Cover not available
Part of
Grammatical Change in English World-Wide
Edited by Peter Collins
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 67] 2015
► pp. 43–64

At the crossroads of change

Possession, periphrasis, and prescriptivism in Victoria English

| University of Victoria
British and Southern hemisphere varieties of English have been shifting towards have got for stative possession, but North American varieties favour have. At the same time, have is implicated in a critical transatlantic divide, requiring do-support and resisting contraction in North America. Drawing on newspaper data from Victoria, Canada, this chapter examines possession from 1858–1935, overlapping the window during which have got began to diffuse markedly in British varieties. Have got is concentrated in these materials in negatives and interrogatives, conflict sites for do-support. This raises the question of what happens when two changes collide, and suggests that the North American preference for have may have been driven by the participation of stative have in the shift to do periphrasis. Keywords. Victoria English; Canadian English; stative possession; periphrasis; do-support; negation
Published online: 24 February 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.67.03dar
References
Axelsson, Margareta Westergren
1998 Contraction in British Newspapers in the Late 20th Century. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Barman, J.
1984 Growing up British in British Columbia. Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999 The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Brock University Map Library
1999 Outline map of Canada. St. Catharines, ON. [URL] (28 June 2013).
Chambers, Jack K.
2004 Canadian Dainty: The rise and decline of Briticisms in Canada. In The Legacy of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects, Raymond Hickey (ed.), 224–241. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. English in Canada. In Varieties of World English, Tometro Hopkins (ed.) London Continuum International
Crowell, Thomas L.
1955 Predating have to, must? American Speech 30(1): 68–69.Google Scholar
1959  Have got, a pattern preserver. American Speech 34(4): 280–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David
1998 Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. IV: 1776-1997, Suzanne Romaine (ed.), 92–329. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Gerhard
1949 Die Syntax der ‘Do’-Umschreibung bei ‘have’, ‘be’, ‘ought’ und ‘used (to)’, auf Sprachgeschichtlicher Grundlage Dargestellt. Brunswick: Georg Westermann Verlag.Google Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan
2008 New-Dialect Formation in Canada: Evidence from the English Modal Auxiliary System [Studies in Language Companion Series 97]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar
1953 The Auxiliary ‘Do’: The Establishment and Regulation of Its Use in English. Göteborg: Stockhom, Almqvist, Wiksell.Google Scholar
Fort Victoria Journal
1846-1850 Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, b.226/a/1. Edited and transcribed by G. Brazier, F. Gentz & J. Lutz. [URL] (25 June 2013).
Fowler, Henry Watson
1927 A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, Henry Watson & Fowler, Francis George
1931 The King’s English. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth, Campbell, Lyle, Hay, Jennifer, Maclagan, Margaret, Sudbury, Andrea & Trudgill, Peter
2004 New Zealand English. Its Origins and Evolution. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew
2001 Small Town Values, Big City Vowels: A Study of the Northern Cities Shift in Michigan. Durham NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle
1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian
1999 ‘Agile’ and ‘uptight’ genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget L.
2005 ‘We’ve got our own little ways of doing things here’: Cross-variety variation, change and divergence in the English stative possessive. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, University of Moncton.
Jespersen, Otto
1961 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Part IV Syntax. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony
1989 Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3): 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred
2000 Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
2001 Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 2: Social Factors. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lee, Jackie F.K. & Collins, Peter
2004 On the usage of have, dare, need, ought, and used to in Australian English and Hong Kong English. World Englishes 23(4): 501–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
2003 Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961-1992. In Modality in Contemporary English, Roberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug & Frank Palmer (eds), 223–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian
2006 Twentieth-Century English. History, Variation, and Standardization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Corrine
2011 The Northern Cities Shift in Chicago. Journal of English Linguistics 39(2): 166–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko S.
1996 The founder principle in creole genesis. Diachronica 13(1): 83–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Gerald
2004 The negation of lexical have in conversational English. World Englishes 23(2): 299–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noble, Shawn
1985  To have and have got . Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 14, Georgetown University.
Quinn, Heidi
2009 Downward reanalysis and the rise of stative have got. In Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory, Paola Crisma & Giuseppe Longobardi (eds), 212–230. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Alienability and stative have in New Zealand English. In Grammatical Change: Theory and Description, Rachel Hendery & Jennifer Hendriks (eds), 49–63. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rice, Wallace
1932  Get and got . American Speech 7(4): 280–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian G.
1985 Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3(1): 21–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1921 Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York NY: Harcourt Brace and Co.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada
Census 2006. Community Profiles. [URL] (21 September 2010).
Strevens, Peter
1972 British and American English. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik
2012 Colloquialization and not-contraction in nineteenth-century English. In Middle and Modern English Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 50], Manfred Markus, Yoko Iyeiri, Reinhard Heuberger & Emil Chamson (eds), 191–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A.
2003 ‘Every place has a different toll’: Determinants of grammatical variation in cross-variety perspective. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 531–554. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taglimaonte, Sali A. & D’Arcy, Alexandra
2007 The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28: 47–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., D’Arcy, Alexandra & Jankowski, Bridget
2010 Social work and linguistic systems: Marking possession in Canadian English. Language Variation and Change 22(1): 149–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Smith, Jennifer
2006 Layering, competition and a twist of fate: Deontic modality in dialects of English. Diachronica 23(2): 341–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel
1991 Negation in English Speech and Writing: A Study in Variation. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
2001 On the irrelevance of prestige, stigma and identity in the development of New Zealand English phonology. New Zealand English Journal 15: 42–46.Google Scholar
2004 New-dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter, Gordon Elizabeth, Lewis, Gillian & Maclagan, Margaret
2000 Determinism in new-dialect formation and the genesis of New Zealand English. Journal of Linguistics 36(2): 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter, Nevalainen, Terttu & Wischer, Ilse
2002 Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English. English Language and Linguistics 6(1): 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trueman, A.
2009 Playing the Game: The Education of Girls in Private Schools on Vancouver Island. MA thesis, University of Victoria.
Visser, Fredricus T.
1963-1973 An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Brook, Marisa
2023.  As if, as though, and like in Canadian English. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English 44:3 ► pp. 381 ff. DOI logo
Hirota, Tomoharu
2020. Diffusion of do. In Late Modern English [Studies in Language Companion Series, 214], ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Roeder, Rebecca, Sky Onosson & Alexandra D’Arcy
2018. Joining the Western Region: Sociophonetic Shift in Victoria. Journal of English Linguistics 46:2 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 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.