Systematicity beyond obligatoriness in the history of the English progressive Berit Johannsen [email protected] Susanne Flach [email protected] bit.ly/s!ach ICAME 36, Universität Trier, 28 May 2015 History of the English progressive A. General rise in frequency Figure 1: Frequency increase of the progressive 1710-1920 Data: CLMET B. Usage in Early and Late Modern English: ! ‣ " unsettled ‣ " unsystematic ‣ " not obligatory “deviation from present-day usage” “it occurs in stative contexts where one would not use the progressive in PDE” “it is not until the middle of the 19th century that the [progressive] becomes obligatory” “we can classify the pre-1600 period as one of unsystematic use, and the post-1700 period as one of systematic or grammatically-required use” Strang (1982), Nehls (1988,) Elsness (1994), Arnaud (1998), Rissanen (2000), Núñez-Pertejo (2004), Kranich (2010) Problems of the notion Present Day English (PDE)! vs. ! Earlier English systematic" obligatory" grammatically-required" " " " unsystematic nonobligatory free variation Problems: ‣ " "dichotomy ‣ " "“present-day bias” ‣ " "operationalization Hypotheses I. " If UNSETTLEDNESS holds, expect more variation in verbs, types, ranks between constructions. II. " If UNSYSTEMATICITY holds, patterns should signi$cantly di#er from PDE data. III." If OBLIGATORINESS holds, expect a decrease in the verbs that can occur in both constructions. Data source Instances of present constructions: PERIOD PCEEC PCEME* PCMBE PCHE-TOTAL CLMET-3.0 E1: 1500–1569 335,006 608,971 — 943,977 — E2: 1570–1639 1,001,613 674,960 — 1,676,573 — E3: 1640–1710 611,757 596,053 10,103 1,207,810 — E4: 1711–1779 — — 424,211 424,211 12,155,135 E5: 1780–1849 — — 352,308 352,308 13,268,542 E6: 1850–1920 — — 314,007 314,007 14,834,182 2,371,920 1,879,984 1,100,629 5,342,430 40,257,859 TOTAL * Overlap material with PCEEC removed PCEEC:" Corpus of Early English Correspondence PCEME: " Corpus of Early Modern English PCMBE: " Corpus of Modern British English CLMET: " Corpus of Late Modern English Texts Taylor et al (2006), Kroch et al (2004, 2010), De Smet (2005), Diller et al (2011) Measuring lexis-structure interaction ICE-GB BNC PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE Collostructional analysis talk go try look work sit wait do use come run move live deal walk watch wear write listen seel $ght be know think see have want mean need seem believe call put remember $nd include agree base set sound concern imagine go talk try look work get happen plan play begin wait deal move seek $ght use come take become ask pay be have know mean want seem see need include do believe like remain thank suppose require remember contain think appear wish ‣ Observed vs. expected ‣ Association measure (here: LogL) Distinctive collexemes ‣ Progressive: motion, action or process-compatible verbs ‣ Simple: statives, perception Methodological principles ‣ Beyond raw frequency ‣ Beyond single token/type ‣ General cxn patterns Stefanowitsch & Gries (2003), Gries & Stefanowitsch (2004) Progressive: lexis-cxn patterns (PCHE) 1570-1640 (E2) 1641-1710 (E3) 1711-1780 (E4) PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE go will come make stir want owe prepare concern please enter live remain provide accord $t send attend return set write be have do know say pray think hope desire see hear thank beseech $nd doubt seem give mean wish trust speak go will come want make prepare concern send write endeavour draw use live please accord return haste grow entertain labour put be have hope do think pray desire believe seem know say see hear thank suppose wish intend doubt rest remember lie go owe miss speak come write starve charm boil quarrel issue !y surprise entertain invite pass die revive resent burst praise be have do know believe see pray hope seem give say suppose love tell call think follow look stand remember desire N = 307 N = 68,272 N = 396 N = 52,563 N = 176 UNSYSTEMATIC? ‣ process/ dynamics ‣ stative/ perception UNSETTLED? ‣ More by rank ‣ Less by verb types ‣ data sparseness N = 13,334 grouped by association (G PCHE, Simple distinctive collexeme analysis (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004, Gries 2007) Progressive: lexis-cxn patterns (CLMET) unchanged changed (cxn preference relative to BNC) 1710-1780 (E4) 1781-1850 (E5) 1851-1920 (E6) PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE go owe come prepare write talk want set wait endeavour tri!e speak die hasten accord concern act return wander oblige try N = 4,658 be have know seem hope believe do think say suppose see mean fear appear $nd require need arise love observe wish N = 382,238 go come get wait talk write speak grow die owe advance make prepare pass approach begin act try live accord gather N = 7,259 be have know seem see believe hope do mean appear fear like remember need love require dare wish say wonder consist N = 428,019 go come wait talk get try begin die write live speak $ght look stay work move play watch grow su#er owe N = 12,350 be have know seem see like do believe mean appear suppose wish remember need love $nd remain dare belong consist round N = 497,801 UNSETTLED? ‣ More by rank ‣ Less by verb types Association scores: E4~E5: r = .95 E4~E5: r = .99 Rank di"erences: (Wilcoxon signed-rank) E4~E5: p = 0.55, n.s. E5~E6: p = 0.41, n.s. CLMET-3-1, Simple distinctive collexeme analysis (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004, Gries 2007) Progressive: lexis-cxn patterns (CLMET) unchanged changed (cxn preference relative to BNC) 1710-1780 (E4) 1781-1850 (E5) 1851-1920 (E6) PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE go owe come prepare write talk want set wait endeavour tri!e speak die hasten accord concern act return wander oblige try N = 4,658 be have know seem hope believe do think say suppose see mean fear appear $nd require need arise love observe wish N = 382,238 go come get wait talk write speak grow die owe advance make prepare pass approach begin act try live accord gather N = 7,259 be have know seem see believe hope do mean appear fear like remember need love require dare wish say wonder consist N = 428,019 go come wait talk get try begin die write live speak $ght look stay work move play watch grow su#er owe N = 12,350 be have know seem see like do believe mean appear suppose wish remember need love $nd remain dare belong consist round N = 497,801 shared types = 32.1 % shared types = 37.5 % UNSETTLED? ‣ More by rank ‣ Less by verb types OBLIGATORY? ‣ Shared types increase ‣ More lexical overlap shared types = 41.2 % CLMET-3-1, Simple distinctive collexeme analysis (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004, Gries 2007) Subtle changes in stable patterns PCHE 1500 8.4 % 11.5 % 1570 18.5 % 1640 CLMET Major #ndings: ‣ General aspectual pattern from 1500s ‣ Evolving the cxn since 1500 ‣ Idiosyncracies, e.g. • Meaning change • Word frequency change • Phraseological change BNC (100m): 37 % BNC-BABY (4m): 39 % BASE (1.7m): 53 % BROWN (1m): 32 % VNC: Gries & Hilpert (2008, 2012) 15.0 % 1710 17.3 % 1780 32.1 % 18.2 % 1850 37.5 % 1920 41.2 % Typical & untypical uses revisited (1) a." And why does he sit in her house waiting for her? ■ b." O, wherefore sitt'st thou there? (2) a." ‘I'll probably go faster with you on my back; you walk too slow. Come on.’ sitPROG walkPROG ■ b." ‘Give me your hand,’ said he, ‘my good girl, you walk too fast.’ (3) a." ‘You jest, of course?’ he said drily. jestPROG ■ b." You jest, Lydia! (4) a." This table of di#erences now represents the di#erences that there are still remaining. remainSIMPLE ■ b." Some of it is yet remaining in my hands, for uses: “it is easy to $nd simple verb forms in contexts in which Present-Day English would use the progressive.” (Rissanen 2000:216) Nehls (1988), Elsness (1994), Rissanen (2000) “it occurs in stative contexts where one would not use the progressive in PDE“ (Strang 1982:429) Concluding remarks A. Method & assumption: obligatoriness notion A.I. " A.II. " A.III." Di%cult to de$ne Di%cult to measure Present-day bias: • "Point of reference (PDE? vs. periods?) • "Comparing (non-)typicalness (across periods) B. Phenomenon: Progressive B.I. " B.II. " Constructional perspective: distant-reading • Stability/evolution (general) • Idiosyncrasies (instances/types) Obligatoriness vs. constructionalization References Arnaud, René. 1998. The development of the progressive in 19th century English: A quantitative survey. Language Variation and Change 10(2). 123-152. Diller, Hans-Jürgen, Hendrik De Smet & Jukka Tyrkkö. 2011. A European database of descriptors of English electronic texts. The European English Messenger 19. 21-35. Elsness, Johan. 1994. On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English. ICAME Journal 18. 5-25. Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2). doi:10.1515/CLLT.2006.012. Gries, Stefan Th. 2007. Coll.analysis 3.2. A program for R. Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2008. The identi$cation of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based Neighbour Clustering. Corpora 3(1). 59–81. Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2012. Variability-based neighbour clustering: A bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook on the history of English, 134–144. OUP. Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97-29. Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The progressive in modern English: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization and related changes..Rodopi. Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs. 2004. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English (PCEME). University of Pennsylvania. Kroch, Anthony, Beatrice Santorini & Lauren Delfs. 2010. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Modern British English (PCMBE). University of Pennsylvania. Nehls, Dietrich. 1988. On the development of the grammatical category of verbal aspect in English. In Josef Klegraf & Dietrich Nehls (eds.), Essays on the English language and applied linguistics on the occasion of Gerhard Nickel!s 60th birthday, 173-198. Groos. Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma. 2004. The progressive in the history of English: with special reference to the Early Modern English period: A corpus-based study. Lincom. Rissanen, Matti. 2000. Syntax. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 1476-1776, 187-331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CHOL9780521264761.005. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209-243. Smet, Hendrik De. 2005. A corpus of Late Modern English texts. ICAME Journal 29. 69-82. Strang, Barbara. 1982. Some aspects of the history of the BE+ING construction. In John M. Anderson (ed.), Language form and linguistic variation: Papers dedicated to Angus McIntosh, 427-474. Benjamins. Taylor, Anne, Arja Nurmi, Anthony Warner, Susan Pintzuk & Terttu Nevalainen. 2006. Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, tagged version. (PCEEC). Compiled by the CEEC project team. York/Helsinki: University of York/University of Helsinki.
© Copyright 2024 Paperzz
