A Diachronic Study of Be Gone
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Since OE through ME, and until EModE, HAVE perfect usually occurs with transitive verbs whereas BE perfect occurs with intransitive verbs (especially, mutative verbs i.e. signifying a change of state or a place and/or verbs of motion). Against the demarcation of the HAVE perfect into two categories, ACTIVITY and UNREALITY by Rydén-Brorström (1987), I suggest that the assumption of the cluster of the syntactic-semantic features, [+BEING], [+STATIVITY] for the BE perfect, the cluster of the opposite syntactic-semantic features, [-BEING], [-STATIVITY], or [+ACTIVITY], [+ITERATION] and [+DURATION] [+UNREALITY] and [+COUNTERFACTUALITY] for the HAVE perfect can explain the BE/HAVE paradigm. Concerning the demise of the BE perfect, counterfactuality proposed by McFadden and Alexiadou (2005) is suggested as the catalyst for the eventual loss of BE. In the first half of ME, counterfactuals categorically required the auxiliary HAVE on the perfect. This requirement was strong enough even to override the otherwise categorical selection of BE by verbs like come, yielding their first appearances with HAVE. My assumption of the feature [±BEING] can explain this. My data (Table I) also shows this in that only 17 cases in King James (1611) and 18 cases in Tyndale (1526) of the BE perfect appear, mainly with the verbs come and go. PE shows a productive use of Be Gone in daily life. One reason for this being that Be Gone has a functional load differently from Be Come, which has no distinctive meaning or function. While he has gone means he is not here, but you may get him easily, but he is gone means separation or farewell, he may not come back again or it is hard to find him. So he is gone may mean in common language he is dead. This kind of functional load prevents contrast loss, so it prevents the loss of the Be Gone. If we use the syntactic-semantic features concerning the pair HAVE Gone vs. Be Gone, HAVE Gone may be featured as [-BEING], [+ACTIVITY] and Be Gone as [+BEING], [+STATIVITY]. HAVE Gone is focused on action or activity whereas Be Gone is focused on stativity or state (that is, being dead or separated). My feature system can also differentiate the demarcation between the pair HAVE Gone vs. Be Gone.
Abstract
Since OE through ME, and until EModE, HAVE perfect usually occurs with transitive verbs whereas BE perfect occurs with intransitive verbs (especially, mutative verbs i.e. signifying a change of state or a place and/or verbs of motion). Against the demarcation of the HAVE perfect into two categories, ACTIVITY and UNREALITY by Rydén-Brorström (1987), I suggest that the assumption of the cluster of the syntactic-semantic features, [+BEING], [+STATIVITY] for the BE perfect, the cluster of the opposite syntactic-semantic features, [-BEING], [-STATIVITY], or [+ACTIVITY], [+ITERATION] and [+DURATION] [+UNREALITY] and [+COUNTERFACTUALITY] for the HAVE perfect can explain the BE/HAVE paradigm. Concerning the demise of the BE perfect, counterfactuality proposed by McFadden and Alexiadou (2005) is suggested as the catalyst for the eventual loss of BE. In the first half of ME, counterfactuals categorically required the auxiliary HAVE on the perfect. This requirement was strong enough even to override the otherwise categorical selection of BE by verbs like come, yielding their first appearances with HAVE. My assumption of the feature [±BEING] can explain this. My data (Table I) also shows this in that only 17 cases in King James (1611) and 18 cases in Tyndale (1526) of the BE perfect appear, mainly with the verbs come and go. PE shows a productive use of Be Gone in daily life. One reason for this being that Be Gone has a functional load differently from Be Come, which has no distinctive meaning or function. While he has gone means he is not here, but you may get him easily, but he is gone means separation or farewell, he may not come back again or it is hard to find him. So he is gone may mean in common language he is dead. This kind of functional load prevents contrast loss, so it prevents the loss of the Be Gone. If we use the syntactic-semantic features concerning the pair HAVE Gone vs. Be Gone, HAVE Gone may be featured as [-BEING], [+ACTIVITY] and Be Gone as [+BEING], [+STATIVITY]. HAVE Gone is focused on action or activity whereas Be Gone is focused on stativity or state (that is, being dead or separated). My feature system can also differentiate the demarcation between the pair HAVE Gone vs. Be Gone.
참고문헌 (35)
- Aarts, Bas, "Historical linguistics of English: an international handbook", pp.869~887 (2012), Mouton de Gruyter
- Algeo, John, "The Origins and Development of the English Language" (2014), Wadsworth
- Bolinger, D., "Meaning and Form" (1977), Longman Group Ltd
- Bosworth, J., "The Gospels: Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Wycliffe and Tyndale Versions" (1907), Gibbings and Company
- Brinton, L. J., "The Deveolopment of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles", Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 49 (1988), Cambridge University Press
- Burzio, L., "Italian Syntax" (1986), D. Reidel Publishing Company
- Christophersen, P, "1970 An Advanced English Grammar. Bristol. Collins Dictionary of the English Language", ~ (1985)
- Defromont, Hubert J, "Les constructions perfectives du verbe anglais contemporain: Étude comparée de l’aspect transcendant dans les systèmes verbaux angalais et français" (1973), Mouton
- Denison, David, "English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions" (1993), Longman
- Elsness, Johan, "The Perfect and Preterit in Contemporary and Earlier English" (1997), Mouton de Gruyter
- Fisiak, Jacek, "Historical Syntax" (1984), Mouton
- Görlach, Manfred, "Introduction to early modern English" (1991), Cambridge University Press
- Martin B, "On the strength and weaknesses of a typological approach to historical syntax", 183~197 (1984)
- Harris, J, "Syntactic Variation and Dialect Divergence", Journal of Linguistics, 20, pp.303~327 (1984)
- Harris, M, "Studies in the Romance Verb—Essays offered to Joe Cremona on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday", pp.42~70 (1982), Croom Helm
- Jespersen, O, "Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandllung" (1961), Ejnar Munksgard
- Kytö, Merja, "English in Transition: corpus-based studies in linguistic variation and genre styles" (1997), Mouton de Gruyter
- McCoard, R. W, "The English Perfect: Tense-choice and Pragmatic Inferences", 박사, pp.1976
- McFadden, Thomas, "Counterfactuals and BE in the History of English", Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp.272~280 (2005), Cascadilla Proceedings Project
- Mitchell, B., "Old English Syntax" (1985), Clarendon Press
- Mustanoja, T. F, "A Middle English Syntax, I, Parts of speech" (1960), Societe Neophilologiquei
- Quirk, R, "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" (1985), Longman
- Radford, A., "Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English" (2004), Cambridge University Press
- Rydén, M, "The ‘be", have’ Variation with Intransitives in English: with Special Reference to the Late Modern Period, 1987
- Shin, S, "Parameter-Resetting in the Diachronic Syntax of English", 박사, pp.1992
- 신성균, "On the Grammaticalization of the English Have Perfect Based on Diachronic Bible Versions", 영어영문학연구, 54(3), pp.251~268 (2012), 한국중앙영어영문학회
- 신성균, "On the Demise of the English Be Perfect Based on Diachronic Bible Versions", 영어영문학연구, 55(4), pp.331~356 (2013), 한국중앙영어영문학회
- Söderlind, J, "Verb Syntax in John Dryden’s Prose" (1958), Uppsala
- Sorace, A, "Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs", Language, 76, pp.859~890 (2000)
- Traugott, E. C., "The History of English Syntax" (1972), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc
- Traugott, E. C, "Syntax. In CHEL I, The Beginnings to 1066", 168~289 (1992)
- Vanneck, Gerard, "The colloquial preterit in modern American English", Word, 14, pp.237~242 (1958)
- Visser, F. T., "An Historical Syntax of the English Language" (1966), Brill
- Visser, F. T, "An Historical Syntax of the English Language" (1973), E. J. Brill
- Zieglschmid, A, "Concerning the disappearance of the simple past in various Indo-European languages", Philological Quarerly, 9, pp.153~157 (1930)