The speaker and the perfective auxiliaries hafa and vera in Icelandic

Yamaguchi, Toshiko; Pétursson, Magnús

doi:10.1016/s0388-0001(03)00005-6

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The be perfect is indeed essentially restricted to telics, as atelic eventualities typically do not yield result states, but telicity does not conversely guarantee be. Both examples in (28) are telic, but alongside be with a resultative interpretation in (28a) we find have with a non-resultative, experiential interpretation in (28b), just as Yamaguchi and Pétursson (2003) A very similar pattern seems to hold in (at least some forms of) Norwegian (Øystein Nilsen, Øystein Vangsnes, personal communication). The experiential/resultative distinction also seems to best characterize the split in perfect auxiliaries with intransitives in late Middle and Early Modern English.…”

Section: Clausal Aspect Splitssupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: The Observed Patternssupporting

confidence: 57%

“…What is relevant for our purposes is that, in some languages, the choice of perfect auxiliaries seems to depend on which reading is intended. In Icelandic, for example, Yamaguchi and Pétursson (2003) argue that hafa ‘have’ can form experiential perfects, while vera ‘be’ can only form perfects of result. Thus, (27a) is about Peter having gone at some time in the past, but says nothing about his present state, while (27b) implies that he is still gone:…”

Section: The Observed Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pattern is not, however, restricted to this class. Yamaguchi and Pétursson (2003) also give examples with change‐of‐state verbs like spretta ‘grow’ and anticausatives like brotna ‘break’.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Auxiliary Selection

McFadden

2007

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few syntactic phenomena are relevant to as many areas of linguistic theory as auxiliary selection – the alternation between auxiliaries in periphrastic constructions. Standing at the intersection between syntax, lexical and clausal semantics and morphology, it has been the subject of intense research since the late 1970s and has played a role in several important theoretical developments and debates. Auxiliary selection also poses a number of empirical questions. Even within a single language, the correct description of the alternation can be controversial, and the extensive cross‐linguistic variation has turned out to be rather difficult to characterize in a systematic way. In this article, I give a survey of how our understanding of auxiliary selection has developed, both on the empirical and the theoretical side. I also include a brief discussion of work on how patterns of selection arise and change over time.

show abstract

Section: Clausal Aspect Splitssupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: The Observed Patternssupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: The Observed Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Auxiliary Selection

McFadden

2007

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…notes, ''I pretty strongly prefer 'have', but 'be' feels somewhat better than some of the other bad cases.'' 30 Yamaguchi and Pétursson (2003) have analyzed the Modern Icelandic perfect, where the facts appear to be substantially the same. They explicitly argue that Icelandic hafa (HAVE) forms experiential perfects, while vera (BE) can only form perfects of result-precisely what we are arguing here for Earlier English.…”

Section: A Norwegian Parallelmentioning

confidence: 94%

Perfects, Resultatives, and Auxiliaries in Earlier English

McFadden

Αλεξιαδου

2010

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we investigate the peculiar distribution of the auxiliaries have and be in Earlier English and its consequences for theories of the perfect and auxiliary selection. We argue on the basis of a largescale corpus study that the periphrastic construction with be was restricted to a stative resultative interpretation, whereas that with have developed a wider range of uses, crucially including the experiential perfect in addition to resultatives. Support comes from comparing the Earlier English patterns with related ones in Norwegian and German for which native-speaker judgments are available. On the basis of this insight, we propose distinct formal analyses for the two constructions and show how they account for the attested patterns and changes in Middle and Early Modern English. Of particular theoretical relevance is the premise that what has been called the ''perfect'' is not a homogeneous, monolithic category, and that certain kinds of variation can only be understood by teasing apart the pieces involved. Earlier English and German auxiliaries have distinct distributions because their ''perfects'' have disinct syntactic and semantic makeups.

show abstract

Auxiliary Selection in Spanish

Rosemeyer

2014

Studies in Language Companion Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The speaker and the perfective auxiliaries hafa and vera in Icelandic

Cited by 7 publications

References 7 publications

Auxiliary Selection

Auxiliary Selection

Perfects, Resultatives, and Auxiliaries in Earlier English

Auxiliary Selection in Spanish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About