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. 397–438

Chapter 16
From have-omission to supercompounds

A wealth of English perfects

| University of Poitiers
This paper adopts an historical perspective to shed light on syntactic patterns exhibiting have-omission or have-doubling in a language – English – where the forms in question have gone largely unreported over the centuries, or have tended to be discarded as ‘non-standard’ by prescriptive grammarians. At least one subtype of supercompounds investigated here is reported for the first time in this paper. Explanations for the attested patterns involve e.g. prescriptivism, a universal tendency to avoid the (near-) adjacency of identical grammatical structures, and the normative pressure to ban several occurrences of have. In a comparison with cognate structures in closely related languages, semantic traits of these constructions are identified, e.g. irrealis (have-omission), resultative, and experiential (supercompounds). Nevertheless, a remainder of the examples are not captured by these semantic descriptions, but possibly result from functional overlap between modal and perfect constructions, or “copying” of morphosyntactic features across constructions in a discourse.
Keywords: counterfactual, have-less, have-omission, horror aequi, irrealis, modal pluperfect, prescriptivism, supercompound, tense-copying
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1. Have-less non-finite Perfect constructions
  • 2.From the modal pluperfect to supercompound perfects
  • 3.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.217.16fry
References (62)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1991. How much of the German tense system is ‘Aspect’ and ‘Aktionsart’? Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6: 132–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Event structure accounting for the emerging periphrastic tenses and the passive voice in German. In Explanation in Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 84], Garry W. Davis & Gregory Iverson (eds), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Serial verbs constructions in a typological perspective. In Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds), 1–68. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 1995. Omission of the Primary Verbs be and have in London Teenage Speech – A Sociolinguistic Study. PhD dissertation, University of Bergen.
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2009. The Morphology of English Dialects: Verb-formation in Non-standard English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apothéloz, Denis. 2010. Le passé surcomposé et la valeur de parfait existentiel. Journal of French Language Studies 20(2): 105–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 1997. Syntax and morphology. In The Edinburgh History of the Scots Language, Charles Jones (ed.), 335–377. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Bullokar, William. 1586. Bref Grammar for English. London: Edmund Bollifant.Google Scholar
Close, Joanne. 2004. English Auxiliaries: A Syntactic Study of Contraction and Variation. PhD dissertation, University of York.
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Declerck, Renaat. 1991. Tense in English: Its Structure and Use in Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2000. Combining English auxiliaries. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], Olga Fischer, Annette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 111–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. Non-inflecting verbs in Modern English. Unpublished communication: AUTOUR DU VERBE / AROUND THE VERB: Colloque en l’honneur de Claude Delmas Université de Paris 3, 21–22 September 2012. <[URL]>
. 2012b. On the history of English (and) word classes. Plenary talk given at ICEHL17, Zurich, 20 August. <[URL]>
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2005. Norwegian Modals [Studies in Generative Grammar 74]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2016. Finiteness, inflection, and the syntax your morphology can afford. In Finiteness Matters: On Finiteness-related Phenomena in Natural Languages [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 231], Kristin Melum Eide (ed.), 121–168 Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenn, Peter. 1987. A Semantic and Pragmatic Examination of the English Perfect. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 2. 1066–1476, Norman Blake (ed.), 207–408. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade Ans, Koopman Willem & van der Wurff, Wim. 2001. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fryd, Marc. 2017. Some remarks on have-less perfect constructions in English. In Aorists and Perfects: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives [Cahiers Chronos 29], Marc Fryd & Pierre-Don Giancarli (eds), 203–244. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez Diaz, V. 2003. Adjective comparison in Renaissance English. SEDERI: Journal of the Spanish Society for English Renaissance Studies 13: 87–100.Google Scholar
Grant, William & Dixon, James Main. 1921. Manual of Modern Scots. London: CUP.Google Scholar
Hall, F. 1882. On the English perfect participle used infitivally. The American Journal of Philology 3(11): 297–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2010. Attitudes and concerns in eighteenth-century English. In Eighteenth-Century English. Ideology and Change, Raymond Hickey (ed.), 235–268. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson Beatty, Judith & Buss, Helen M. (eds). 2003. Undelivered Letters to Hudson’s Bay Company Men on the Northwest Coast of America, 1830–57. Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Hay, Jennifer & Gordon, Elizabeth. 2008. New Zealand English: Morphosyntax. In Varieties of English: The Pacific and Australia, Kate Burridge & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 305–340. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1912. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Leipzig: G.B. Teubner.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2002. Optional ha in Swedish and Norwegian. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 5: 67–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keightley, Thomas. 1866. The Shakespeare-Expositor: An Aid to the Perfect Understanding of Shakespeare’s Plays. London: J.R. Smith.Google Scholar
Keromnes, Yvon. 2015. Il faut sauver le soldat Reichenbach: Des formes simples, composées et surcomposées en allemand, anglais et français. Presented at the Grammatical Aspect and Aktionsart workshop, held at the Université de Nancy, 26 May.
Kern, Johan H. 1912. De met het participium praeteriti imschreven werkwoordsformen in’t Nederlands. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran. 2003. On nonoccurring have in Modern English. Studia Neophilologica 75: 11–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, Ida. 2014. Double supine. Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal 1. <[URL]> (3 November 2020).
Lowth, Robert. 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar. London: A. Millar.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles Fillmore & D. Terence Langendoen (eds), 96–113. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Michael, Ian. 1970. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Molencki, Rafal. 1999a. A history of the English perfect infinitive. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 34: 91–121.Google Scholar
. 1999b. A History of English Counterfactuals. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
. 2007. Proscriptive prescriptivists: On the loss of the ‘pleonastic’ perfect infinitive. In Insights into Late Modern English, Marina Dossena & Charles Jones (eds), 175–196. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Moore Smith, George Charles. 1910. The omission of ‘have’ before a past participle. The Modern Language Review 5: 346–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musan, Renate & Rathert, Monika. 2011. Tense across Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. In Complex Constructions, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 42–140. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Phillipps, Kenneth C. 1970. Jane Austen’s Language. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1984. The modals story retold. Studies in Language 8(3): 305–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1926. A Grammar of Late Modern English, Part II: The Parts of Speech, Section II: The Verb and the Particles. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Priestley, Joseph. 1761. The Rudiments of English Grammar. London.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. 1973. Modern literary Scots: Fergusson and after. In Lowland Scots: Occasional Papers n°2, Adam Jack Aitken (ed.), 38–55. Edinburgh: Association for Scottish Literary Studies.Google Scholar
Rogers, Nicholas. 2002. The middling orders. In A Companion to Eighteenth-Century Britain, Harry Thomas Dickinson (ed.), 172–182. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2001. Mechanisms of syntactic change: The rise and fall of prepositional constructions in late Modern English. Paper presented at the Later Modern English conference , Edinburgh.
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2002. Regional variation in the English verb qualifier system. English Language and Linguistics 6: 17–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Thomas. 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: 129–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siddiqi, Daniel & Carnie, Andrew. 2012. The English modal had. Snippets 25: 18–20.Google Scholar
Squartini, Mario. 1998. Verbal periphrases in Romance. Aspect, actionality, and grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tulloch, Graham. 1980. The Language of Walter Scott. A Study of his Scottish and Period Language. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Vol. III, 2nd half. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 1998. Morphosyntactic Parasites as Underspecified Heads: On the Double Supine Construction. Licentiate thesis, University of Umeå.Google Scholar
. 2001. Dressing up for vocabulary insertion: the parasitic supine. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19.1: 199–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The Syntax of Tenselessness. On Copying Constructions in Swedish. PhD dissertation, University of Umeå.
Wiklund, A-L. 2007. The Syntax of Tenselessness: Tense/Mood/Aspect-agreeing Infinitivals [Studies in Generative Grammar 92]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zandvoort, Reinard Willem. 1932. On the perfect of experience. English Studies 14(1–6): 11–20. DOI logoGoogle 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.