Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:12:50.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The extravagant progressive: an experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic [be Ving]1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2017

PETER PETRÉ
PETER PETRÉ*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Antwerp, Stadscampus, Prinsstraat 13 S.R.229, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgiumpeter.petre@uantwerpen.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article combines methodologies from corpus linguistics with an experimental-like setup more affiliated to psycholinguistic research. The resulting methodology allows us to gain more insight into cognitive motivations of language use in speakers from the past, and consequently to better assess their similarity to present-day speakers (the Uniformitarian Principle). One such cognitive motivation thought to be relevant in the early stages of grammatical constructionalization (grammaticalization) is covered by the evasive concept of ‘extravagance’ (i.e. the desire to talk in such a way that one is noticed). The methodology is tested on the Early Modern English extension of the [be Ving]-construction to progressive uses in present-tense main clauses. It is argued, on the basis of recurrent contextual clues, that [be Ving] in this novel use is motivated by extravagance. Interestingly, a comparison of two speaker/writer generations that are among the earliest to use this innovation with some frequency suggests that the encoding of extravagance shifted between them. At first, extravagance was signalled by coercion of the still stative semantics of [be Ving] into a progressive reading. In the second generation it had become an entrenched characteristic of the construction itself.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 21 , Special Issue 2: Cognitive approaches to the history of English , July 2017 , pp. 227 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The research reported on in this article was funded by the Special Research Fund (BOF) from the Flemish Government, and is part of the project Mind-Bending Grammars, funded by the ERC Horizon 2020 programme (Project ID 639008; www.uantwerpen.be/mind-bending-grammars/). Both institutions are hereby gratefully acknowledged. I also would like to thank two reviewers for their generous comments, from which the article has benefited a great deal.

References

Agresti, Alan. 2010. Analysis of ordinal categorical data, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Anthonissen, Lynn, Wit, Astrid De & Mortelmans, Tanja. 2016. Aspect meets modality: A semantic analysis of the German am-progressive. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28 (1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antti, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Glynn, Dylan, Hilpert, Martin & Zeschel, Arne. 2010. Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5 (1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social networks and historical sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1988. The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brône, G. & Oben, B.. 2015. InSight Interaction: A multimodal and multifocal dialogue corpus. Language Resources & Evaluation 49 (1), 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
De Wit, Astrid & Brisard, Frank. 2014. A Cognitive Grammar account of the semantics of the English present progressive. Journal of Linguistics 50 (1), 49–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, Patard, Adeline & Brisard, Frank 2013. A contrastive analysis of the present progressive in French and English. Studies in Language 37 (4), 846–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defour, Tine. 2007. A diachronic study of the pragmatic markers well and now: Fundamental research into semantic development and grammaticalisation by means of a corpus study. PhD thesis, Ghent University (https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/471375).Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21, 151–95.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. The meanings and uses of the progressive construction in an early eighteenth-century English network. In Curzan, Anne & Emmons, Kimberly (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language II, 131–74. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, Monika. 1992. The historical present tense in English literature: An oral pattern and its literary adaptation. Language and Literature 17, 77–107.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2009. Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5 (1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Granath, Solveig, & Wherrity, Michael. 2014. ‘I'm loving you – and knowing it too’: Aspect and so-called stative verbs. Rhesis: Linguistics and Philology 4 (1), 2–22.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2012. Corpus linguistics, theoretical linguistics, and cognitive/psycholinguistics: Towards more and more fruitful exchanges. In Mukherjee, Joybrato & Huber, Magnus (eds.), Corpus linguistics and variation in English: Theory and description, 41–63. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37, 1043–68.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2008. From locative to durative to focalized? The English progressive and ‘PROG imperfective drift’. In Maurizio Gotti, Dossena, Marina & Dury, Richard (eds.), English historical linguistics 2006, vol. 1: Historical syntax and morphology: Selected papers from the fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006, 69–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2003. Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In Francis, Elaine & Michaelis, Laura A. (eds.), Mismatch: Form–function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (CSLI Publications 115), 259–310. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15 (1), 1–68.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2013. LEON: Leuven English Old to New, version 0.3 (https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/396725).Google Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2016a. Grammaticalization by changing co-text frequencies, or why [be Ving] became the ‘progressive’. English Language and Linguistics 20 (1), 31–54 Google Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2016b. Unidirectionality as a cycle of convention and innovation: Micro-changes in the grammaticalization of be going to . Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30, 115–46.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter, Anthonissen, Lynn, Budts, Sara, Manjavacas, Enrique, William Standing, Emma-Louise Silva & Strik, Oscar. 2017. Early-Modern Multiloquent Authors (EMMA). Antwerp: Linguistics Dept (www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/EMMA).Google Scholar
Petré, Peter & Cuyckens, Hubert. 2008. Bedusted, yet not beheaded: The role of be-’s constructional properties in its conservation. In Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), Constructions and language change, 133–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter & Van de Velde, Freek. 2017. The dynamics of real-time grammaticalization. Unpublished MS.Google Scholar
Pons-Sanz, Sara. 2014. The language of Early English literature: From Cædmon to Milton. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena & Nurmi, Arja. 2011. Grammaticalization and language change in the individual. In Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 251–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2008. ‘All that he endeavoured to prove was. . .’: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogic contexts. In Cooper, Robin & Kempson, Ruth (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 143–77. London: Kings College.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 2010. Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In Cloutier, Robert A., Hamilton-Brehm, Anne Marie & Kretzschmar, William A. Jr (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language V: Variation and change in English grammar and lexicon: Contemporary approaches, 11–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van de Pol, Nikki. 2016. The development of the Absolute Construction in English: Between bird's eye view and magnifying glass. PhD thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Wright, Susan. 1994. The mystery of the modal progressive. In Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 467–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar