in English: Its structure and use in discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Lena & Carita Paradis. 2009. Evidentiality in language and cognition. Functions of Language 16(1). 5–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1994. The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order. Neophilologus 781. 137–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 1986. Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. In Wallace L. Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Advances in discourse processes, 168–87. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
2018. Where do evidentials come from? In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), 124–147.Google Scholar
Fryd, Marc. 2015. The narrative present perfect in English. In Juan Rafael Zamorano-Mansilla, Carmen Maíz, Elena Domínguez & María Victoria Martín de la Rosa (eds.), Thinking modally: English and contrastive studies on modality, 185–202. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 71. 222–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2003. Evidentiality in Turkic. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), 273–291.Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate. 2011. Semantics, 2nd edn. London: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee (eds.). 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larreya, Paul. 2009. Towards a typology of modality in language. In Raphael Salkie, Pierre Bussutil & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), Modality in English: Theory and description, 9–29. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landis, Richard J. & Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 331. 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2013. Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English. In Marta Carretero & Jorge Arús Hita (eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality, 95–115. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, Jouko. 2000. The perfect-aspectual, temporal and evidential. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Empirical approaches to language typology, 365–384. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2013. Contractions of English semi-modals: The emancipating effect of frequency. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg PhD thesis.
Mair, Christian & Geoffrey Leech. 2006. Recent changes in English syntax. In Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 318–342. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maisak, Timur. 2021. Structural and functional variations of the perfect in the Lezgic languages. In Kristin M. Eide & Marc Fryd (eds.), The perfect volume: Papers on the perfect, 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Marta Carretero & Aurelija Usonienė. 2022. Evidentiality in English. In Björn Wiemer & Juana I. Marin-Arrese (eds.), Evidential marking in European languages: Toward a unitary comparative account, 57–94. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Richard. 1991. Words and worlds: On the linguistic analysis of modality. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mélac, Eric. 2014. L’évidentialité en anglais-approche contrastive à partir d’un corpus anglais-tibétain. Paris: Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle — Paris 3 PhD dissertation. Available online at [URL]
. 2022. The grammaticalization of evidentiality in English. English Language & Linguistics 26(2). 331–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2023. The pragmatic differences between grammatical and lexical evidentiality: A corpus-based study of Tibetan and English. Journal of Pragmatics 2101. 143–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2024. The links between evidentiality, modality, and grammaticalization. Studies in Language 48(3). 513–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2005. Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings: A new perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 16(4). 677–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2017. Evidentiality reconsidered. In Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Gerda Hassler & Marta Carretero (eds.), Evidentiality revisited: Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives, 57–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1987. The English verb, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Plato. 339 BC. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Originally published with English translation in 1914 (translation by Harold N. Fowler). Loeb Classical Library 36. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ritz, Marie-Eve A. 2010. The perfect crime? Illicit uses of the present perfect in Australian police media releases. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12). 3400–3417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanchez-Stockhammer, Christina. 2015. Can we predict linguistic change? An introduction. Studies in variation, contacts and change in English 161. Helsinki: VARIENG. [URL] (accessed 16 June 2024).
Serpault, Pauline. 2017. Tentative d’analyse énonciative de have to. Caen: Université de Normandie PhD dissertation.
Squartini, Mario. 2016. Interactions between modality and other semantic categories. In Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 50–67. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Berkeley Linguistics Society (1988). 389–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2000. The grammaticalization of the present perfect in English: Tracks of change and continuity in a linguistic enclave. In Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds.), Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English, 329–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Alexandra D’Arcy. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28(1). 47–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1996. Comparaison des systèmes médiatifs de quatre dialectes tibétains (tibétain central, ladakhi, dzongkha et amdo). In Zlatka Guentchéva (ed.), L’énonciation médiatisé, 195–213. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. From etymology to historical pragmatics. In Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language: A millennial perspective, 19–50. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westney, Paul. 1995. Modals and periphrastics in English: An investigation into the semantic correspondence between certain English modal verbs and their periphrastic equivalents. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. 2004. Grammaticalization and the semantic landscape of English and German modal verbs. Athens, GA: University of Georgia PhD dissertation.
2009. Auditory evidentiality in English and German: The case of perception verbs. Lingua 119(7).1083–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2010. Semantic determinism and the grammaticalisation of have to in English: a reassessment. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11(1). 32–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar