Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:23:02.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a Cognitive Explanation of Perfect Auxiliary Variation: Some Modal and Aspectual Effects in the History of Germanic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Thomas F. Shannon
Thomas F. Shannon
Affiliation:
Department of GermanUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley, CA 94720–3243 [tshannon@garnet.berkeley.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper introduces a cognitive framework for perfect auxiliary selection (HAVE versus BE) in Germanic based on transitive (HAVE) and mutative (BE) prototypes as affected by lexical aspect and transitivity parameters (Hopper and Thompson 1980). The phenomenon of “HAVE-switch” is exemplified in the history of several Germanic languages. Here numerous modal and aspectual factors shift the perfect auxiliary with mutatives from the customary BE to HAVE. This shift is then explained in terms of the proposed model. The contexts in question are all seen to reduce the mutativity of a clause (the effective attainment of the resultant state in the patient subject) and hence the motivation for using BE. Several direct parallels between HAVE-switch in Germanic and aspectual usage in Russian are discussed and their motivation in terms of this approach shown.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Fall 1995 , pp. 129 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1995

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Brecht, Richard D. 1985. The form and function of aspect in Russian. Issues in Russian morphosyntax, ed. by Flier, Michael S. and Brecht, Richard D., 9–34. Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, L. S. R. and Churchill, E. L.. 1986. A comprehensive French grammar. 3rd edn. rev. by Price, Glanville. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Centineo, Giulia. 1986. A lexical theory of auxiliary selection in Italian. Davis Working Papers in Linguistics, 1.1–35.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Patricia Anne and Oprendek, Donald Vincent. 1973. Making progress in Russian: A second year course. Lexington, MA: Xerox.Google Scholar
Dowry, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Fagan, Sarah M. B. 1986. The unaccusative hypothesis and a reflexive construction in German and Dutch. Germanic linguistics II, ed. by Antonsen, Elmer H. and Hock, Hans Henrich, 21–34. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Dowry, David. 1992. The syntax and semantics of middle constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forsyth, J. 1970. A grammar of aspect: Usage and meaning in the Russian verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fridén, Georg. 1948. Studies on the tenses of the English verb from Chaucer to Shakespeare with special reference to the late sixteenth century. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1985. Von sein. oder nicht sein: Zur Grammatik des Pronomens sich. Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, ed. by Abraham, Werner, 223–54. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannisson, Ture. 1945. Hava och vara som tempusbildande hjälpverb i de nordiska språken. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Kern, J. H. 1912. De met het participium praeteriti omschreven werkwoords- vormen in 't Nederlands. Amsterdam: Johannes Mueller.Google Scholar
Kress, Bruno. 1982. Isländische Grammatik. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Magnusson, Erik Rudolf. 1939. Syntax des Prädikatsverbums im Mittelnieder- deutschen von der ältesten Zeit bis zum Anfang des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts. (Lunder germanistische Forschungen, 8.) Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1905. Die Umschreibung des Perfektums im Deutschen mit haben und sein. Abhandelungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1. Klasse, 22. Band, 1. Abteilung, 161–210.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally A. 1987a. Toward a transitive prototype: Evidence from some a typical English passives. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 422–34.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally A. 1987b. Towards a cognitive model of transitivity. Dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats and Brorström, Sverker. 1987. The be/have variation with intransitives in English. With special reference to the Late Modern Period. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F. 1987. On some recent claims of relational grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 247–62.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F. 1988. Relational grammar, passives, and dummies in Dutch. Papers from the Third Interdisciplinary Conference on Netherlandic Studies, ed. by Broos, Ton, 237–68. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F. 1989a. Perfect auxiliary variation as a function of transitivity and Aktionsart. Proceedings from the Western Conference on Linguistics. WECOL 88, ed. by Emonds, Joseph et al. , 1.254–66. Fresno: Department of Linguistics, California State UniversityGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F. 1989b. Review of Rydén and Brorström 1987. Language 65. 676–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F. 1990. The unaccusative hypothesis and the history of the perfect auxiliary in Germanic and Romance. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Andersen, Henning, 461–88. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F. 1993a. To be or not to be in Dutch: A cognitive account of some puzzling perfect auxiliary phenomena. The Low Countries and beyond, ed. by Kirsner, Robert S., 85–96. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F. 1993b. Split intransitivity in German and Dutch: Semantic and pragmatic parameters. Recent developments in Germanic linguistics, ed. by Lippi-Green, Rosina, 97–113. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1987. The unaccusative hypothesis vs. lexical semantics: Syntactic vs. semantic approaches to verb classification. NELS 17. 641–61.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66.221–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1993. A synopsis of role and reference grammar. Advances in role and reference grammar, ed. by Van Valin, Robert D. Jr., 1–164. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie. 1987. Are there unaccusative verbs in Dutch? NELS 17.Google Scholar