Cover not available
Part of
Figurative Thought and Language in Action
Edited by Mario Brdar and Rita Brdar-Szabó
[Figurative Thought and Language 16] 2022
► pp. 113–140

Reconsidering accounts of the grammaticalization of auxiliaries

The cases of be-going-to and have-perfect

 | University of Koblenz-Landau
The present paper re-addresses two standard examples of grammaticalization research, i.e. the development of the be-going-to form and the evolution of the English have-perfect. Analyzing these two forms in communion is motivated by the fact that they express conceptual patterns that are mirror images of each other and by the observation that they have developed, historically speaking, largely in an in-tandem constellation. The specific perspective taken in the paper explores several dimensions of the broader conceptual context of their auxiliation: (i) the “lexical preface” of grammaticalization processes, (ii) conceptual patterns associated with the notions that constitute the “meaning” of the respective forms, and (iii) the interaction with the development of other items in the respective domains. These aspects have received only scarce attention in grammaticalization research.
Keywords: metaphor, metonymy, motion, possession, grams, collocational patterns
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Elements of the wider conceptual background of grammaticalization processes
    • 2.1The “lexical preface” to grammaticalization stories: The example of be-going-to
    • 2.2Associated notions and their collocational patterns: The example of the have-perfect
    • 2.3Interaction with the development of other items in the respective domains
  • 3.Summary and conclusions
  • Note
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 July 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.16.05pol
References (37)
References
ARCHER. A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. [[URL]].
Beattie, J. (1788). The theory of language. In two parts. Part I: Of the origin and general nature of speech. Part II: Of universal grammar. A New Edition, enlarged and corrected. London: printed for A. Strahan; T. Cadell in the Strand; and W. Creech, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Eckardt, R. (2006). Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsness, J. (1994). On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English. ICAME Journal, 18, 5–25.Google Scholar
(1997). The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1968 [1957]). A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–55. In F. R. Palmer (Ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952–59. London: Longman.Google Scholar
FLOB. The Freiburg LOB Corpus of English (1999). Compiled by Christian Mair et al. ICAME Collection of English Language Corpora, 2nd ed. CD-ROM. The HIT Centre. University of Bergen, Norway.
Givón, T. (1971). Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 394–415.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.). (2006). Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. (1993). Auxiliaries. cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(1997). Possession. cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. (1999 [1991]). Compiled under the direction of Matti Rissanen. ICAME Collection of English Language Corpora, 2nd ed. CD-ROM. The HIT Centre. University of Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003[1993]). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, T. (2001). Auxiliation. An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. (1997). Be/have + past participle: The choice of the auxiliary with intransitives from late middle to modern English. In M. Rissanen, M. Kytö, & K. Heikkonen (Eds.), English in transition: Corpus-based studies in linguistic variation and genre styles (pp. 19–85). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1995). Possession and possessive constructions. In J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 51–79). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Ch. (1995 [1982]). Thoughts on grammaticalization. München/ Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Lindquist, H., & Mair, Ch.(Eds.). 2004. Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Ch. (2004). Corpus linguistics and grammaticalization theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In H. Lindquist, & Ch. Mair (Eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English (pp. 121–150). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, H., & Heine, B. (Eds.) (2011). The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. (2006). The decline of be to and the rise of be going to in Late Modern English: Connection or coincidence? In C. Houswitschka, G. Knappe, & A. Müller (Eds.), Anglistentag 2005 Bamberg. Proceedings (pp. 515–529). Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
Núñez-Pertejo, P. (1999). Be going to + infinitive: Origin and development. Some relevant cases from the Helsinki Corpus. Studia Neophilologica 71(2), 135–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED online (2013). Oxford English dictionary online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [[URL]].
Pickbourn, J. (1789). A dissertation on the English verb; Principally intended to ascertain the precise meaning of its tenses, and point out the tenses of the latin and french verb which correspond to them; in order to facilitate the Attainment of an accurate knowledge of those three languages, and display the superior excellence of the english verb, with respect to simplicity, copiousness, and perspicuity. London: Printed by J. Davis, for G.G.J. & J. Robinson, Paternoster Row, & G. Kearsley, Fleet Street.Google Scholar
Polzenhagen, F. (2008). The so-called tense-aspect system of the English verb: A cognitive-functional view. In H.-G. Wolf, L. Peter, & F. Polzenhagen (Eds.), Focus on English: Linguistic structure, language variation and discursive use. Studies in honour of Peter Lucko (pp. 219–246). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
(2014). What did 18th-century grammarians know about grammaticalization? Notes on the early history of a current idea. In F. Polzenhagen, Z. Kövecses, S. Vogelbacher, & S. Kleinke (Eds.), Cognitive explorations into metaphor and metonymy (pp. 225–239). Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2017). Seltsame Tempora? Eigentümliche Aspekte? Gelegentliche Gedanken zum have-Perfekt und zur be-going-to-Form aus kognitiv-funktionaler Sicht. In: S. Kersten & M. Reif (Eds.), Neuere Entwicklungen in der angewandten Grammatikforschung (pp. 117–159). Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Radden, G. (1996). Motion metaphorized: The case of coming and going. In E. H. Casad (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics in the redwoods. The expansion of a new paradigm in linguistics (pp. 423–458). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (1999). WordSmith tools Version 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th.(Eds.) (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a cognitive semantics. Vol. I: Concept structuring systems. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H.-J. (2006). An Introduction to cognitive linguistics. 2nd rev. ed. London: Longman.Google Scholar