Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oslo, 5-9 August 2013
Edited by Dag T.T. Haug
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 334] 2015
► pp. 213–232

The grammaticalization of progressive constructions with a focus on the English progressive

The article claims that progressive markers may develop out of purely emphatic markers. These markers develop into markers of ‘stressed ongoingness’, which emphasize that the timing of an event is remarkable, either in relation to some temporal reference point or in relation to some other event. The development into markers of ‘stressed ongoingness’ takes place with the help of adverbials which also express remarkableness, as well as contemporaneousness – or more specifically, remarkable contemporaneousness, e.g. just, already and still. With time, the temporal meaning of the collocation becomes prominent, while the emphatic meaning is downgraded. This paves the ground for the development of a pure progressive marker. The hypothesis is substantiated by evidence from a number of modern languages, which shows that the use progressive markers is generally triggered by adverbials such as just, already and still.
Keywords: Dutch, emphatic progressives, English, German, grammaticalization, Italian, Norwegian, progressive markers
Published online: 1 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.334.12kil
References (58)
References
Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Karen H. Ebert & Casper de Groot. 2000. “The Progressive in Europe”. Dahl, ed. 2000, 517–58.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Contrad & Geoffrey Leech. 2002. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Braaten, Bjørn. 1967. “Notes on Continuous Tenses in English”. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 21.167–180.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Östen Dahl. 1989. “The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World”. Studies in Language 13:1. 51–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Dale Perkins & William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
, ed. 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dal, Ingerid. 1952. “Zur Entstehung des englischen Participium Praesentis auf -ing ”. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 16. 5–116.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Combining English Auxiliaries”. Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English ed. by Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein, 111–147. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dennis, Leah. 1940. “The Progressive Tense: Frequency of Its Use in English”. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 55. 855–865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. “A Model for Relevant Types of Context in Grammaticalization”. Wischer & Diewald, eds. 2002, 103–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 1989. “Aspektmarkierung im Fering (Nordfriesisch) und verwandten Sprachen”. Tempus – Aspekt – Modus: die lexikalischen und grammatischen Formen in den germanischen Sprachen ed. by Werner Abraham & Theodorus Albertus Johannes Maria Jansen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 293–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Progressive Aspect in German and Dutch”. Journal of Germanic Languages and Literature 1(1). 41–62.Google Scholar
. 2000. “Progressive Markers in Germanic Languages”. Dahl, ed. 2000, 605–653.Google Scholar
Elspass, Stephan, Nils Langer, Joachim Scharloth & Wim Vandenbussche eds. 2007. Germanic Language Histories ‘from below’ (1700–2000). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1993. “On the Progression of the Progressive in Early Modern English”. ICAME Journal 18:55–25.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. & David Wilkins. 1998. “The Knowing Ear: An Australian Test of Universal Claims about the Semantic Structure of Sensory Verbs and Their Extension into the Domain of Cognition”. Arbeitspapier 32 , Neue Folge. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 1998. “Grammaticalization, Textuality and Subjectivity: the Progressive and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle”. The Virtues of Language: History in Language, Linguistics and Texts: Papers in Memory of Thomas Frank ed. by Dieter Stein & Roseanna Sornicola, 21–49. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goedsche, C. Rudolph. 1932. “The Terminate Aspect of the Expanded Form: Its Development and Its Relation to the Gerund”. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 31. 469–477.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. “Why is Grammaticalization Irreversible?” Linguistics 37:6. 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1994. “Grammaticalization as an Explanatory Parameter”. Perspectives on Grammaticalization ed. by William Pagliuca, 255–287. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “On the Role of Context in Grammaticalization”. Wischer & Diewald, eds. 2002, 83–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: ­Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houwe, Jo van der. 1992. Progressive Markers in a Functional Grammar of Dutch. Working Papers in Functional Grammar 8.Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel. 1998. The Expressivity of Grammar: Grammatical Devices Expressing Emotion across Time. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
. 1932. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part 4: Syntax. Volume 3: Time and tense. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2004. “Subjectification and the English Progressive”. English Language and Linguistics8:1. 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Internal and External Factors in Language Change: Present Participle Converbs in English and Norwegian”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 107(4), 447–69.Google Scholar
. 2007. “On the History of Verbal Present Participle Converbs in English and Norwegian and the Concept of Change from below”. Elspass, Langer, Scharloth & Vandenbussche eds. 2007, 149–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “From Locative to Durative to Focalized? The English Progressive and ‘prog Imperfective Drift’”. English Historical Linguistics 2006: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (14 ICEHL), Bergamo 21–25 August 2006. Vol. I: Syntax and Morphology ed. by Maurizio Gotti, Marina Dossena & Richard Dury, 69–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Old English-Late British Language Contact and the English Progressive”. Language Contact and Development around the North Sea ed. by Merja Stenroos, Martti Mäkinen & Inge Særheim, 119–140. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “The Development of the English BE + V-ende/V-ing Periphrasis: From Emphatic to Aspectual Marker?” English Language and Linguistics 18:3. 361–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Killie, Kristin & Toril Swan. 2009. The Grammaticalization and Subjectification of Adverbial -ing Clauses (Converb Clauses) in English. English Language and Linguistics 13:3, 337–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2008. The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Ph.D. dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
. 2010a. The Progressive in English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
. 2010b. “Grammaticalization, Subjectification and Objectification”. Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues ed. by Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König, 101–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990. “How to Do Things with Junk: Exaptation in Language Evolution”. Journal of Linguistics 26. 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English Verb. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. “Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Grammatic Change”. Lingua e Stile 20. 303–318.Google Scholar
. 2002. “Thoughts on Grammaticalization”. Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt 9. Erfurt. Available at: [URL]Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Vol. 1: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société néophilologique.Google Scholar
Scheffer, Johannes. 1975. The Progressive in English. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2008. The Progressive in 19th-century English: A Process of Integration. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Thieroff, Rolf. 1992. Das finite Verb im Deutschen. Tempus, Modus, Distanz. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Tommola, Hannu. 2000. “Progressive Aspect in Baltic Finnic”. Dahl, ed. 2000, 655–692.Google Scholar
Tonne, Ingebjørg. 2007. “Analyzing Progressives in Norwegian”. Nordic Journal of Linguistics30:2. 185–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2004. “Exaptation and Grammaticalization”. Linguistic Studies Based on Corpora ed. by Minoji Akimoto, 133–156. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing Company.Google Scholar
VARIENG (The Research Group for Variation and Change in English). 1991. The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Diachronic Part. In ICAME (International Computer Archive of Middle and Modern English). Bergen: Norwegian Computing for the Humanities.Google Scholar
Williams, Cristopher. 2002. Non-progressive and Progressive Aspect in English. Fasano: Schena.Google Scholar
Winford, Donald. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse & Gabriele Diewald, eds. 2002. New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Susan. 1994. “The Mystery of the Modal Progressive”. Studies in Early Modern English ed. by Dieter Kastovsky, 467–486. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 1999. “Agentivity and the History of the English Progressive”. Transactions of the Philological Society97:1. 51–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar