Cover not available

Article published In: Diachronica
Vol. 43:1 (2026) ► pp.41–73

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Multiple source explanation in language change

The emergence of auxiliary do

ORCiD logo with link | The University of Manchester
ORCiD logo with link | University of Oxford
ORCiD logo with link | University of Zurich
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Oxford.

Published online: 6 September 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.24060.bre
Abstract
The development of the English auxiliary do is a well-studied phenomenon, but there is no agreement on its source (see . 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar: Chapter 10). It has been suggested in the literature that a mono-causal account cannot satisfactorily capture the development (e.g., Fischer, Olga, Hendrik De Smet & Wim van der Wurff. 2017. A brief history of English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Van der Auwera, Johan & Inge Genee. 2002. English do: on the convergence of languages and linguists. English Language and Linguistics 61. 283–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar), but no worked out alternative has been provided. In this article, we focus on the pre-innovation Old English stage and explore what properties of the verb itself and the verbal system of which it formed a part conspired to lead to the innovation. On the basis of this we propose a multiple source account in which both primary sources — uses of Old English don that form the building blocks of the innovative use — and secondary sources — properties of the language system that facilitated the development — play a crucial role. We also argue that our account expands the inventory of types of multiple source explanations (cf. De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.). 2015. On multiple source constructions in language change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar).
Article outline
  • 1.Multiple source explanation in language change
  • 2.Preliminaries
    • 2.1Auxiliary do
    • 2.2Functions of don in Old English
  • 3.Previous accounts of the origin of auxiliary do
    • 3.1Causative don
    • 3.2Pro-verb don
    • 3.3Lexical don
    • 3.4Celtic influence
    • 3.5More than one source?
  • 4.Multiple source explanation for the development of auxiliary do
    • 4.1Primary sources
      • 4.1.1Causative don
      • 4.1.2Composite predicate don
    • 4.2Secondary sources
      • 4.2.1Polysemy and delexicalised meaning of don in Old English
      • 4.2.2Changes to the system of causative verbs
      • 4.2.3Changes to the system of composite verbs
      • 4.2.4Attrition of inflectional morphology
      • 4.2.5The development of modal verbs
    • 4.3Motivating the multiple source explanation
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (65)
References
Abbott, Edwin A. 1875. A Shakespearean grammar: An attempt to illustrate some of the differences between Elizabethan and modern English. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji & Laurel J. Brinton. 1999. The origin of the composite predicate in Old English. In Laurel J. Brinton & Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, 21–58. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breban, Tine. 2012. Functional shifts and the development of English determiners. In Anneli Meurman-Solin, Maria José López-Couso & Bettelou Los (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English, 271–300. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breban, Tine, Kersti Börjars & Lorenzo Moretti. 2023. Multiple sources, the language network and language change: the emergence of auxiliary do. Paper presented at ICEHL, Sheffield, July 2023.
Breban, Tine & Hendrik De Smet. 2019. How do grammatical patterns emerge? The origins and development of the English proper noun modifier construction. English Language and Linguistics 231. 879–899. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. “Where grammar and lexis meet”: Composite predicates in English. In Elena Seoane & Maria José López-Couso (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 33–53. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Budts, Sara. 2021. On periphrastic do and the modal auxiliaries: A connectionist approach to language change. University of Antwerp dissertation.
Butt, Miriam. 2010. The light verb jungle: still hacking away. In Mengistu Amberber, Brett Baker & Mark Harvey (eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure, 48–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 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: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2013. Change through recombination: blending and analogy. Language Sciences 401. 80–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.). 2015. On multiple source constructions in language change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1985. The origins of periphrastic do: Ellegård and Visser reconsidered. In Roger Eaton, Olga Fischer, Willem F. Koopman & Frederike van der Leek (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 45–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ecay, Aaron. 2015. A multi-step analysis of the evolution of English do-support. University of Pennsylvania dissertation.
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engblom, Victor. 1938. On the origin and early development of the auxiliary do. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2015. Multiple sources in language change: the role of free adjuncts and absolutes in the formation of English ACC-ing gerundives. In Mikko Höglund, Paul Rickman, Juhani Rudanko & Jukka Havu (eds.), Perspectives on complementation. structure, variation and boundaries, 179–205. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1989. The origin and spread of the accusative and infinitive construction in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 8(1–2). 143–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. An inquiry into unidirectionality as a foundational element of grammaticalization. on the role played by analogy and the synchronic grammar system in processes of language change. In Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), On multiple source constructions in language change, 43–62. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Hendrik De Smet & Wim van der Wurff. 2017. A brief history of English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga & Wim van der Wurff. 2006. Syntax. In Richard Hogg & David Denison (eds.), A history of the English language, 109–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1998. On the origin of auxiliary do. English Language and Linguistics 21. 283–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. The verb. In Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 71–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jäger, Andreas. 2006. Typology of periphrastic ‘do’-constructions. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 2015. Multiple sources and multiple causes multiply explored. In Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquiere & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), On multiple source constructions in language change, 205–221. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 2002. Periphrastic do: Dialectal distribution and origins. In Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola & Heli Pitkänen (eds.), The Celtic roots of English, 199–210. Joensuu: University of Joensuu Faculty of Humanities.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 11. 199–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1992. Word order change by grammaticalization. In Marinel Gerritsen & Dieter Stein (eds.), Internal and external factors in syntactic change, 395–416. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics London 231.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1997. Shifting triggers and diachronic reanalyses. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 253–722. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. A historical syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lowrey, Brian. 2002. Les verbs causatifs en anglais: une étude diachronique du moyen-anglais a l’anglais moderne. Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex: Université de Lille III dissertation.
. 2010. Causative verbs in West Saxon Old English. Bulletin des anglicistes médiévistes 781. 57–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. The Old English causative hatan and its demise. Token 21. 23–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Finite causative complements in Middle English. In Hubert Cuyckens, Hendrik De Smet, Liesbet Heyvaert & Charlotte Maekelberghe (eds.), Explorations in English historical syntax, 105–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manabe, Kazumi. 1989. The syntactic and stylistic development of the infinitive in Middle English. Fukuoka: Kyushu University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2009. What else happened to English? A brief for the Celtic hypothesis. English Language & Linguistics 13(2). 163–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moretti, Lorenzo. 2021. On multiple constructions and multiple factors in language change: The origin of auxiliary do. The University of Manchester dissertation.
. 2022. A multivariate analysis of causative do and causative make in Middle English. Linguistic Vanguard 81. 165–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023. The functions of auxiliary do in Middle English poetry: A quantitative study. Journal of English Linguistics 51(1). 3–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2024. A quantitative exploration of the functions of auxiliary do in Middle English. English Language & Linguistics First view online.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Part one: parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. Raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poussa, Patricia. 1990. A contact-universals origin for periphrastic do, with special consideration of OE-Celtic contact. In Sylvia M. Adamson, Vivien A. Law, Nigel Vincent & Susan Wright (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 407–434. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Preusler, Walther. 1938. Keltischer Einflub im Englischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 561. 178–191.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1991. Spoken language and the history of do-periphrasis. In Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), Historical English syntax, 321–342. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G. 2008. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31. 21–58.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. In William Todd (ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics, 77–102. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Royster, James Finch. 1922. Old English causative verbs. Studies in Philology 19(3). 328–356.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stein, Dieter. 1990. The semantics of syntactic change. Aspects of the evolution of ‘do’ in English. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Timofeeva, Olga. 2010. Non-finite constructions in Old English, with special reference to syntactic borrowing from Latin. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. A historical overview of complex predicate types. In Laurel J. Brinton & Minoji Akimoto (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, 239–260. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2015. Multiple inheritance and constructional change. In Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), On multiple source constructions in language change, 19–42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière. 2015. On multiple source constructions in language change. In Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), On multiple source constructions in language change, 1–17. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan & Inge Genee. 2002. English do: on the convergence of languages and linguists. English Language and Linguistics 61. 283–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, F Th. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill Archive.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. The structure of parametric change, and v-movement in the history of English. In Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 380–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziegeler, Debra. 2004. Reanalysis in the history of do: A view from construction grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 151. 529–574. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zilling, Otto. 1918. Das Hilfsverb do im Mittel-Englischen. Halle: Ehrhardt Karras.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue