1
Aspectual Cycles: the history of English inceptives
Lynn Sims and Elly van Gelderen
Austin Peay State University and Arizona State University
GLAC 16, Wisconsin, 30 April 2010
simsl@apsu.edu and ellyvangelderen@asu.edu
In this paper, we examine the grammaticalization of inceptive markers in Old and
Middle English. Based on Sims (2008), we argue that, like modals and future
marking, inceptives grammaticalize and are continually renewed in a cyclical
fashion. Our focus in this paper is this cycle of renewal and loss. We try to
identify patterns and also compare the development of inceptives in English with
that in other Germanic languages.
1.
Introduction and Framework
Lexical aspect is unmarked and reflects the inherent temporal property of a verb.
Grammatical aspect (the category to which inceptive markers belong) is formally marked
and reflects the speaker’s perspective on the internal temporal quality of an event (cf.
Comrie 1976; Nordlander 1997; Smith 1997). Broadly speaking, grammatical aspect
hooks into and shifts the temporal focus of an existing event. Narrowly speaking,
inceptive aspect hooks into and focuses on the entry into the event expressed by the nonfinite complement.
Inceptive markers tend to develop from verbs of motion (Brinton 1988), which
often results in both forms, lexical and grammatical, coexisting in the language.
Like other early Germanic languages, Old English inceptive constructions involve
a bare infinitival complement. The use of the to-infinitive arises during the late OE
period. In early Middle English, inceptive + forto constructions begin to occur, as well as
inceptive + -ende/-ing constructions. In Modern English, Freed (1979: 69ff) shows that
while begin and start retain semantic content (the notion of movement into an event),
begin exhibits more semantic restrictions than start. Specifically, a person can start to do
something and then not do it, but a person cannot begin to do something and then not do
it. Thus, at the semantic level, the restrictions associated with begin might also influence
the introduction of a new inceptive into the cycle.
2
In this paper, our approach is to be as descriptive as possible; theoretical issues, such as
those below, will, hopefully, become clearer as more work is done in this area.

Inceptives do not reduce to the extent of other auxiliaries; therefore, they do not
fit easily into frameworks of grammaticalization, such as the cline in Table 1.
_____________________________________________________________
Verb
>
Auxiliary
>
Clitic
>
Affix
_____________________________________________________________
Table 1:
Grammaticalization Clines


2.
2.1
Bi-clausal structures, necessary because of begin and start’s infinitival
complement, are not intuitively right.
It is unclear how a Minimalist framework would deal with inceptives in terms of
features. If work on feature economy is in the right direction, e.g. van Gelderen
(2008), we know that inceptives would have grammaticalzed motion features.
These motion features might be a clue to the difference between begin and start in
ModE.
Old English
Inceptive Competition
In OE, several verbs are used to mark inceptive aspect. Sims (2008) provides the table
reproduced below that shows the chronology of the most common inceptive markers.
________________________________________________________________________
Old English
Middle English
Early Modern English
______________________________________________________________________________
c700
c1000
c1200
c1400
c1600
onginnan → → → → → (use declines)
aginnen
→ → → → → (1340: last textual example)
ginnen / gin → → → → → (function varies; lost in eModEng)
beginnan → → → → → → → → → → → (continues into ModEng)
inginnan (in the Rushworth Glosses)
fon (OE use rare) → (increase in ME) → → (does not continue past ME)
gefon (does not continue into ME)
onfon → → → (lost in eME)
underfon (does not continue into ME—better translated as ‘undertake’)
tacan → → → → → → → → (inceptive use ends in eModEng)
start → →
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2:
The Use of Inceptive Markers in Earlier English (based on Sims 2008: 82)
Typical examples of inceptive constructions are provided in (1) to (6), with (1) being
perhaps the most common. Many differences can be attributed to regional variation, e.g.
inginnan in (2) is Mercian appearing in the Rushworth Glosses, but certain clear
differences in stage towards auxiliary-hood will appear.
3
(1)
þa ongan ic ongemang oðrum mislicum & monigfaldum bisgum
then began I among
other variously & manifold
troubles
ðisses kynerices þa boc wendan
on Englisc . . .
this kingdom the book to translate in English . . .
