The Cambridge History of the English Language Volume 2 part 5 ppt

Olga Fischer

the perfect in Old English may also be partly a matter of the style and

subject matter of the extant manuscripts. Zimmermann has noted that

the Middle English (plu)perfect occurs more often in colloquial style; it

is rare in purely narrative contexts and frequent in instructional texts.

Thus, in the Early Middle English texts he has examined (Ancrene Wisse,

the ' Katherine Group', La3amon's Brut and The Owl and the Nightingale),

the perfect occurs almost exclusively in direct speech. This also explains

why the perfect occurs mostly in the first and second person, while the

preterite and pluperfect are rare in these cases. He also shows (pp.

155-8) that in the Old English Orosius, where the perfect is seldom used,

it is found in places where the sentence structure is looser, especially in

conclusions of chapters and in connecting passages. Thus it is possible

that the greater frequency of the (plu)perfect in Middle English not only

reflects a change in actual usage but is also related to the nature of the

extant texts. However, another cause might be the general change in the

English language from a morphological tense/mood (aspect) system to

a grammaticalised auxiliary system. As such it shares a trend found in

other Germanic languages.

The (plu)perfect is not fully grammaticalised in Middle English: it

freely alternates in almost all its functions with the preterite. The type of

constructions, however, in which the (plu)perfect occurs already

anticipates its later usage in present-day standard English.

The primary function of the perfect is to indicate that an activity has

started at a certain moment in the past but that it is still rele￾vant/continuing at the moment of speaking:

(128) And alle \>o )?at seyn for me a Pater noster...I make hem parteneres

& graunte hem part of all [\>e] gode pilgrymages & of all the gode

dedes f>at I haue don, 3if ony ben to his plesance.

{Mandev. (Tit) 210.36-211.4)

The preterite is also commonly found in these constructions. When the

relevance of the activity is related not so much to the moment of

speaking but to the future or the generic present (which includes the

future), the perfect is clearly favoured over the preterite. Zimmermann

(1968: 110-12) has found no examples of the preterite here:

(129) Ase ofte as T,C habbed /m/eawiht her on, greted j?e leafdi wiS an aue;

for him )?et swonc her abuten.

(Ancr. (Coxp-C) 222.12-14)

'As often as you have read anything in this [book], greet the Lady

with an Ave for him who took pains over it.'

258

Syntax

(130) ye hen hwen ha haued ileid, ne con bute cakelin.

{Ancr. (Corp-C) 36.18)

'the hen when she has laid, knows no better than to cackle.'

As in Present-Day English certain temporal adverbs favour a

particular construction. Thus, now, here, today, etc. are usually found

with the perfect, whereas (n)ever, pa, etc. are commonly combined with

the preterite. But it is not unusual in Middle English (especially in

poetry, so metrical considerations could play a role here) to find a

perfect with a past-time adverbial:

(131) I am youre doghter Custance.../ That whilom ye ban sent unto

Surrye. 1

(CT II.1107-8 [3: 1107-8])

Just like the non-past, the perfect is found in narrative past-time

contexts often in conjunction with the preterite. It is not clear how far

the perfect has a special function, and how far the exigencies of rhyme

and metre are responsible, since this phenomenon occurs mainly in

poetry (see Mustanoja 1960: 506-7; Visser 1963-73: §§766, 772):

(132) His brother, which that knew of his penaunce,/ Up caughte hym and

to bedde he hath hym broght.

(CT V.1082-3 [6: 374-5])

The pluperfect occurs exclusively in narrative passages and always

refers to a completed action. In most cases it is used, as in Present-Day

English, to indicate a past within the past. It is often accompanied by

clarifying temporal adverbials such as (f>er)biuoren, ear 'ere', etc. and

occurs especially in temporal subclauses. In Middle English, however,

a preterite can also be used.9

The first example shows a pluperfect, the

second a preterite:

(133) ...I schewed hym this tretys )?at I had made after informacioun of

men )>at knewen of thinges )?at I had not seen my self,

(Mandev. (Tit) 210: 1-3)

(134) Moyses was blide.../ And ches 6o men god made wis.

(Gcn.& Ex.3671-2)

'Moses was glad... and chose those men that God had made wise.'

The description of the knight in Chaucer's 'General Prologue' (CT

1.47-63) shows that preterite and pluperfect forms could easily be

interchanged.

The pluperfect was used in hypothetical contexts to indicate what

could or should have happened but did not (' counterfactuals'). This use

2

59

Olga Fischer

is equivalent to that of the modal preterite, except the pluperfect refers

to a past in the past. Like the modal preterite, the modal pluperfect was

originally a subjunctive, but the loss of inflections caused the indicative

and the subjunctive past forms of habben to become alike, with the

exception of the second-person singular. This subjunctive form,

however, was soon levelled out in favour of the indicative:

(135) '...Haddestow be hende', quod I, ')?ow woldest haue asked leeue.'

