Systematicity beyond obligatoriness in the history of the English progressive

Susanne Flach

Berit Johannsen

bit.ly/s!ach

ICAME 36, Universität Trier, 28 May 2015

berit.johannsen@fu-berlin.de

susanne.!ach@fu-berlin.de

History of the English progressive

Strang (1982), Nehls (1988,) Elsness (1994), Arnaud (1998), Rissanen (2000), Núñez-Pertejo (2004), Kranich (2010)

A. General rise in frequency

B. Usage in Early and Late Modern English:

!‣ " unsettled ‣ " unsystematic ‣ " not obligatory

Data: CLMETFigure 1: Frequency increase of the progressive 1710-1920

“deviation from present-day usage”

“it occurs in stative contexts where onewould not use the progressive in PDE”

“it is not until the middle of the 19thcentury 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”

Problems of the notion

Present Day English (PDE)! vs. ! Earlier English

systematic" " unsystematic obligatory" " nonobligatory grammatically-required" " free variation

Problems:

‣ " "dichotomy ‣ " "“present-day bias” ‣ " "operationalization

Hypotheses

I. " If UNSETTLEDNESS holds, expect more variation inverbs, types, ranks between constructions.

II. " If UNSYSTEMATICITY holds, patterns shouldsigni$cantly di#er from PDE data.

III. " If OBLIGATORINESS holds, expect a decrease inthe verbs that can occur in both constructions.

Taylor et al (2006), Kroch et al (2004, 2010), De Smet (2005), Diller et al (2011)

Data source

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

TOTAL 2,371,920 1,879,984 1,100,629 5,342,430 40,257,859

* 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

Instances of present constructions:

Stefanowitsch & Gries (2003), Gries & Stefanowitsch (2004)

Measuring lexis-structure interaction

ICE-GB BNCPROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE

talk be go bego know talk havetry think try knowlook see look meanwork have work wantsit want get seemwait mean happen seedo need plan needuse seem play includecome believe begin dorun call wait believemove put deal likelive remember move remaindeal $nd seek thankwalk include $ght supposewatch agree use requirewear base come rememberwrite set take containlisten sound become thinkseel concern ask appear$ght imagine pay wish

Collostructional analysis‣ 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

PCHE, Simple distinctive collexeme analysis (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004, Gries 2007)

Progressive: lexis-cxn patterns (PCHE)

1570-1640 (E2) 1641-1710 (E3) 1711-1780 (E4) PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE

go be go be go bewill have will have owe havecome do come hope miss domake know want do speak knowstir say make think come believewant pray prepare pray write seeowe think concern desire starve prayprepare hope send believe charm hopeconcern desire write seem boil seemplease see endeavour know quarrel giveenter hear draw say issue saylive thank use see !y supposeremain beseech live hear surprise loveprovide $nd please thank entertain tellaccord doubt accord suppose invite call$t seem return wish pass thinksend give haste intend die followattend mean grow doubt revive lookreturn wish entertain rest resent standset trust labour remember burst rememberwrite speak put lie praise desire

N = 307 N = 68,272 N = 396 N = 52,563 N = 176 N = 13,334

grouped by association (G

UNSYSTEMATIC? ‣ process/

dynamics ‣ stative/

perception

UNSETTLED?‣ More by rank‣ Less by verb

types

‣ data sparseness

CLMET-3-1, Simple distinctive collexeme analysis (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004, Gries 2007)

Progressive: lexis-cxn patterns (CLMET)

1710-1780 (E4) 1781-1850 (E5) 1851-1920 (E6) PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE

go be go be go beowe have come have come havecome know get know wait knowprepare seem wait seem talk seemwrite hope talk see get seetalk believe write believe try likewant do speak hope begin doset think grow do die believewait say die mean write meanendeavour suppose owe appear live appeartri!e see advance fear speak supposespeak mean make like $ght wishdie fear prepare remember look rememberhasten appear pass need stay needaccord $nd approach love work loveconcern require begin require move $ndact need act dare play remainreturn arise try wish watch darewander love live say grow belongoblige observe accord wonder su#er consisttry wish gather consist owe round

N = 4,658 N = 382,238 N = 7,259 N = 428,019 N = 12,350 N = 497,801

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.

unch

ang

ed c

hang

ed (c

xn p

refe

renc

e re

lati

ve t

o B

NC

)

UNSETTLED? ‣ More by rank ‣ Less by verb

types

CLMET-3-1, Simple distinctive collexeme analysis (Gries & Stefanowitsch 2004, Gries 2007)

Progressive: lexis-cxn patterns (CLMET)

1710-1780 (E4) 1781-1850 (E5) 1851-1920 (E6) PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE PROG SIMPLE

go be go be go beowe have come have come havecome know get know wait knowprepare seem wait seem talk seemwrite hope talk see get seetalk believe write believe try likewant do speak hope begin doset think grow do die believewait say die mean write meanendeavour suppose owe appear live appeartri!e see advance fear speak supposespeak mean make like $ght wishdie fear prepare remember look rememberhasten appear pass need stay needaccord $nd approach love work loveconcern require begin require move $ndact need act dare play remainreturn arise try wish watch darewander love live say grow belongoblige observe accord wonder su#er consisttry wish gather consist owe round

N = 4,658 N = 382,238 N = 7,259 N = 428,019 N = 12,350 N = 497,801

shared types = 32.1 % shared types = 37.5 % shared types = 41.2 %

UNSETTLED? ‣ More by rank ‣ Less by verb

types

unch

ang

ed c

hang

ed (c

xn p

refe

renc

e re

lati

ve t

o B

NC

)

OBLIGATORY? ‣ Shared types

increase ‣ More lexical

overlap

Subtle changes in stable patterns

VNC: Gries & Hilpert (2008, 2012)

1500 1570 1640 1710 1780 1850 1920

8.4 % 11.5 % 18.5 % 15.0 % 17.3 % 18.2 %

32.1 % 37.5 % 41.2 %

PCHE

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 %

(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.’

■ b." ‘Give me your hand,’ said he, ‘my good girl, you walk too fast.’

(3) a." ‘You jest, of course?’ he said drily.

■ b." You jest, Lydia!

(4) a." This table of di#erences now represents the di#erences that there are still remaining.

■ b." Some of it is yet remaining in my hands, for uses:

Typical & untypical uses revisited

Nehls (1988), Elsness (1994), Rissanen (2000)

sitPROG

walkPROG

jestPROG

remainSIMPLE

“it occurs in stative contexts where one would not use the progressive in PDE“ (Strang 1982:429)

“it is easy to $nd simple verb forms in contexts in which Present-Day English would use the progressive.” (Rissanen 2000:216)

Concluding remarks

A. Method & assumption: obligatoriness notionA.I. " Di%cult to de$ne A.II. " Di%cult to measureA.III." Present-day bias:

• "Point of reference (PDE? vs. periods?)• "Comparing (non-)typicalness (across periods)

B. Phenomenon: ProgressiveB.I. " Constructional perspective: distant-reading

• Stability/evolution (general)• Idiosyncrasies (instances/types)

B.II. " 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.