Cover not available
Part of
The Perfect Volume: Papers on the perfect
Edited by Kristin Melum Eide and Marc Fryd
[Studies in Language Companion Series 217] 2021
► pp. 261–290

Chapter 11
The rise of the periphrastic perfect tense in the continental West Germanic languages

| Meertens Institute, Amsterdam
This article adopts the traditional claim in Dutch linguistics that periphrastic perfect-tense constructions gradually developed out of copular-like constructions with have and be. It argues that this development was made possible by the introduction of two morphological rules. The first rule derives verbal (event-denoting) participles from adjectival (property-denoting) participles, which gave rise to periphrastic perfect-tense constructions with transitive and mutative intransitive verbs. At a later stage this rule was replaced by a rule (still productive in present-day Dutch) that derives verbal participles from verbal stems, as a result of which the periphrastic perfect tense spread to non-mutative intransitive verbs. The article concludes by showing that this account is superior to Coussé’s (2008) flexible user-based account within the constructionist framework, which rejects the categorial distinction between adjectival and verbal participles.
Keywords: language change, periphrastic perfect tense, adjectival and verbal participle, copular and semi-copular verb, perfect auxiliary, “double perfect” construction, generative grammar, construction grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The rise of the periphrastic perfect tense
  • 3.Theoretical background: Unaccusative and undative verbs
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1The transition from stage I to stage II
    • 4.2The transition from stage II to stage III
  • 5.Comparison with Coussé’s flexible user-based approach
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.217.11bro
References (46)
References
Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle & Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–251.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, van der Auwera, Johan, Bennis, Hans, Boef, Eefje, De Vogelaer, Gunther & van de Ham, Margreet. 2008. Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects), Vol. II. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Besten, Hans. 1985. The ergative hypothesis and free word order in Dutch and German. In Studies in German Grammar, Jindřich Toman (ed.), 23–65. Dordrecht: Foris. Reprinted in den Besten, Hans. 1989. Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. The Linguistic Review 24: 591–656.Google Scholar
van Bree, C. 1981. Hebben-constructies en datiefconstructies binnen het Nederlands taalgebied: Een taalgeografisch onderzoek. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.
Broekhuis, Hans. 1992. Chain-government: Issues in Dutch Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam/HIL.
. 2007. Subject shift and object shift. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10: 109–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Derivations and Evaluations: Object Shift in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Cornips, Leonie. 1994. Undative constructions. Linguistics 32: 173–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The verb krijgen ‘to get’ as an undative verb. Linguistics 50: 1205–1249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & Corver, Norbert. 2015. Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert & Vos, Riet. 2015. Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans & van Dijk, Kees. 1995. The syntactic function of the auxiliary of time. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1995, Marcel den Dikken & Kees Hengeveld (eds), 37–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1981. Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie. 1994. Syntactische variatie in het Algemeen Nederlands van Heerlen. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Coussé, Evie. 2008. Motivaties voor volgordevariatie. Een diachrone studie van werkwoordsvolgorde in het Nederlands. PhD dissertation, University of Ghent.
. 2013. The grammaticalization of the have perfect in Dutch – A corpus study of contextual extension and semantic generalization. Language Sciences 36: 103–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and Linkers. The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duinhoven, A. M. 1985. De deelwoorden vroeger en nu. Voortgang 6: 97–138.Google Scholar
1997. Middel-Nederlandse syntaxis: Synchroon en diachroon 2. De werkwoordgroep. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Kees. 1996. Perfect tense and the IPP-effect in early middle Dutch. In Language Change and Generative Grammar, Ellen Brandner & Gisella Ferraresi (eds). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Speech Acts: Syntax and Semantics 3, Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
De Haas, Wim & Trommelen, Mieke. 1993. Morfologisch handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming. ’s-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Romijn, Kirsten, Geerts, Guido, de Rooij, Jaap & van den Toorn, Maarten C. 1997. Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst, 2nd rev. edn. Groningen: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Ken Hale & Samuel Keyser (eds), 53–109. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity. Grammatical Relations in Government-binding Theory. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Horst, Joop. 1998. Over de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse hulpwerkwoorden. In Eerste Amsterdams colloquium Nederlandse Taalkunde, Wim Klooster, Hans Broekhuis, Els Elffers-Van Ketel & Jan Stroop (eds). Amsterdam: Leerstoelgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde.Google Scholar
. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis, Vols. 1 & 2. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.Google Scholar
Kern, Johan H. 1912. De met het participium praeteriti omschreven werkwoordsvormen in ’t Nederlands. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller.Google Scholar
Koeneman, Olaf, Lekakou, Marika & Barbiers, Sjef. 2011. Perfect doubling. Linguistic Variation 11: 35–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Linguistic Variation and Change 1: 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, Ida. 2009. Participles in Time. The Development of the Perfect Tense in Swedish. PhD dissertation, University of Göteborg.
Lenerz, Jürgen. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 5. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Alexiadou, Artemis. 2005. Counterfactuals and be in the history of English. Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics 12(1): 272–280.Google Scholar
. 2006. Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in the history of English. In Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 97], Jutta Hartmann & László Molnárfi (eds), 237–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Perfects, resultatives and auxiliaries in earlier English. Linguistic Inquiry: 389–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. 1923. Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter Berücksichtigung des urnordischen, 4th rev. edn. Halle: Max Niemeyer. <[URL]> (2 November 2020).
Paul, Hermann. 1902. Die Umschreibung des Perfektums im Deutschen mit haben und sein [Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 22, Abt.1]. München: Abhandlungen der Philosophisch-Philologischen Klasse der Königl.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 4: 157–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro . Linguistic Inquiry 17: 501–557.Google Scholar
Van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1983. The case of the German adjectives. In Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, Vol. 1, Frank Heny & Barry Richards, 223–252. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Wal, Marijke. 1986. Passiefproblemen in oudere taalfasen. Middelnederlands sijn/werden + participium praeteriti en de pendanten in het Gotisch, het Engels en het Duits. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

van de Poppe, Cora & Joanna Wall
2023. The pragmatic and rhetorical function of perfect doubling in the work of D. V. Coornhert. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 24:2 ► pp. 245 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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.