Form does not follow function, but variation does : The origin and early usage of possessive HAVE got in English
Lorenz, David LU
(2016)
In English Language and Linguistics
20(3).
p.487-510
- Abstract
- This article investigates the emergence and early use of possessive havegot in English. Two hypotheses about its emergence are tested on historical data (c.1460–1760). One hypothesis is based on communicative functionality, suggesting that got was inserted as a ‘pattern preserver’ to compensate for the increased reduction of have. The other hypothesis invokes the conventionalization of an invited inference, thus a (non-functional) semantic shift which does not immediately serve to support a communicative function. The diachronic evidence is found to support only the latter hypothesis.
In the second part the early stage of the variation of have and havegot is investigated (c.1720–50). The results show a strong register difference,... (More) - This article investigates the emergence and early use of possessive havegot in English. Two hypotheses about its emergence are tested on historical data (c.1460–1760). One hypothesis is based on communicative functionality, suggesting that got was inserted as a ‘pattern preserver’ to compensate for the increased reduction of have. The other hypothesis invokes the conventionalization of an invited inference, thus a (non-functional) semantic shift which does not immediately serve to support a communicative function. The diachronic evidence is found to support only the latter hypothesis.
In the second part the early stage of the variation of have and havegot is investigated (c.1720–50). The results show a strong register difference, but also a division of labour between the variants that can be explained by the syntactic and semantic properties of havegot as having emerged out of a present perfect of get. Thus, the variation is organized in a functionally motivated way.
It is concluded that in the development of possessive havegot functional constraints apply to the variation early on, but do not play an evident role in the emergence of the new variant. This suggests that functional motivations are a directing force but not necessarily a driving force in language change. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- This article investigates the emergence and early use of possessive HAVEgot in English. Two hypotheses about its emergence are tested on historical data (c.1460–1760). One hypothesis is based on communicative functionality, suggesting that got was inserted as a ‘pattern preserver’ to compensate for the increased reduction of HAVE. The other hypothesis invokes the conventionalization of an invited inference, thus a (non-functional) semantic shift which does not immediately serve to support a communicative function. The diachronic evidence is found to support only the latter hypothesis.
In the second part the early stage of the variation of HAVE and HAVEgot is investigated (c.1720–50). The results show a strong register difference,... (More) - This article investigates the emergence and early use of possessive HAVEgot in English. Two hypotheses about its emergence are tested on historical data (c.1460–1760). One hypothesis is based on communicative functionality, suggesting that got was inserted as a ‘pattern preserver’ to compensate for the increased reduction of HAVE. The other hypothesis invokes the conventionalization of an invited inference, thus a (non-functional) semantic shift which does not immediately serve to support a communicative function. The diachronic evidence is found to support only the latter hypothesis.
In the second part the early stage of the variation of HAVE and HAVEgot is investigated (c.1720–50). The results show a strong register difference, but also a division of labour between the variants that can be explained by the syntactic and semantic properties of HAVEgot as having emerged out of a present perfect of get. Thus, the variation is organized in a functionally motivated way.
It is concluded that in the development of possessive HAVEgot functional constraints apply to the variation early on, but do not play an evident role in the emergence of the new variant. This suggests that functional motivations are a directing force but not necessarily a driving force in language change. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/40803d8f-7a6a-4f87-9ee2-7b33497e1121
- author
- Lorenz, David
LU
- publishing date
- 2016-10-25
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- English Language and Linguistics
- volume
- 20
- issue
- 3
- pages
- 24 pages
- publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:84993982763
- ISSN
- 1360-6743
- DOI
- 10.1017/S1360674316000332
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- 40803d8f-7a6a-4f87-9ee2-7b33497e1121
- date added to LUP
- 2023-11-22 15:17:00
- date last changed
- 2023-11-24 15:39:41
@article{40803d8f-7a6a-4f87-9ee2-7b33497e1121,
abstract = {{This article investigates the emergence and early use of possessive havegot in English. Two hypotheses about its emergence are tested on historical data (c.1460–1760). One hypothesis is based on communicative functionality, suggesting that got was inserted as a ‘pattern preserver’ to compensate for the increased reduction of have. The other hypothesis invokes the conventionalization of an invited inference, thus a (non-functional) semantic shift which does not immediately serve to support a communicative function. The diachronic evidence is found to support only the latter hypothesis.<br/><br/>In the second part the early stage of the variation of have and havegot is investigated (c.1720–50). The results show a strong register difference, but also a division of labour between the variants that can be explained by the syntactic and semantic properties of havegot as having emerged out of a present perfect of get. Thus, the variation is organized in a functionally motivated way.<br/><br/>It is concluded that in the development of possessive havegot functional constraints apply to the variation early on, but do not play an evident role in the emergence of the new variant. This suggests that functional motivations are a directing force but not necessarily a driving force in language change.}},
author = {{Lorenz, David}},
issn = {{1360-6743}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{10}},
number = {{3}},
pages = {{487--510}},
publisher = {{Cambridge University Press}},
series = {{English Language and Linguistics}},
title = {{Form does not follow function, but variation does : The origin and early usage of possessive HAVE got in English}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000332}},
doi = {{10.1017/S1360674316000332}},
volume = {{20}},
year = {{2016}},
}