Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wtssw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T08:24:25.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transitive be perfect : An experimental study of Canadian English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Yuri Yerastov
Yuri Yerastov*
Affiliation:
Kutztown University Of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates exemplars of the transitive be perfect in Canadian English, such as I am done dinner and I am finished my homework. I report on an experimental study of acceptability judgments of this construction, given by speakers of Canadian English primarily recruited from the Calgary area. I claim that the construction [be done NP] is characterized by preference for the animacy of the subject, preference for definiteness of the direct object, open-endedness of the direct object slot, and limited variability of the participle. I conclude that [be done NP] is a partially schematic construction that is close to a “prefab”.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie des exemples du parfait transitif avec l’auxiliaire be en anglais canadien, comme dans I am done dinner et I am finished my homework. L’article rend compte d’une étude expérimentale dans laquelle étaient sollicités des jugements d’acceptabilité portant sur des exemples de cette construction fournis par des locuteurs d’anglais canadien recrutés surtout dans la région de Calgary. Sur la base de cette étude, j’affirme que la construction [be done SN] est caractérisée par une préférence pour un sujet animé, une préférence pour la définitude du complément d’objet direct, le caractère ouvert du complément d’objet direct et la variabilité limitée du participe. Je tire la conclusion que [be done SN] est une construction partiellement schématique qui ressemble plutôt à une construction “toute faite”.

Keywords

dialects of EnglishCanadian Englishtransitive be perfectconstructionschematicitydialectes d’anglaisanglais canadienparfait transitif avec be, constructionschématicité
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 427 - 457
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atwood, E. Bagby. 1953. A survey of verb forms in the Eastern United Stated. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 2001. Usage, blends and grammar. Usage based models of grammar, ed. Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, 315–346. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4):711–733.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of use and organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Denison, D. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raws, Margaret and Lamb, Gregor. 1996. The Orkney dictionary. Orkney: Orkney Language and Culture Group.Google Scholar
Gold, Elaine. 2007. Aspect in Bungi: Expanded progressives and BE perfects. Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Radišić, Milica. Canadian Linguistic Association. Available at: homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2007/Gold.pdf.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in cognitive science 7:219–24.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse. Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extension, ed. Jan-Olastman, and Fried, Mirjan, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L., Raymond, William D., Bell, Alan, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, and Jurafsky, Daniel. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Chicago Linguistics Society 99:151–166.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tarda. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2007. Irish English: History and present day forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1975. The evolution of grammatical categories. Esquisses linguistiques II. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 38–54. [1965]Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. Usage-based models of language, ed. Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, y, 1–63. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Lee, Jeong-Hoon. 2004. Periphrastic perfect tense in English: A historical perspective. Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Melchers, G. (1992). “Du’s no heard da last o’ dis’: On the use of be as a perfective auxiliary in Shetland dialect. History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics, ed. Rissanen, M., 602–610. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Millar, Robert. 2007. Northern and insular Scots. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Societé neophilologique.Google Scholar
Pavlenko, A. 1997. The origin of the be-perfect with transitives in the Shetland dialect. Scottish Language 16:88–96.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally. 1987. Towards a cognitive model of transitivity. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Robertson, T.A. and Graham, John J.. 1991. Grammar and usage of the Shetland dialect. Lerwick: The Shetland Times Ltd.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1991. The be/have variation with intransitives in its crucial phrases. Historical English Syntax, ed. Kastovsky, Dieter, 343–354. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. Aaron. 2001. The role of frequency in the specialization of the English anterior. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. Bybee, Joan, 361–382. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Smith, K. Aaron. 2007. Language use and auxiliary selection in the perfect. Split auxiliary systems: A cross-linguistic perspective, ed. Aranovich, Raúl, 255–270. Phildelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1973. A history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Annie. 2005. Theoretical and methodological perspectives on the use of grammaticality judgment tasks. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in Second Language 24:129–167.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter and Hannah, Jean. 1982. International English: A guide to varieties of Standard English. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1963. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Yerastov, Yuri. 2010. I am done dinner: When synchrony meets diachrony. Doctoral dissertation. University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 1996. Delineation of and description in dialectology: The case of perfective I’m in Lumbee English. American Speech 71:5–26.Google Scholar