Cover not available
Part of
On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change
Edited by Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière and Freek Van de Velde
[Benjamins Current Topics 79] 2015
► pp. 129–174

Sources of auxiliation in the perfects of Europe

ORCID logo | University of Texas at San Antonio
This paper explores the complex role of language contact in the development of be and have auxiliation in the periphrastic perfects of Europe. Beginning with the influence of Ancient Greek on Latin, it traces the spread of the category across western Europe and identifies the Carolingian scribal tradition as largely responsible for extending the use of the be perfect alongside the have perfect across Charlemagne’s realm. Outside that territory, by contrast, in “peripheral” areas like Iberia, Southern Italy, and England, have came to be used as the only perfect auxiliary. Within the innovating core area, a further innovation began in Paris in the 12th century and spread to contiguous areas in France, Southern Germany, and northern Italy: the semantic shift in the perfects from anterior to preterital meaning. What can be concluded from these three successive instances of diffusion in the history of the perfect is that contact should be regarded as one of the essential “multiple sources” of innovation, and as a fundamental explanatory mechanism for language change.
Keywords: areal linguistics, auxiliary, Charlemagne Sprachbund, cluster of periphrastics, contact, perfect, periphrastic
Published online: 25 November 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79.06dri
References (98)
References
Adams, James Noel. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aerts, Willem. 1965. Periphrastica. Chicago: Argonaut.Google Scholar
Antonsen, Elmer. 2002. Runes and Germanic linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnett, Carlee. 1997. Perfect auxiliary selection in the Old Saxon Heliand . American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literature 9 (1). 23–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 1995. Geographical and typological description of verbal constructions in the Germanic languages. In John Ole Askedal & Harald Bjorvand (eds.), Drei Studien zum Germanischen in alter und neuer Zeit, 95–146. Odense: Odense University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Badía Margarit, Antonio M. 1951. Gramática histórica catalana. Barcelona: Noguer.Google Scholar
Banniard, Michel. 2004. Germanophonie, latinophonie et accès à la Schriftlichkeit (Ve–VIIIe siècle). In Dieter Hägermann, Wolfgang Haubrichs & Jörg Jarnut (eds.), Akkulturation: Probleme einer germanisch-romischen Kultursynthese in Spätantike und frühem Mittelalter, 340–358. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte. 2006. ‘Synthetic’ vs. ‘analytic’ in Romance. In Randall Gess & Deborah Arteaga, Historical Romance linguistics: Retrospective and perspectives, 287–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beale-Rosano-Rivaya, Yasmine Consuelo. 2006. Mozarabic: Culture, contact, language and diglossia. UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1899. Ich habe geschlafen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 32. 64–72.Google Scholar
Bentley, Delia & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2003. Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity. Lingua 114. 447–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. The linguistic functions of “to be” and “to have”. In Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press. (Translation of Problèmes de linguistique générale. 1966. Editions Gallimard. 163–179)Google Scholar
Benzing, Joseph. 1931. Zur Geschichte von ser als Hilfszeitwort bei den intransitiven Verben im Spanischen. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 51. 385–460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 1986. Tempo, Aspetto e Azione nel verbo italiano. Il sistema dell’ indicativo.Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Biville, Frédérique. 2002. The Graeco-Romans and Graeco-Latin: A terminological framework for cases of bilingualism. In James Noel Adams, Mark Janse & Simon Swain (eds.),Bilingualism in ancient society: Language contact and the written text, 77–102. Oxford:Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blasco-Ferrer, Eduardo. 1986. La lingua sarda contemporanea. Grammatica del logudorese e delcampidanese. Cagliare: Edizioni Della Torre.Google Scholar
Blatt, Franz. 1957. Latin influence on European syntax. In: Franz Blatt (ed.), The classical pattern of modern Western civilization: language. (Acts Congressus Madvigiani, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague: E. Munksgaard). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boley, Jacqueline. 1984. The Hittite hark-construction. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Bostock, J. Knight. 1976. A handbook on old high German literature, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Calboli, Gualtiero. 1990. Vulgärlatein und Griechisch in der Zeit Trajans. In Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Latin vulgaire — latin tardif, 23–44. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Cennamo, Michela. 2008. The rise and development of analytic perfects in Italo-Romance. In Thórhallur Eythórsson (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers, 115–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cordin, Patrizia. 1997. Tense, mood and aspect in the verb. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 87–98. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Criado de Val, Manuel. 1955. Índice verbal de la Celestina. Madrid: CSIC.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen & Viveka Velupillai. 2009. Perfects. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online, Ch. 68. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available online at [URL] (Accessed on 20 September 2009).Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich. 2004. How cognitive is grammaticalization? The history of the Catalan perfet perifràstic . In Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds.), Up and down the cline. The nature of grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language 59), 211–227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2003a. Areal factors in the development of the European periphrastic perfect.Word 54 (1). 1–38.Google Scholar
. 2003b.The formation of periphrastic perfects and passives in Europe: An areal approach. In Barry Blake & Kate Burridge (eds.), Historical linguistics 2001, 105–128.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Präteritumschwund: Evidence for areal diffusion. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology (Studia Typologica 6), 211–240. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2007. The development of the have perfect: Mutual influences of Greek andLatin. In Raúl Aranovich (ed.), Split auxiliary systems (Typological Studies in Language 69),101–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The sacral stamp of Greek: Periphrastic constructions in New Testamenttranslations of Latin, Gothic, and Old Church Slavonic. In Eirik Welo (ed.), Indo-Europeansyntax and pragmatics: Contrastive approaches. Oslo: Oslo Studies in Language 3 (3). 41–73.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Language contact in Europe: The periphrastic perfect through his- tory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dubuisson, Michel. 1985. Le latin de Polybe: Les implications historiques d’un cas de bilinguisme. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
. 1992. Le contact linguistique gréco-latin: problèmes d’ interférence etd’emprunts. Lalies: Actes des sessions de linguistique et de literature 10. 91–109.Google Scholar
Ebert, Robert. 1978. Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Stuttgart: Cotta.Google Scholar
Eggers, Hans. 1987. Uuard quhoman und das System der zusammengesetzten Verbformen imalthochdeutschen Isidor. In Rolf Bergmann, Heinrich Tiefenbach & Lothar Voetz (eds.), Althochdeutsch, 239–252. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1997. The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and earlier English. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erdmann, Oskar. 1973. Otfrids Evangelienbuch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ernout, Alfred. 1909. Recherches sur l’emploi du passif latin à l’ époque républicane (Thése complémentaire). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Feltenius, Leif. 1977. Intransitivizations in Latin. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Flobert, Pierre. 1975. Les verbes déponents latins des origins à Charlemagne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Giammarco, Ernesto. 1973. Selezione del verbo ausiliare nei paradigmi dei tempi composti.Abruzzo 11. 152–178.Google Scholar
Gordon, Eric Valentine. 1981. An introduction to Old Norse, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Grønvik, Otto. 1986. Über den Ursprung und die Entwicklung der aktiven Perfekt- und Plusuamperfektkonstruktionen des Hochdeutschen und ihre Eigenart innerhalb des ger-manischen Sprachraums. Oslo: Solum.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacob, Daniel. 1994. Die Auxiliarisierung von habere und die Entstehung des Latein zum Spanischen. University of Freiburg Habilitationsschrift.Google Scholar
Johannisson,Ture. 1945. Hava och vara. Som tempusbildande hjälpverb i de nordiska språken. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.Google Scholar
Jones, Howard. 2009. Aktionsart in the old high German passive. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Kaimo, Jorma. 1979. The Romans and the Greek language. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum ennica.Google Scholar
Kiss, Sándor. 1982. Tendances évolutives de la syntaxe verbale en latin tardif. Debrecen: Kossuth Lajos Tudományegyetem.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Alwin. 1935. Der hocharagonesische Dialekt. Revue de linguistique romane 11. 1–312.Google Scholar
La Fauci, Nunzio. 1988. Oggetti e soggetti nella formazione della morfosintassi romanza. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
Lapesa, Rafael. 1968. Historia de la lengua española, 7th edn. Madrid: Escelicer.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1986. A Gothic etymological dictionary. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Lockwood, William Burley. 1968. Historical German syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2007. On triple auxiliation in Romance. Linguistics 45. 173–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Thomas & Artemis Alexiadou. 2006. Pieces of the be perfect in German and Older English. In Donald Baumer, David Montero & Michael Scanlon (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 270–278. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
McKitterick, Rosamond. 2008. Charlemagne: The formation of a European identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1923. Le développement du verbe “avoir”. In Antidōron Festschrift Jacob Wackernagel zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres, gewidmet von Schülern, Freunden, und Kollegen. 9–13. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
. 1970. General characteristics of the Germanic languages. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press. (Translation of Caractères généraux des langues germaniques. 1921. Paris: Klincksieck.)Google Scholar
Norberg, Dag. 1943. Syntaktische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete des Spätlateins und des Frühen Mittellateins. Uppsala: Lundequistiska Bokhandeln.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolph. 1970. Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen (Altnordische Grammatik 1; Reprint of the 5th edn.). Alabama: University of Alabama Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuti, Andrea. 2005. A few remarks on the habeo + object + passive perfect participle construction in archaic Latin, with special reference to lexical semantics and the reanalysis process. In Gualtiero Calboli (ed.), Papers on Grammar IX, Vol. 1, Proceedings of the 12th Colloquium on Latin Linguistics, 393–404. Rome: Herder.Google Scholar
Oubouzar, Erika. 1974. Über die Ausbildung der zusammengesetzten Verbformen im deutschen Verbalsystem. In G. Schieb, et al. (eds.), Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 5–96. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 1997. Zur Ausbildung der zusammengesetzten Verbform haben + Part. II vom Althochdeutschen bis zum Frühneuhochdeutschen. In H. Quintin, et al. (eds.), Temporale Bedeutungen — Temporale Relationen, 69–81. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Parker, Ian. 1983. The rise of the vernaculars in Early Modern Europe: An essay in the political economy of language. In Bruce Bain (ed.), The sociogenesis of language and human conduct, 323–351. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1902. Die Umschreibung des Perfektums im Deutschen mit haben und sein. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 22(1). 161–210.Google Scholar
Philipp, Gerhard. 1980. Einführung ins Frühneuhochdeutsche: Sprachgeschichte — Grammatik — Texte. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 1987. The strategy and chronology of the development of future and perfect tense auxiliaries in Latin. In Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries, 193–223. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I. Bern: Francke. [Issued in parts from 1947/8–1959].Google Scholar
Pountain, Christopher. 1985. Copulas, verbs of possession and auxiliaries in Old Spanish: The evidence for structually interdependent changes. BHS 62. 337–355.Google Scholar
Rix, Helmut. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1966–69. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. (Vol. 2: Morfologia; Vol. 3: Syntassi e formazione delle parole.) Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
. 1972. Studi e ricerche su lingua e dialetti d’Italia. Firenze: Sansoni.Google Scholar
Rovai, Francisco. 2005. L’estensione dell’accusativo in latino tardo e medievale. Archivio glot- tologico italiano 90. 54–89.Google Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo. 1997. The geographical distribution of the dialects. In Martin Maiden & Mair Parry (eds.), The dialects of Italy, 225–234. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas. 1988. Perfect auxiliary variation as a function of Aktionsart and transitivity. In Joseph Edmonds, P.J. Mistry, Vida Samillian & Linda Thornburg (eds.), Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, WECOL 88, 254–266. Fresno: Department of Linguistics. California State University, Fresno.Google Scholar
. 1990. The unaccusative hypothesis and the history of the perfect auxiliary in Germanic and Romance. In Henning Andersen & Konrad Koerner (eds.), Historical linguistics 1987. Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 461–499. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skubic, Mitja. 1970. Contributi alla storia del preterito nell’italiano. Razprave — Dissertationes VII(8). 345–400.Google Scholar
Smith. John Charles. 1989. Actualization reanalyzed: Evidence from the Romance compound past tenses. In Thomas Walsh (ed.), Synchronic and diachronic approaches to language variation and change, 310–325. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76. 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squartini, Mario & Pier Marco Bertinetto. 2000. The simple and compound past in Romance languages. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 403–439. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Steinkrüger, Patrick. 1995. Grammatikalisierungen von Auxiliaren und Copulae im Katalanischen der Decadència. Zeitschrift für Katalanistik 8. 35–62.Google Scholar
Swain, Simon. 2002. Bilingualism in Cicero? The evidence of code-switching. In James Noel Adams, Mark Janse & Simon Swain (eds.), Bilingualism in ancient society: Language contact and the written text, 128–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics.(Translated from Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. 4th edn., 1990). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thieroff, Rolf. 2000. On the areal distribution of tense-aspect categories in Europe. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe, 265–305. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1983. On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 1998b. Conclusion. In van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 813–836. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuttle, Edward. 1986. The spread of esse as universal auxiliary in Central Italo-Romance. Medioevo romanzo 11. 239–287.Google Scholar
Umphrey, George. 1913. The Aragonese dialect. Extrait de la Revue Hispanique 24. 5–45.Google Scholar
Väänänen, Veikko. 1966. Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes, 3rd edn. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1982. The development of the auxiliaries habere and esse in Romance. In Nigel Vincent & Martin Harris (ed.), Studies in the Romance verb, 71–96. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Wheatley, Kathleen. 1995. The grammaticalization of the perfect periphrasis in Medieval Spanish and Modern Romance. University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Wright, Roger. 1982. Late Latin and early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Francis Cairns.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Hermann. 1901. Der deutsche Satzbau, Vol. 1. Stuttgart: Cotta.Google Scholar
Zadorožny, B. 1974. Zur Frage der Bedeutung und des Gebrauchs der Partizipien im Altgermanischen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 94. 52–76; 339–387.Google Scholar