(PP/.B (Trin-C) xx, 188)

(For the use of the inverted word order in this clause, see section

4.6.3.3.) The modal pluperfect is also found in main clauses where

nowadays we prefer a modal verb:

(136) And 3if here fader had not ben dronken he hadde not jleye with hem.

(Mandev. (Tit) 68: 10-11)

In addition to the (plu)perfect formed with the auxiliary habben/hauen,

there was a form with ben. As in Old English, this was mainly restricted

to the so-called mutative verbs (i.e. intransitive verbs involving a

change of place or state). However, the distinction in Middle English

becomes less clear-cut. Habben encroached upon the ^«-domain, while

ben is found with some intransitive, non-mutative verbs. A number of

verbs occur with both auxiliaries. Attempts to describe the difference

between the two constructions have not been completely successful so

far in that they always admit of exceptions. Some linguists have

described the habben construction as denoting an action and the ben

construction as denoting a state (see Bogholm 1944; Friden 1957;

Visser 1963-73: § 1898). It is unlikely that such a clear dichotomy exists

in view of the facts that the two constructions often seem to be

interchangeable and that in the later development have ousts the be

forms. Such a dichotomy would also mean that a structure like he is come

always referred to state, never to completed action. Friden (1948)

formulated the rule that mutative verbs take have when they are used

transitively as in he has gone half a mile. Visser (1963—73: §1898) objects

to this because, he says, there are many exceptions. However, a large

number of these exceptions can be explained if one widens Friden's rule

(see also Zimmermann 1973) so that with mutative verbs be is normally

used when location (in time or place) or direction is emphasised, while

have is used to refer more purely to the activity conveyed by the verb, as

the following examples show:

260

Syntax

(137)a. Be wel avysed on that ilke nyght/ That we ben entred into shippes

bord,'/ That noon of us ne speke nat a word,

(CT 1.3584-6 [1: 3578-80])

b. For ye ban entred into myn hous by violence,

(C7" V11.1812 [10: 1812])

(138)a. The nexte houre of Mars folwynge this,/ Arcite unto the temple

walked is I Of fierse Mars to doon his sacrifice,...

(CT 1.2367-9 [1: 2369-71])

b. 'Saw ye,' quod she, 'as ye ban walked wyde,/ Any of my sustren

walke yow besyde...'

(LCIV 978-9)

For this reason it is not surprising to find adverbials of manner or

degree, which highlight the activity of the verb, more often collocated

with mutative verbs in have constructions, and adverbials of time and

place with the same verbs in be constructions (as in the above examples).

It also explains why the have construction prevails in hypothetical

statements: there the emphasis is always on the activity, on what should

have happened:

(139)a. She wende nevere ban come in swich a trappe.

(CT V.1341 16: 633])

b. He wende have cropen by his felawe John,/ And by the millere in he

creep anon,

(CT 1.4259-60 11: 4251-2])

Friden (1948: 43—57) gives a list of contexts in which have is preferred to

be. They all agree with the above observation except for one category:

'Have is used if the sentence contains an adverb or adverbial phrase

denoting the place of action' (p. 48; italics mine). However, in all the

examples he quotes this adverbial can be interpreted as one of degree:

' and when you have gone as far as you can',' thy slander has gone through

and through her heart''.

Finally, it remains to consider the reason(s) why have ousted be in the

formation of the perfect. Various factors are at work (see Zimmermann

1973): (a) the greater functional load of be (used as an auxiliary of the

passive, progressive and perfect) compared to have (at this stage only

perfect) and the ambiguity that could arise because of this (i.e. ^ + past

participle of a transitive verb could be perfect as well as passive; the

progressive in -ing is sometimes found written as -en, the same ending as

the past participle of strong verbs) made have a more suitable candidate

261

Olga Fischer

for the perfect; (b) be had become the auxiliary par excellence of the

passive voice. One might have expected wurthen to play a larger role here

as it did in other West Germanic languages like German and Dutch. But

from earliest Old English, weorpan had been far less frequent in the

passive, and it became very infrequent in Early Middle English, when

the auxiliary system was undergoing great change. Why wurthen

disappeared is still unclear; reasons for this development have been

sought in the nature of the verb itself, while it has also been ascribed to

foreign influence (for a discussion of the possible factors, see Mustanoja

1960: 616-19).

When the (plu)perfect became frequent in Middle English, it was

necessary to streamline the various constructions; and have, which

already acted as the auxiliary of the perfect with most types of verbs and

even occurred with mutatives in special constructions, slowly took over

the functions of be. This development was possibly also facilitated by the

fact that in co-ordinate constructions the auxiliary was usually not

repeated so that have was often used where be was expected. Another

factor that is frequently adduced is the influence of the use of the

reduced form 's (especially in spoken language), but evidence for has

reduced to 's (from spelling and metre) is mainly post-Middle English.

4.3.3.3 Modal auxiliaries

In section 4.3.2.2, we have seen that by the end of the Middle English

period periphrastic constructions far outweighed subjunctive forms.

This development started in Late Old English when periphrastic

constructions became increasingly common. What probably happened

is this: on the one hand, the gradual erosion of verbal inflections made

it necessary to replace the subjunctive by something more transparent;

on the other, the use of periphrastic constructions at a fairly early stage

was itself responsible for the disappearance of the subjunctive. The early

use of the periphrastic construction may be due to a desire to be more

emphatic and possibly to be more specific than was possible with the

subjunctive form. Interesting in this respect is the use in Old English of

periphrastic auxiliaries which are themselves in the subjunctive form.

Together with the loss of the subjunctive came a grammaticalisation

of the modal verbs, which in Old English in many ways still had the

status of full verbs (but see Warner 1990). A full list of changes that the

modal verbs underwent can be found in Plank (1984). This list shows

that the development was gradual and not of a radical nature, as

suggested in Lightfoot (1979). Some of the more important changes

262

Syntax

taking place in Middle English but not completed in that period (and

continuing for a long time after in certain dialects) are: (a) the modals

lost the possibility of appearing in non-finite forms and of taking

objects; in general they move towards an invariable form. This is related

to the loss of the notional meaning of the modals. (b) Tense differences

in modals no longer serve a temporal purpose, (c) The close relation

between a modal and its infinitive is emphasised by the fact that the to￾infinitive never replaces the bare infinitive as happened after most other

full verbs, and also by the increasing unwillingness of modals to appear

without an infinitive of another verb in series. In Middle English we still

find the modal verbs used in some of their 'non-auxiliary' functions (for

Old English see vol. I, section 4.3.2.3); (140) shows them as full verbs,

(141) in non-finite forms.10

(140)a. She koude muchel of wandrynge by the weye. (CT 1.467 [1: 469])

' She knew a lot about travelling.'

b. And by that feith I shal Priam of Troie.

(Jroilus 111.791)

'And by the faith I owe Priamus of Troy.'

c. And seyde he mostt unto Itayle,...

(HF 187)

'And said he had [to go] to Italy'

(141)a. E>att mannkinn shollde mu^henn wel/ Upp cumenn inntill heoffne

(Orm. 3944-5)

'that mankind should be able to go up to heaven'

b. But Pandarus, if goodly hadde he myghtJWe. wolde han hyed hire

to bedde fayn,...

(Jroilus 111.654-5)

Next to the so-called 'core' modals {sbal, mil, may, mot, can)

periphrastic constructions also expressed modality. Some of these occur

in Old English (e.g. 'to be to', 'to have to'). These, together with the

Middle English innovation borrowed from Old French ' to be able to',

remain sporadic until they come to fill a systemic gap left by the

grammaticalisation of the core modals, which, as we have seen, lost all

but their non-finite forms (and to a great extent they even lost their finite

past forms). For other examples of periphrastic constructions conveying

modality, see Plank (1984: 321-2).

A rather special development is the use of the modals, especially shal

263

Olga Fischer

and wil (but in some cases also mot), as markers of the future. Since,

however, these constructions remain modally marked for the greater

part of the period (see Mustanoja 1960: 490-1), they are discussed here

and not under tense. Already in Old English * sculan / willan are used with

predictive meaning, but in these cases *sculan usually expresses

obligation or necessity as well, and willan volition. (Traugott (in vol. I,

section 4.3.2.3) states that there are no examples in Old English where

* sculan or willan has pure future reference. Warner (1990), however,

shows that these verbs must be mere futurity markers when they occur

in impersonal constructions in Old English (see also Mitchell 1985:

§§1023fF).) This situation continues in Middle English:

(142) And rightful folk shul gon, after they dye,/ To hevene;

(PF 55-6)

In the above example .r^w/expresses future as well as 'ordained event'.

Thus, shal is more frequent in prophesies, in contexts in which a sense

of obligation is present, in commands and instructions. Because of this

modal function, shal'is particularly common in the third person. Wil, on

the other hand, occurs far more often in the first person, since modally

it is connected to the desire of the speaker/subject:

(143) we wulled folhi ]>e, we wulled don alswa, leauen al as ]>u dudest

(Ancr. (Corp-C) 87.6-7)

'we will follow you, we will do likewise, [we will] leave everything

[behind] as you did'

Wil occurs especially in promises, wishes and resolutions.

Because shal is not related to the will of the subject, it develops into

a pure future marker earlier than wil (see Mustanoja 1960: 490). The

more frequent use of predictive shal in Early Middle English may,

however, also be due to other factors. It could be partly a matter of style.

In biblical writings shal is preferred to wil {wil is reserved for the

translation of Latin velle). Wil seems to be a product of a more popular

style. The pure future use of wil may have developed out of its use in

generic and habitual contexts,

(144) He is a fool that wol foryete hymselve

(Treilus V.98)

Examples that indicate that wil is used without any modal colouring are

those that have inanimate subjects (although note the personified nature

of the subject in this particular instance):

(145) And I, book, wole be brent but Iesus rise to lyue...

(PPl.B (Trin-Q xviii. 2553

264