Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Pieces of the be perfect in German and older English

By Thomas McFadden and Artemis Alexiadou


This paper examines the development of periphrastic constructions involving auxiliary "have" and "be" with a past participle in the history of English, on the basis of parsed electronic corpora. It is argued that the two constructions represented distinct syntactic and semantic structures: while the one with have developed into a true perfect in the course of Middle English, the one with be remained a stative resultative throughout its history. In this way, it is explained why the be construction was rarely or never used in a number of contexts, including past counterfactuals, iteratives, duratives, certain kinds of infinitives and various other utterance types that cannot be characterized as perfects of result. When the construction with have became a true perfect, it was used in such contexts, regardless of the identity of the main verb, leading to the appearance of have with verbs like come which had previously only taken be. Crucially, however, have was not spreading at the expense of be, as the be perfect had never been used in such contexts, but rather at the expense of the old simple past. At least until the end of the Early Modern English period, the shift in the relative frequency of have and be perfects is to be explained in terms of the expansion of the former into new contexts, while the latter remained stable. A formal analysis is proposed, taking as its starting point a comparison with German which shows that the older English be perfect indeed behaves more like the German stative passive than its haben and sein perfects

Topics: Hilfsverb, Perfekt, Mittelenglisch, Frühneuenglisch, Deutsch, ddc:400
Year: 2008
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2006). 278Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics edited by Donald Baumer, David Montero, and Michael Scanlon Cascadilla Proceedings Project Somerville,
  2. (1960). A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. doi
  3. (1998). Arnim doi
  4. (1997). Be/have + past participle: the choice of the auxiliary with intransitives from Late Middle to Modern English. doi
  5. (2000). Building statives. doi
  6. (1934). Die Entwicklung des umschriebenen Perfektums im Altenglischen und Frühmittelenglischen.
  7. Elena Anagnostopoulou and Roumyana Pancheva (2003). Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. doi
  8. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon.
  9. (1985). Old English Syntax. doi
  10. (1958). On the be and have constructions with mutative verbs. Studia Linguistica 12:106–118. doi
  11. (2004). On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35:355–392. doi
  12. Parallelism vs. asymmetry: the case of English counterfactual conditionals. doi
  13. (2003). Participles and voice. doi
  14. (2005). Penn-helsinki parsed corpus of Early Modern English.
  15. (1999). Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English, 2nd ed.
  16. (1973). Structural change in the English auxiliary system: on the replacement of be by have. Folia Linguistica 6:107–117. doi
  17. (1948). Studies on the tenses of the English verb from Chaucer to Shakespeare, with special reference to the late sixteenth century. doi
  18. (2000). The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31:231–270. doi
  19. (1972). The history of English syntax. doi
  20. (1997). The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and earlier English. doi
  21. (1976). The perfect auxiliaries in the language of Shakespeare. Studia Anglica Posnaniensa 8:45–53.
  22. (1992). The present perfect puzzle. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.