Cover not available

In:The Progressive Revisited: Historical and Quantitative Studies in Germanic and Romance Languages
Edited by Alessandro Carlucci and Jerzy Nykiel
[Studies in Language Companion Series 236] 2025
► pp. 22–46

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

Progressive aspect in English

Developments in early Middle English

 | University of Inland Norway
Published online: 12 September 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.236.01ste
Abstract
The present chapter investigates cases in early ME in which the etymological endings of the OE present participle -ende and the OE gerund -ing are confused, i.e., are used unetymologically. My findings are that in the 13th century, the etymological gerundial ending -ing is in the process of being generalized, taking over both the verbal and adjectival functions of the old present participle; and that phonetic attrition and blending must have been at least partly responsible for the (con)fusion. The PDE progressive seems to be a fusion between two OE constructions with progressive meaning, the be + present participle construction and the be + preposition + gerund construction. There are a few proper progressive constructions even in early ME, indicating simultaneous action, continued state and general duration, i.e., imperfectivity, with burn and come as lexical leaders.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background and some previous research
    • 2.1Tense and aspect
    • 2.2Brief (pre-)historical backdrop
    • 2.3Old English aspect and word formation
    • 2.4Progressive constructions in Old English
    • 2.5Proposed explanations for the rise of progressive aspect in English
  • 3.Method and data
  • 4.Findings and discussion
    • 4.1The direction of the confusion
    • 4.2Mislabelled forms among the <vpsp>?
    • 4.3Types of verbs
    • 4.4Possible explanations for the confusion
    • 4.5Truly progressive aspect in EME?
    • 4.6Scribal and regional variation
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (31)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2013. Nominal vs. verbal constructions and the development of the English progressive. English Linguistics Research 2(2): 126–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Algeo, John. 2006. The Origins and Development of the English Language (6th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baugh, Albert C. & Cable, Thomas. 2002. A History of the English Language. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, Alastair. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dal, Ingerid. 1952. Zur Entstehung des englischen Partizipium Praesentis auf -ing. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskab XVI: 5–116.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1994. On the progression of the progressive in Early Modern English. ICAME Journal 18: 5–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume II, Norman Blake (ed.), 207–408. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde, Lysvåg, Per & Johansson, Stig. 2012. English Grammar: Theory and Use. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of contexts in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2008. From locative to durative to focalized? The English progressive and ‘PROG imperfective drift’. In English Historical Linguistics 2006. Volume 1: Syntax and Morphology, Maurizio Gotti, Marina Dossena & Richard Dury (eds), 69–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Old English — Late British language contact and the English progressive. In Language Contact and Development Around the North Sea, Merja Stenroos, Martti Mäkinen & Inge Særheim (eds), 119–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The development of the English BE + V-ende/V-ing periphrasis: from emphatic to progressive marker? English Language and Linguistics 18(3): 361–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laing, M. 2013. A Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English. Compiled by Margaret Laing with accompanying software by Keith Williamson. University of Edinburgh, <[URL]>.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1992. Phonology and morphology. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. II, Norman Blake (ed.), 23–155. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2012. Progressive and continuous Aspect. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect. Oxford Handbooks Online. [Page references are to the online version.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McIntosh, Angus, Michael L. Samuels & Michael Benskin. 1986. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. Vols. I-IV. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Molencki, Rafaɫ. 2012. Old English: Syntax. In English Historical Linguistics. Volume 1, Alexander Bergs & Laurel J. Brinton (eds), 294–313. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nehls, Dietrich. 1974. Synchron-diachrone Untersuchungen zur Expanded Form im Englischen. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nickel, Gerhard. 1966. Die expanded Form im Altenglischen. Vorkommen, Funktion und Herkunft der Umschreibung ‘beon/wesan’ + Partizip Präsens. Neumünster: Wachholtz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Yale University: The Linguistic Society of America. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph & Wrenn, C. L. 1957. An Old English Grammar (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samuels, Michael L. 1972. Linguistic Evolution, with Special Reference to English. London: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schendl, Herbert. 2012. Middle English: Language Contact. In English Historical Linguistics. Volume 1, Alexander Bergs & Laurel J. Brinton (eds), 505–519. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thormodsæter, Øyvind. 2006. Aspects of the Progressive. A comparative analysis of the English progressive aspect and its correspondences in Norwegian. MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. Syntax. In The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume I, Richard Hogg (ed.), 168–289. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Th. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Vols. I-IV. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard & Anthony McEnery. 2004. Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A Corpus-based Study. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue