Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-mstw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T16:30:03.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting the Progressive Passive: Parametric Change Within a Lexicalist Framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Anthony R. Warner
Anthony R. Warner*
Affiliation:
University of York, England
*
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York, Heslington, North Yorkshire, England YOl 5DD e-mail aw2@york.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The English progressive passive (e.g. is being carried) is first attested in the second half of the eighteenth century. The paper offers a new interpretation of this development as integrated into a series of changes which affected be (and have) at this period. It arose not as a combination of progressive and passive constructions but (with the other changes) was a consequence of the reduction of inflection in auxiliaries which followed the loss of thou in informal speech. This is interpreted as a parametric change, for which there is an overt triggering difference in the primary linguistic data, and the account is formalized within HPSG.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 533 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bock, M. 1938. Der stilistische Gebrauch des englischen Personalpronomens der 2. Person im volkstümlichen Dialog der älteren englischen Komödie. Inaugural dissertation, Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Charleston, Britta Marian. 1941. Studies on the syntax of the English verb. (Swiss Studies in English 11.) Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Clark, Robin, and Roberts, Ian. 1993. A computational model of language learnability and language change. Linguistic Inquiry 24.299–345.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1985. Some observations on being teaching. Studia Neophilologica 57.157–59.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993a. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993b. Some recent changes in the English verb. English diachronic syntax, ed. by Gotti, Maurizio, 15–33. Milan: Guerini.Google Scholar
Dietrich, G. 1949. Die Syntax der do-Umschreibung bei have, be, ought, und used (to), auf sprachgeschichtlicher Grundlage dargestellt. Braunschweig: Westermann.Google Scholar
Dietze, Hugo. 1895. Das umschreibende Do in der neuenglischen Prosa. Jena: University of Jena dissertation.Google Scholar
Flickinger, D. 1987. Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoeerey K.; and Sag, Ivan A. 1982. Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar. Language 58.591–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, FitzEdward. 1873. English imperfects passive. Printed as appendix to his Modern English, 321–359. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michall A. K. 1980. On being teaching. Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk, ed. by Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan, 61–64. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Joos, M. 1964. The English verb: Form and meanings. Madison and Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Journal of Language Variation and Change 1.199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lighteoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lighteoot, David. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Middle English Dictionary (= MED), ed. by Kurath, Hans, Kuhn, Sherman M., Lewis, Robert E., and Reidy, John. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press (1954-).Google Scholar
Mosse, Fernand. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique kêtre + participe présent’ en germanique. (Collection linguistique publiée par La Société Linguistique de Paris 42, 43.) Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Nehls, D. 1974. Synchron-diachrone Untersuchungen zur Expanded Form im Englischen. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
The Oxford English Dictionary (= OED), ed. by Murray, J. A. H., Bradley, H., Craigie, W. A., and Onions, C. T. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1933. CD-Rom version = The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edn.) on Compact Disc, (2nd edn. ed. by J. A. Simpson and E. Weiner 1989). Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Phillipps, K. C. 1970. Jane Austen's English. London: André Deutsch.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics, vol. 1, Fundamentals. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press and Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1979. An introduction to the historical study of English syntax. (Stockholm Studies in English, 51.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats, and Brorström, S. 1987. The be/have variation with intransitives in English. (Stockholm Studies in English, 70.) Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1977. Deletion and logical form. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Scheefer, J. 1975. The progressive in English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Skeat, W. W. 1899. The Romans of Partenay. Early English Texts Society, (Ordinary Series 22, revised edition.) London.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1987. The auxiliary do in eighteenth-century English: A sociohistorical-linguistic approach. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1946-56. A syntax of the English language of St. Thomas More: The verb (Materials for the Study of the Old English Drama, series 2, vols. 19, 24, 26.) Louvain: Librairie Universitaire.Google Scholar
Visser, F. Th. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English language. 3 parts. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1986. Ellipsis conditions and the status of the English copula. York Papers in Linguistics 12.153–72.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1990. Reworking the history of English auxiliaries. Papers from the 5th International Conference on English historical linguistics, Cambridge, 6-9 April 1987, ed. by Adamson, S., Law, V., Vincent, N., and Wright, S., 537–58. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1993a. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1993b. The grammar of English auxiliaries: An account in HPSG. York: Department of Language and Linguistic Science, ms.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1996. Extending the paradigm: An interpretation of the historical development of auxiliary sequences in English. English Studies. Forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar