The Preterit and Past Participle of Strong Verbs in Seventeenth-Century American English

1957 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 31 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. L. Abbott
2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torben Juel Jensen ◽  
Marie Maegaard

The article presents a real-time study of standardization and regionalization processes with respect to the use of past participles of strong verbs in the western part of Denmark. Analyses of a large corpus of recordings of informants from two localities show that the use of the dialectalenform of the past participle suffix has been in decline during the last 30 years. Theenforms are replaced by three other forms, one of which is (partly) dialectal, one regional and one standard Danish. The study indicates that a regionalization process has taken place prior to the time period studied, but that it has now been overtaken by a Copenhagen-based standardization process. The study also shows interesting differences between the two localities, arguably due to the geographical location and size, and to the status of the different participle forms in the traditional local dialects.


2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ellis

Since April 2015 is the sesquicentennial of the end of the Civil War, now is a particularly appropriate time to review the progress of the Corpus of American Civil War Letters (CACWL) project and to suggest directions it might go in the future. Since 2007, we have located and collected images of nearly 11,000 letters and transcribed over 9,000 of these, totaling well over four million words. Of the transcribed letters, just over 6,000 were written by southerners (490 individual letter writers), a corpus extensive enough to begin identifying and describing what features were distinctively Southern in 19th-century American English. We have already mapped many of these features that are especially common in southern letters, for example, fixing to, howdy, past tense/past participle hope ‘helped’, qualifier tolerable, intensifier mighty, pronoun hit, and the noun heap. By way of comparison, we also have a somewhat smaller but rapidly growing collection of 3,000 transcribed letters written by individuals from northern states, and variant features from these letters are also being mapped. The work at present is very preliminary; there are thousands of additional letters to be collected and transcribed, particularly from northern states and from states west of the Mississippi. However, by mapping variants from letters that have already been transcribed, we can begin to get a better understanding of regional differences, as well as how regional features spread westward in the decades before the Civil War. We can also begin to obtain some sense of how American English in general, and particularly its regional dialects, may have changed since the mid 19th century. This article presents a preview of a number of those findings.


Author(s):  
Paula Rodríguez-Abruñeiras ◽  

This article analyses the use of the example markers for example and for instance in exemplifying, selective and argumentative constructions. Of these three uses, exemplification—twofold sequences with a first general unit or hyperonym and a second more specific item or hyponym—has received recurrent attention in the literature, whereas selection—constructions where the first element is omitted—and argumentation—the use of example markers to connect whole chunks of discourse—have long been ignored. The present study, using data from ARCHER 3.2, shows that the three uses have coexisted since at least the second half of the seventeenth century and that argumentation prevails in both British and American English. Moreover, example markers are very productive in certain genres, such as science, sermons and advertising. Additionally, even though the primary function of example markers is to introduce their scope domain, they have developed different pragmatic values that bring them closer to the category of discourse markers. Thus, for example, their use as mitigators makes them an optimal tool for smoothing interaction and hence reducing the risk of offending our interlocutor.


1996 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Murray ◽  
Timothy C. Frazer ◽  
Beth Lee Simon

1958 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 185 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. L. Abbott

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 608-629
Author(s):  
Julia Skala

Abstract This paper examines the rare but well-attested combinations of the Present Perfect with definite temporal adverbials denoting past time in US-American English. The goal of this paper is twofold. For one thing, it outlines the disemous analysis FDG proposes for the form have + past participle in its prototypical use, arguing that two different operators can reliably trigger this form, one marking anteriority and one encoding phasal resultativeness. For another, it shows how, via synchronic inferential mechanisms, the Present Perfect may have absorbed discourse pragmatic functions that now permit the felicitous use of definite temporal adverbials together with the Present Perfect in certain contexts. It is argued that this combination has routinized, taking over certain functions typically associated with the Present Perfect in a manner that suggests this development as potentially part of a grammaticalization process. The paper proposes that they are not as such part of the function the Present Perfect encodes, but that they currently represent a switch stage in the development of the US-American Present Perfect. It further suggests that in this switch stage, the combination of the Present Perfect with an adverb specifying past reference can be read as signaling the relationship between two Discourse Acts as justificational or can encompass the temporal specification as a necessary part of the action that is then available for a Resultative reading.


2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-380
Author(s):  
Jessica Nowak

This article examines a remarkable case of analogy in the verbal systems of German and Dutch which to date has hardly received any attention. In both languages, the ablaut pattern that originally stems from the second Germanic ablaut class (“oPRETERITE = oPAST PARTICIPLE”) spread to other strong verbs by analogy, as in German heben–hob–gehoben or Dutch binden–bond–gebonden. It is argued that the low token frequency of these verbs triggered this analogy. As in both cases a new type of ablaut class arises through the convergence of several strong verbs, I refer to it as the eighth ablaut class.*


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document