Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • DAVID LORENZ (a1)

Abstract

This article investigates the emergence and early use of possessive have got 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 have got 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 have got 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 have got 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.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. Semantic overloading: A restudy of the verb remind . Language 47 (3), 522–47.
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.
Cecconi, Elisabetta. 2012. The language of defendants in the 17th-century English courtroom. Bern: Peter Lang.
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
Crowell, Thomas L. 1959. Have got, a pattern preserver. American Speech 34, 280–6.
Culicover, Peter W. 2008. The rise and fall of constructions and the history of English do-support. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 20 (1), 152.
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. Harlow: Longman.
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), 55102.
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary ‘do’: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Elsness, Johan. 1997. The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and earlier English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gelderen, Elly van. 2009. Cyclical change, an introduction. In van Gelderen, Elly (ed.), Cyclical change, 112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Statistics for linguistics with R, 2nd edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gronemeyer, Claire. 1999. On deriving complex polysemy: The grammaticalization of get . English Language and Linguistics 3 (1), 139.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Explaining article–possessor complementarity: Economic motivation in noun phrase syntax. Language 75 (2), 227–43.
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.
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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/
Huddleston, Rodney A. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jäger, Andreas. 2006. Typology of periphrastic ‘do’-constructions. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.), Style in language, 350–77. New York: Wiley.
Jespersen, Otto. 1933. Essentials of English grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.
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, 5775. Harlow: Longman.
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1, 199244.
Krug, Manfred. 1998. String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26, 286320.
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
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.
Kytö, Merja & Walker, Terry. 2006. Guide to a Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia, 130. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45 (4), 715–62.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1995. Possession and possessive constructions. In Taylor, John R. & MacLaury, Robert E. (eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world, 5179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. Semantic motivation of the English auxiliary. In Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Radden, Günter (eds.), Motivation in grammar and lexicon, 2948. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Lorenz, David. 2010. have vs have got in the history of English: A corpus study in lexical competition. Poster presented at ICAME 31, Giessen.
MacKenzie, Laurel. 2013. Variation in English auxiliary realization: A new take on contraction. Language Variation and Change 25, 1741.
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.
McEnery, Tony & Hardie, Andrew. 2011. Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McMahon, April M. S. 1994. Understanding language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, Gerald. 2004. Negation of lexical have in conversational English. World Englishes 23 (2), 299308.
Noble, Shawn. 1985. To have and have got. Presented at NWAVE 14, Georgetown University.
Nurmi, Arja. 1999. A social history of periphrastic do. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
Oxford English Dictionary online . 2016. Oxford University Press. www.oed.com
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.
Quinn, Heidi. 2004. Possessive have and (have) got in New Zealand English. Presented at NWAV 33, Ann Arbor.
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
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2), 149–82.
Schulz, Monika E. 2012. The development of possessive have got: The path (not) taken. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 13 (1), 129–46.
Sullivan, Louis H. 1896. The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincott's Magazine 57, 403–9.
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.
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.
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.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65 (1), 3155.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.
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, 189219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Trudgill, Peter, Nevalainen, Terttu & Wischer, Ilse. 2002. Dynamic have in North American and British Isles English. English Language and Linguistics 6 (1), 115.
Visser, Frederikus Th. 1973. An historical syntax of the English language. part III, 2nd half: Syntactical units with two and more verbs. Leiden: Brill.
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.
Wyld, Henry C. 1920. A history of modern colloquial English. London: Fisher Unwin.

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed