Cover not available

In:Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond
Edited by Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 352] 2020
► pp. 95–122

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 4
The development of the perfect in selected Middle and New Germanic languages

 | Philipps-University Marburg
Published online: 23 September 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.352.04fis
Abstract
This article gives an overview of the most important similarities and differences in perfect constructions in modern Germanic languages. The focus is on the German present perfect form and its developments, which will be compared with the perfect constructions of English and Dutch (West Germanic) and Swedish (North Germanic) throughout. First, I introduce and compare the perfect forms in a selection of modern Germanic languages. I then focus on the emergence and development of the German perfect, before I compare the degrees of perfect expansion in the languages under investigation. In a final step, I investigate some of the consequences of the described processes: i.e. the loss of the German preterite form (Präteritumschwund), the emergence of the double perfect constructions in German substandard varieties, and the re-introduction of a semantic opposition in English.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Perfect forms in modern Germanic languages
  • 3.The emergence and developments of the Germanic perfects
    • 3.1The origin in Old Germanic
    • 3.2The emergence of the German perfect
    • 3.3The expansion of the German perfect
    • 3.4Degrees of perfect expansion in modern Germanic languages
  • 4.Consequences and current trends
    • 4.1Präteritumschwund in German dialects
    • 4.2Double perfect constructions in German substandard varieties
    • 4.3Re-introduction of a temporal opposition in English
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (59)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2004. The European demise of the simple past and the emergence of periphrastic perfect: Areal diffusion or natural, autonomous evolution under parsing facilitation? In Werner Abraham (ed.), Focus on Germanic typology (Studia typologica 6), 241–271. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amft, Camilla. 2018. Das präteritale Konzept im Frühneuhochdeutschen. Zur Distribution von Präteritum und präteritalem Perfekt in Flugschriften des 16. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ammann, Andreas. 2007. The fate of ‘redundant’ verbal forms – Double perfect constructions in the languages of Europe. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 60. 186–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnett, Carlee. 1997. Perfect auxiliary selection in the Old Saxon Heliand. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 9. 23–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brandner, Ellen, Martin Salzmann & Gerhard Schaden. 2016. Zur Syntax und Semantik des doppelten Perfekts aus alemannischer Sicht. In Alexandra N. Lenz & Franz Patocka (eds.), Syntaktische Variation: areallinguistische Perspektiven (Wiener Arbeiten zur Linguistik 2), 13–46. Göttingen: V&R unipress.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm & Frank Heidermanns. 2004. Gotische Grammatik. Mit Lesestücken und Wörterverzeichnis. 20th edn. (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte. A: Hauptreihe 1). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buchwald-Wargenau, Isabel. 2012. Die doppelten Perfektbildungen im Deutschen: Eine diachrone Untersuchung (Studia Linguistica Germanica 115). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology. A study of the relation between meaning and form (Typological Studies in Language 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. Phonology and language use (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dal, Ingerid. 1960. Zur Frage des süddeutschen Präteritumschwundes. In Hans Hartmann & Hans Neumann (eds.), Indogermanica: Festschrift für Wolfgang Krause zum 65. Geburtstage am 18. September 1960 von Fachgenossen und Freunden dargebracht, 1–7. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje, Jessica Nowak & Mirjam Schmuck. 2010. Strong verb paradigm leveling in four Germanic languages: A category frequency approach. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 22. 337–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dentler, Sigrid. 1997. Zur Perfekterneuerung im Mittelhochdeutschen: Die Erweiterung des zeitreferentiellen Funktionsbereichs von Perfektfügungen (Göteborger germanistische Forschungen 37). Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Gab es den Präteritumschwund? In John Ole Askedal (ed.), Historische germanische und deutsche Syntax (Osloer Beiträge zur Germanistik 21), 133–147. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2017. Language contact in Europe: The periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duden-Grammatik. 2016. Duden. Die Grammatik. Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch. Der Aufbau der deutschen Sprache vom Laut über das Wort und den Satz bis hin zum Text und zu den Merkmalen der gesprochenen Sprache ed. by Angelika Wöllstein & Dudenredaktion. 9th fully revised and updated edn. (Der Duden in zwölf Bänden 4).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ebert, Robert Peter, Oskar Reichmann, Hans-Joachim Solms & Klaus-Peter Wegera (eds.). 1993. Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte. A: Hauptreihe 12). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1997. The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and earlier English (Topics in English Linguistics 21). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Hanna. 2018. Präteritumschwund im Deutschen: Dokumentation und Erklärung eines Verdrängungsprozesses (Studia Linguistica Germanica 132). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gillmann, Melitta. 2016. Perfektkonstruktionen mit ›haben‹ und ›sein‹: Eine Korpusuntersuchung im Althochdeutschen, Altsächsischen und Neuhochdeutschen (Studia Linguistica Germanica 128). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grønvik, Ottar. 1986. Über den Ursprung und die Entwicklung der aktiven Perfekt- und Plusquamperfektkonstruktionen des Hochdeutschen und ihre Eigenart innerhalb des germanischen Sprachraumes. Oslo: Solum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gvozdanović, Jadranka. 2012. Perfective and Imperfective Aspect. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, 781–802. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hennig, Mathilde. 2000. Tempus und Temporalität in geschriebenen und gesprochenen Texten (Linguistische Arbeiten 421). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Henriksson, Henrik. 2006. Aspektualität ohne Aspekt? Progressivität und Imperfektivität im Deutschen und Schwedischen (Lunder germanistische Forschungen 68). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization I: Theoretical and methodological issues (Typological Studies in Language 19.1), 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1992. The present perfect puzzle. Language 68. 525–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuroda, Susumu. 1999. Die historische Entwicklung der Perfektkonstruktionen im Deutschen (Beiträge zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft 15). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langenberg, Jean. 2008. Der Präteritumschwund in der deutschen Literatursprache: Ein Vergleich der Literatur des 18. und 21. Jahrhunderts. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Łęcki, Andrzej M. 2010. Grammaticalisation paths of Have in English (Studies in English medieval language and literature 24). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindgren, Kaj B. 1957. Über den oberdeutschen Präteritumschwund (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Annales Academiæ Scientiarum, Sarja-ser. B Nide-Tom 112,1). Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Kirjapaino.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindstedt, Jouko. 2001. Tense and aspect. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20.1), vol. I, 768–783. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan & Camilla Wide. 2001. Perfekt med explicit dåtidsbestämning. Svenskans Beskrivning 24. 153–166.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics, 96–113. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oubouzar, Erika. 1974. Über die Ausbildung der zusammengesetzten Verbformen im deutschen Verbalsystem. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 95. 5–96. Halle/Saale: VEB Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte. A: Hauptreihe 2). Newly edited by Thomas Klein, Hans-Joachim Solms & Klaus-Peter Wegera. 25th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reis, Hans. 1894. Das Präteritum in den süddeutschen Mundarten. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 19. 334–337.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rödel, Michael. 2007. Doppelte Perfektbildungen und die Organisation von Tempus im Deutschen (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 74). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rothstein, Björn. 2006. The perfect time span: On the present perfect in German, Swedish and English. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowley, Anthony R. 2013. ‘Waß sy zLanzet zue hat tragn’: „Der Bauernsohn in der Kirche“ und die „Bauernklagen“: Drei westmittelbairische Stücke aus der Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts – Texte und Darstellung des Dialekts. In Christian Ferstl & Anthony R. Rowley (eds.), Was sich in Landshut zugetragen hat – und anderswo. Beiträge zur Schmellerforschung und darüber hinaus (Jahrbuch der Johann-Andreas-Schmeller-Gesellschaft 2012), 11–89. Regensburg: Vulpes.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sapp, Christopher D. 2009. Syncope as the cause of Präteritumschwund: New data from an Early New High German corpus. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21. 419–450. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2016: A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning (Language and the Human Lifespan Series), 9–35. Washington/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schöndorf, Kurt E. 1983. Zum Gebrauch der Vergangenheitstempora in den mittelniederdeutschen Bibelfrühdrucken. In John Ole Askedal, Christen Christensen, Ådne Findreng & Oddleif Leirbukt (eds.), Festschrift für Laurits Saltveit zum 70. Geburtstag am 31. Dezember 1983, 171–181. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas F. 1990. The unaccusative hypothesis and the history of the perfect auxiliary in Germanic and Romance. In Henning Andersen & E. F. Konrad Koerner (eds.), Historical linguistics 1987: Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (8. ICHL), Lille, 31 August – 4 September 1987 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 66), 461–488. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas. 1995. Toward a cognitive explanation of perfect auxiliary variation: Some modal and aspectual effects in the history of Germanic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 7. 129–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sick, Bastian. 2004. Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod: Ein Wegweiser durch den Irrgarten der deutschen Sprache (KiWi 863). Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sieberg, Bernd. 1984. Perfekt und Imperfekt in der gesprochenen Sprache: Untersuchung zu Gebrauchsregularitäten im Bereich gesprochener Standard- und rheinischer Umgangssprache mit dem Erp-Projekt als Grundlage der Korpusgewinnung. Bonn: Universität Bonn dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76. 859–890. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface: Evidence from auxiliary selection and implications for unaccusativity. In Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds.), The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 5), 243–268. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy (Linguistik aktuell 71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wenker, Georg. 1889–1923. Sprachatlas des Deutschen Reichs. Marburg. Available online at [URL] (September 11, 2018).
Zeman, Sonja. 2010. Tempus und „Mündlichkeit“ im Mittelhochdeutschen: Zur Interdependenz grammatischer Perspektivensetzung und „historischer Mündlichkeit“ im mittelhochdeutschen Tempussystem (Studia Linguistica Germanica 102). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue