Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (5)
- Part of a Book (3)
- Article (2)
- Preprint (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (11)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (11)
Keywords
- Hilfsverb (11) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (2)
This study outlines the formation of the category of "modal verb" within the grammaticography of German from the beginnings in the 16th century up to its "canonization" in the first half of the 20th century, also showing certain parallels to the treatment of modal verbs in the grammaticography of Portuguese. It also describes the influence German grammaticography had on the formation of this category in the grammaticography of Portuguese.
"Werden" plays an important role in German, especially as a copula and as an auxiliary verb. It constitutes the analytic (periphrastic) part of the verbal paradigm being used as an auxiliary by encoding the categories of Tense (Future), Mood (Conditional), and Diathesis (Passive).
The original meaning of PIE *uuerth- includes two basic readings – a terminative and an aterminative. Both of them have been used in the process of grammaticalisation of werden in constructions with participles and the infinitive. The terminative reading based on the feature "Change of a State" was originally the categorical marker of "werden" within the opposition "sein" vs. "werden", where "sein" indicated the meaning of "State". As a result of the further development which started in the later OHG period, the aterminative reading of "werden" in constructions with the Participle II mixed with the terminative one by establishing the Passive-Paradigm. This evolution forced "sein"+ Part. II into the periphery of the Diathesis where in NHG it is marked as a resultative (terminative) construction. On the other hand, werden + Participle I (later with Infinitive) did not establish aterminative readings due to the peculiarities of the semantics of the Participle I – form. In connection with the Infinitive the terminativity of werden developed in the process of its auxiliarisation to the prospective I prognostic reading in the future-tense perspective and to the epistemic reading in the perspective of the present tense. In the perspective of the past tense (cf. MHG "ward varen" {became ride}, "was ridden") it disappeared because in this perspective prospective or prognostic readings are impossible.
In French, Italian, and Romanian, forms inherited from the Latin paradigm 'esse' are used for the copula, the passive auxiliary and tense or perfective auxiliaries. We show that the copula and the passive auxiliary should be identified, while the tense or perfective auxiliaries are different lexemes. Moreover, the copula has the same description across all the Romance languages. While they all are argument inheritance verbs, the copula and the tense or perfective auxiliaries differ with respect to their complement structure: (i) the second only have one complement structure (the complement participle is complement unsaturated), the copula has two complement structures (the predicate is either complement saturated or unsaturated); (ii) French and Italian tense auxiliaries are the head of a flat VP, where the participle is sister to its subcategorized complements, the Romanian perfective auxiliary is the head of a verbal complex; (iii) when the complement predicate is unsaturated, the Romance copula is the head of a flat VP.
Two consequences of the analysis are worth mentioning. First, the copula (and the passive auxiliary) should not be taken into account when stating the environments for auxiliary selection in French and Italian. Second, argument inheritance and complement structure are different phenomena, and argue in favor of theories which systematically distinguish between valence features and constituent structures.
This paper examines the development of periphrastic constructions involving auxiliary "have" and "be" with a past participle in the history of English, on the basis of parsed electronic corpora. It is argued that the two constructions represented distinct syntactic and semantic structures: while the one with have developed into a true perfect in the course of Middle English, the one with be remained a stative resultative throughout its history. In this way, it is explained why the be construction was rarely or never used in a number of contexts, including past counterfactuals, iteratives, duratives, certain kinds of infinitives and various other utterance types that cannot be characterized as perfects of result. When the construction with have became a true perfect, it was used in such contexts, regardless of the identity of the main verb, leading to the appearance of have with verbs like come which had previously only taken be. Crucially, however, have was not spreading at the expense of be, as the be perfect had never been used in such contexts, but rather at the expense of the old simple past. At least until the end of the Early Modern English period, the shift in the relative frequency of have and be perfects is to be explained in terms of the expansion of the former into new contexts, while the latter remained stable. A formal analysis is proposed, taking as its starting point a comparison with German which shows that the older English be perfect indeed behaves more like the German stative passive than its haben and sein perfects.
In this paper, we will argue for a novel analysis of the auxiliary alternation in Early English, its development and subsequent loss which has broader consequences for the way that auxiliary selection is looked at cross-linguistically. We will present evidence that the choice of auxiliaries accompanying past participles in Early English differed in several significant respects from that in the familiar modern European languages. Specifically, while the construction with have became a full-fledged perfect by some time in the ME period, that with be was actually a stative resultative, which it remained until it was lost. We will show that this accounts for some otherwise surprising restrictions on the distribution of BE in Early English and allows a better understanding of the spread of HAVE through late ME and EModE. Perhaps more importantly, the Early English facts also provide insight into the genesis of the kind of auxiliary selection found in German, Dutch and Italian. Our analysis of them furthermore suggests a promising strategy for explaining cross-linguistic variation in auxiliary selection in terms of variation in the syntactico-semantic structure of the perfect. In this introductory section, we will first provide some background on the historical situation we will be discussing, then we will lay out the main claims for which we will be arguing in the paper.
Brit Schwerin nimmt sich in ihrem Artikel "die bisher jedermann unbekannt gewesen [ist/war/sei/wäre] -Zum Rückgang des ersparten Finitums in Nebensätzen des frühen Neuhochdeutsch" des Phänomens der afiniten Nebensätze an, die in der Frühen Neuzeit im deutschen Sprachraum weit verbreitet waren. Ihre Analyse von Nebensätzen mit und ohne finites Verb in Texten aus dem 17. und 18. Jh. ergibt, dass der Rückgang der afiniten Konstruktionen in Verbindung mit dem Bedürfnis nach eindeutiger Markierung grammatischer Kategorien wie Tempus und Modus steht. Die diachronen Studien decken somit Sprachwandel auf verschiedenen Ebenen ab.
In the course of the ME period, HAVE began to encroach on territory previously held by BE. According to Rydén and Brorström (1987); Kytö (1997), this occurred especially in iterative and durational contexts, in the perfect infinitive and modal constructions. In Early Modern English (henceforth EModE), BE was increasingly restricted to the most common intransitives come and go, before disappearing entirely in the 18th and 19th centuries. This development raises a number of questions, both historical and theoretical. First, why did HAVE start spreading at the expense of BE in the first place? Second, why was the change conditioned by the factors mentioned by Rydén and Brorström (1987) and Kytö (1997)? Third, why did the change take on the order of 800 years to go to completion? Fourth, what implications does the change have for general theories of auxiliary selection? In this paper we’ll try to answer the first question by focusing on one the earliest clearly identifiable advance of HAVE onto BE territory – its first appearance with the verb come, which for a number of reasons is an ideal verb to focus on. First, come is by far the most common intransitive verb, so we get large enough numbers for statistical analysis. Second, clauses containing the past participle of come with a form of BE are unambiguous perfects: they cannot be passives, and they did not continue into modern English with a stative reading like he is gone. Third, and perhaps most importantly, come selected BE categorically in the early stages of English, so the first examples we find with HAVE are clear evidence for innovation. We will present evidence from a corpus study showing that the first spread of HAVE was due to a ban on auxiliary BE in certain types of counterfactual perfects, and will propose an account for that ban in terms of Iatridou’s (2000) Exclusion theory of counterfactuals.
This paper proposes an account for the four auxiliaries in Kazakh that express the imperfective aspect. The main factors – the auxiliary, the main verb, their inflections and the aspectual specifications reveal a complicated system, which can be captured with an appropriate monotonic, multiple inheritance type hierarchy using online-type construction with the implementation of Pāṇinian competition. This analysis sheds light to a very different auxiliary system that we find in Indo-European languages.
A little discussed feature of English are non-restrictive relative clauses in which the antecedent is normally not an NP and the gap follows an auxiliary, as in Kim will sing, which Lee won't. These relative clauses resemble clauses with auxiliary complement ellipsis or fronting. There are a variety of analyses that might be proposed, but there are reasons for thinking that the best analysis is one where which is a nominal filler associated with a gap which is generally non-nominal: a filler-gap mismatch analysis in other words.
The retreat of BE as perfect auxiliary in the history of English is examined. Corpus data are presented showing that the initial advance of HAVE was most closely connected to a restriction against BE in past counterfactuals. Other factors which have been reported to favor the spread of HAVE are either dependent on the counterfactual effect, or significantly weaker in comparison. It is argued that the effect can be traced to the semantics of the BE perfect, which denoted resultativity rather than anteriority proper. Related data from other older Germanic and Romance languages are presented, and finally implications for existing theories of auxiliary selection stemming from the findings presented are discussed.