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. 291–318

Chapter 12
On the emergence of auxiliary selection in Germanic

| Østfold University College
This paper is concerned with the development of auxiliary selection in Germanic, i.e. the alternation between have and be in perfects depending on the type of lexical verb. It is argued that all of the Germanic languages first develop a perfect of the modern English type, with have as the only auxiliary used with all types of verbs. This early Germanic have-perfect disallowed positional past time adverbials in the present perfect, and perfect doubling (see Larsson & Brandner to appear). In a later development, German, Dutch, and Danish developed a new perfect with auxiliary selection, a more extended use of the present perfect, and perfect doubling. It is suggested that this development is a consequence of the further grammaticalization of the auxiliary into a semantically weaker element, spelled out as either have or be (cf. Kayne 1993). The emergence of the new perfect leads to competition between two types of perfects, and to a gradual spread of the new perfect which can be observed in the historical records.
Keywords: auxiliary selection, Germanic, grammaticalization, perfect, perfect doubling, resultative
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Distinguishing perfects from resultative constructions
  • 3.Early Germanic have-perfects
  • 4.Emergence and spread of the be-perfect
  • 5.Reanalysis and its consequences
    • 5.1English and German temporal auxiliaries
    • 5.2The emergence of the new perfect in German: Past adverbials and doubling
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.217.12lar
References (60)
References
Arkiv for Dansk Litteratur. Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab og Det Kongelige Bibliotek. <[URL]> (2 November 2020).
Alexiadou, Artemis & Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2008. Structuring participles. In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds), 33–41. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Barbiers Sjef, Brandner, Ellen, Koeneman, Olaf, Lekakou, Marika, Poletto, Cecilia, Salzmann, Martin & Schaden, Gerhard. 2010. Mesocomparative syntax of perfect doubling. Presented at 4th European Dialect Syntax Meeting Donostia, 21–23 June.
Bentley, Delia & Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 2003. Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity. Lingua 114: 447–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bjerrum, Anders, 1931–1932. Nogle Sprogprøver fra Fjolde. Danske Folkemaal V: 113–127.Google Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 591–656.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans. 2021. The rise of the periphrastic perfect tense in the continental West Germanic languages. In The Perfect Volume: Papers on the Perfect [Studies in Language Companion Series 217], Kristin Melum Eide & Marc Fryd (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchwald-Wargenau, Isabel. 2012. Die doppelten Perfektbildungen im Deutschen: Eine diachrone Untersuchung. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Danske Ordbog. <[URL]> (2 November 2020).
Dentler, Sigrid. 1997. Zur Perfekterneuerung im Mittelhochdeutschen. Die Erweiterung des Zeitreferentiellen Funktionsbereichs von Perfektfügungen. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Diderichsen, Paul. 1944. Perfektparticipium – Supinum – Verbaladjektiv i Dansk og Svensk. In Festskrift till Jöran Sahlgren, K. G. Ljunggren (ed.), 263–283. Lund: University of Lund.Google Scholar
Dieninghoff, Joseph. 1904. Die Umschreibungen aktiver Vergangenheit mit dem Participium Praeteriti im Althochdeutschen. PhD dissertation, University of Bonn.
Eide, Kristin Melum & Åfarli, Tor Anders. 1999. The syntactic disguises of the predication operator. Studia Linguistica 53:155–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1997. The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Falk, Cecilia. 2002. Modalt perfekt i Olaus Petris. En Swensk Cröneka. In Svenska språkets historia i Östersjöområdet, Svante Lagman, Stig Örjan Ohlsson & Viivika Voodla (eds), 167–178 Tartu: University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Gillmann, Melitta. 2015. Auxiliary selection in closely related languages: The case of German and Dutch. In Auxiliary Selection: Gradience and Gradualness, Rolf Kailuweit & Malte Rosemeyer (eds), 333–358. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Perfektkonstruktionen mit Haben und Sein. Eine Korpusuntersuchung im Althochdeutchen, Altsächsischen und Neuhochdeutchen. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grønvik, Ottar. 1986. Über den Ursprung und die Entwicklung der aktiven Perfekt- und Plusquamperfektkonstruktionen des Hochdeutschen und ihre Eigenart innerhalb des germanischen Sprachraumes. Oslo: Solum Forlag.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Heltoft, Lars. 2011. Grammatik over det Danske Sprog. København: Dansk Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 29–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinat, Fredrik. 2021. The Swedish perfect and periphrasis. In The Perfect Volume: Papers on the Perfect [Studies in Language Companion Series 217], Kristin Melum Eide & Marc Fryd (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, Anagnostopoulou, Elena & Izvorski, Roumyana. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael J. Kenstowicz (ed.), 189–238. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1997. The present perfect as an epistemic modal. In Proceedings of SALT VII, Aaron Lawson (ed.), 222–239. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi, Priestley, Joel, Hagen, Kristin, Åfarli, Tor A. & Vangsnes, Øystein A. 2009. The Nordic Dialect Corpus – An Advanced Research Tool. NEALT Proceedings Series 4: 73–80.Google Scholar
Johannisson, Ture. 1945. Hava och vara som tempusbildande hjälpverb i de nordiska språken. Lund: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2001. The syntax of complex tenses. The Linguistic Review 18:125–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1989. Facets of Romance past participle agreement. In Dialect Variation on the Theory of Grammar, Paola Benincà (ed.), 85–104. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica 47: 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kern, Johan H. 1912. De met het participium praeteriti omschcreven werkwoordsvormen in ’t Nederlands. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1992. The present perfect puzzle. Lanugage 68: 525–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koeneman, Olaf, Lekakou, Marika & Barbiers, Sjef. 2011. Perfect doubling. Linguistic Variation 11: 35–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Karitskaya, Alyssa B. Wulf & Alan C. L. Yu (eds), 385–399. Berkeley CA: BLS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Susumu. 1999. Die historische Entwicklung der Perfektkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Laanemets, Anu. 2017. The choice of perfect auxiliary in contemporary Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. 49(2): 232–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, Ida. 2009. Participles in Time. The Development of the Perfect Tense in Swedish. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
. 2012. On the development of the perfect (participle). In Historical Linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 19th International Conference of Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 320], Ans M. C. van Kemenade & Nynke de Haas (eds), 191–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The have/be alternation in Scandinavian. Perfects, resultatives and unaccusative structure. In Auxiliary Selection: Gradience and Gradualness, Rolf Kailuweit & Malte Rosemeyer (eds). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, Ida & Brandner, Ellen. To appear. Tense recursion, perfect doubling and the grammaticalization of auxiliaries. In Functional Heads across Time: Syntactic Reanalysis and Change, Barbara Egedi & Veronika Hegedűs (eds). Oxford: OUP.
Litvino, Litvino P. & Radcenko, Vladimir. 1998. Doppelte Perfektbildungen in der deutschen Literatursprache. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.) 1988. Typology of Resultative Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCoard, Robert W. 1978. The English Perfect: Tense-Choice and Pragmatic Inferences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
McFadden, Thomas. 2007. Auxiliary selection. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 674–708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Alexiadou, Artemis. 2006. Pieces of the be perfect in German and Older English. In Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Donald Baumer, David Montero, & Michael Scanlon (eds), 270–278. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
. 2010. Perfects, resultatives, and auxiliaries in earlier English. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3): 389–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Nordic Dialect Corpus. <[URL]> (2 November 2020).
Oubouzar, Erika. 1974. Über die Ausbildung der zusammengesetzten Verbformen im deutschen Verbalsystem. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 95: 5–96.Google Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2003. The aspectual makeup of Perfect participles and the interpretations of the Perfect. In Perfect Explorations, Artemis Alexiadou, Monika Rathert & Arnim von Stechow (eds), 277–308. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyana & von Stechow, Arnim. 2004. On the present perfect puzzle. In Proceedings of NELS 34, Keir Moulton & Matthew Wolf (eds), Charleston NC: BookSurge Publishing.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1902. Die Umschreibung des Perfektums im Deutschen mit haben und sein. München: Verlag der k. Akademie.Google Scholar
Ritz, Marie-Eve. 2010. The perfect crime: A study of illicit adverbial combinations with the present perfect in Australian police media releases. Journal of Pragmatics 42(12): 3400–3417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte. 2014. Auxiliary Selection in Spanish: Gradience, Gradualness, and Conservation [Studies in Language Companion Series 155]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Björn. 2008. The Perfect Time Span. On the Present Perfect in German, Swedish and English [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 125]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapp, Christopher D. 2009. Syncope as the cause of Präteritumschwund: New data from an early new High German corpus. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21: 419–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F. 1995. Toward a cognitive explanation of perfect auxiliary variation: some modal and aspectual effects in the history of Germanic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 7(2): 129–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76: 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thestrup, Merle. 2000. Min kusine har haft hest – hun har også kommet af med den igen! – Om hjælpeverbet ‘at have’ som aspektuel mulighed i mundtlig diskurs. Nydanske Sprogstudier 26–27: 101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weijnen, Anthonius A. 1971. Schets van de geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Eitler, Tamás & Gábor Vadász
2021. Chapter 13. Language contact and competition in the periphrastic perfect in Early English. In The Perfect Volume [Studies in Language Companion Series, 217], ► pp. 320 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.