Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T07:37:00.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Form does not follow function, but variation does: the origin and early usage of possessive havegot in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2016

DAVID LORENZ
DAVID LORENZ*
Affiliation:
Englisches Seminar, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Rempartstraße 15 79085 Freiburg, Germanydavid.lorenz@anglistik.uni-freiburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the emergence and early use of possessive havegot in English. Two hypotheses about its emergence are tested on historical data (c.1460–1760). One hypothesis is based on communicative functionality, suggesting that got was inserted as a ‘pattern preserver’ to compensate for the increased reduction of have. The other hypothesis invokes the conventionalization of an invited inference, thus a (non-functional) semantic shift which does not immediately serve to support a communicative function. The diachronic evidence is found to support only the latter hypothesis.

In the second part the early stage of the variation of have and havegot is investigated (c.1720–50). The results show a strong register difference, but also a division of labour between the variants that can be explained by the syntactic and semantic properties of havegot as having emerged out of a present perfect of get. Thus, the variation is organized in a functionally motivated way.

It is concluded that in the development of possessive havegot functional constraints apply to the variation early on, but do not play an evident role in the emergence of the new variant. This suggests that functional motivations are a directing force but not necessarily a driving force in language change.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Special Issue 3: Support strategies in language variation and change , November 2016 , pp. 487 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. Semantic overloading: A restudy of the verb remind . Language 47 (3), 522–47.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cecconi, Elisabetta. 2012. The language of defendants in the 17th-century English courtroom. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Crowell, Thomas L. 1959. Have got, a pattern preserver. American Speech 34, 280–6.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 2008. The rise and fall of constructions and the history of English do-support. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 20 (1), 1–52.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2008. Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 12 (1), 55–102.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary ‘do’: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1997. The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and earlier English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2009. Cyclical change, an introduction. In van Gelderen, Elly (ed.), Cyclical change, 1–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Statistics for linguistics with R, 2nd edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gronemeyer, Claire. 1999. On deriving complex polysemy: The grammaticalization of get . English Language and Linguistics 3 (1), 1–39.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Explaining article–possessor complementarity: Economic motivation in noun phrase syntax. Language 75 (2), 227–43.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2003. Efficiency and complexity in grammars: Three general principles. In Moore, John & Polinsky, Maria (eds.), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory, 121–52. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus. 2007. The Old Bailey proceedings, 1674–1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. Studies in variation, contacts and change in English 1. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/01/huber/ Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney A. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jäger, Andreas. 2006. Typology of periphrastic ‘do’-constructions. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.), Style in language, 350–77. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig & Oksefjell, Signe. 1996. Towards a unified account of the syntax and semantics of get . In Thomas, Jenny & Short, Mick (eds.), Using corpora for language research: Studies in the honour of Geoffrey Leech, 57–75. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1, 199–244.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 1998. String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26, 286–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Walker, Terry. 2003. The linguistic study of Early Modern English speech-related texts: How ‘bad’ can ‘bad’ data be? Journal of English Linguistics 31, 221–48.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Walker, Terry. 2006. Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia, 130. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45 (4), 715–62.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. Possession and possessive constructions. In Taylor, John R. & MacLaury, Robert E. (eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world, 51–79. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. Semantic motivation of the English auxiliary. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Radden, Günter (eds.), Motivation in grammar and lexicon, 29–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Jeong-Hoon. 2002. The ‘have’ perfect in Old English: How close was it to the Modern English perfect? In Minkova, Donka & Stockwell, Robert (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language: A millennial perspective, 373–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2010. have vs have got in the history of English: A corpus study in lexical competition. Poster presented at ICAME 31, Giessen.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Laurel. 2013. Variation in English auxiliary realization: A new take on contraction. Language Variation and Change 25, 17–41.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Bates, Elizabeth & Kliegl, Reinhold. 1984. Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23, 127–50.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Hardie, Andrew. 2011. Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald. 2004. Negation of lexical have in conversational English. World Englishes 23 (2), 299–308.Google Scholar
Noble, Shawn. 1985. To have and have got. Presented at NWAVE 14, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Nurmi, Arja. 1999. A social history of periphrastic do. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary online . 2016. Oxford University Press. www.oed.com Google Scholar
Pérez-Guerra, Javier. 2005. Word order after the loss of the verb-second constraint or the importance of early Modern English in the fixation of syntactic and informative (un-)markedness. English Studies 86 (4), 342–69.Google Scholar
Quinn, Heidi. 2004. Possessive have and (have) got in New Zealand English. Presented at NWAV 33, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.1.0. Vienna: The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2), 149–82.Google Scholar
Schulz, Monika E. 2012. The development of possessive have got: The path (not) taken. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13 (1), 129–46.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Louis H. 1896. The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincott's Magazine 57, 403–9.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2003. ‘Every place has a different toll’: Determinants of grammatical variation in cross-variety perspective. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 532–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., D'Arcy, Alexandra & Jankowski, Bridget. 2010. Social work and linguistic systems: Marking possession in Canadian English. Language Variation and Change 22, 149–73.Google Scholar
Taylor, Ann, Nurmi, Arja, Warner, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan & Nevalainen, Terttu. 2006. Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Compiled by the CEEC Project Team. York: University of York, Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Distributed through the Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65 (1), 31–55.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Traugott, Elizabeth C. and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1, 189–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter, Nevalainen, Terttu & Wischer, Ilse. 2002. Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English. English Language and Linguistics 6 (1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Th. 1973. An historical syntax of the English language. part III, 2nd half: Syntactical units with two and more verbs. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 2004. What drove do? In Kay, Christian, Horobin, Simon & Smith, Jeremy (eds.), New perspectives on English historical linguistics, vol. 1: Syntax and morphology, 229–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wyld, Henry C. 1920. A history of modern colloquial English. London: Fisher Unwin.Google Scholar