‘then I began, among other various and manifold troubles of this kingdom, to
translate the book into English’
(Pastoral Care Pref. 6.17; Sims 2008: 98)
(2)
seoðþan in-gann læran 7 cweþen doaþ hrewnisse forðon . . .
afterward began to teach & to speak do repent
because . . .
‘from then on [he] began to preach & to say, repent because …’
(Rushworth Matt 4:17; Sims 2008: 104)
(3)
. . . 7 ne beginnes cuoeða fader we habbað [abraham]
. . . & not begin
to say father we have [abraham]
(Lindesfarne Luke 3.8; Sims 2008: 108)
(4)
Ða ongunnon ealle ða næddran to ceowenne heora flæsc
Then begun
all the snakes to chew
their flesh
and heora blod sucan
and their blood to suck
(5)
(Ælfric Homilies 11.488; Sims 2008: 116)
þa begunnon hi
to cidenne mid micelre ceorunge
then begun
they to quarrel with great complaint
ongeane þone ælmihtigan god
against the almighty god
(Ælfric Homilies 21.304; Sims 2008: 116)
(6)
he feng to rædene
he began to deliberate (Ælfric 34.64; Sims 2008: 125 [from Callaway 1913: 41])
2.2
Differences
We begin with an overview of variation in Skeat’s (1887/1970) edition of The Gospel
According to Saint Matthew in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian. As Table
3 shows, in the four versions of the Matthew gospel, there is a difference in the
grammaticalization of –ginnan.
_____________________________________________________________________
Lindisfarne Rushworth
Corpus
Hatton
950 Northern 980 Mercian 1000 W-Saxon 1150 W-Saxon
bare inf with
onon-/inon-/aon-/ato-inf with
----ge-V with
on---_____________________________________________________________________
Table 3:
Differences in Matthew with –ginnan
4
Looking at the inceptive variants of –ginnan in all of OE, we consider two
differences to be interesting:
(a) the phonological reduction and the use of the preterit form by some
(b) the type of prefix on the pre-auxiliary and the morphology and syntax of the
following verb
Following Sims (2008), we argue that onginnan and aginnan show more characteristics
of auxiliaries than beginnan. Onginnan reduces phonologically to aginnan, becomes a
frozen preterit construction, and disappears during the ME period. Beginnan does not
experience this reduction and continues into Modern English, where it ‘competes’ with a
new verb start.
Looking at the issue of preterit tense, OE onginnan is used mainly in the preterit,
as in (7) to (9) (cf. Ogura 1997: 404). This is a sign of grammaticalization (note e.g. the
grammaticalization of saw but not see in ModE., as described in van Gelderen 2004: 180190).
(7)
(8)
(9)
ða ongan he ærest herigean on him ðæt ðæt he fæstrædes wiste . . .
then began he first to praise in them that which he fortitude knew
‘then he first began to praise what he knew was their steadfastness’
(Pastoral Care 32.212.7; Sims 2008: 98)
Ongan þa ofstlice eorla menigu to flote fysan
Began then speedily men many to sea to hasten
‘Then the band of men began to hasten to the sea’ (Elene 225a; Sims 2008: 117)
geseah þa þone wind swiðne frohtade 7 þa in-gon sincan . . .
saw then the wind strong afraid & then began to sink . . .
‘when [he] saw the strong wind, [he] became afraid & then [he] began to sink’
(Rushworth Matthew 14:30; Sims 2008: 104)
Also, the preterit form of onginnan almost categorically occurs with the bare infinitive
rather than the to-infinitive, which is another sign of closeness between the verbs.
The on- prefix weakens during the OE period, as (10) shows. By early Middle
English, the prefix becomes semantically empty and an inceptive notion is no longer an
inherent feature of the prefix (cf. de la Cruz 1975; Hiltunen 1983; Brinton 1988).
(10)
7 agynð beatan hys efen-þeowas. 7 yt 7 drincþ mid druncenum
‘and begins to strike his servants, and to eat and drink excessively’
(Corpus Matthew 24:49; Sims 2008: 105)
In (10), aginne occurs with a bare infinitive and with a participle in (11).
(11)
. . . anginne gehealde na mid ege helle ac mid cristes lufan
. . . begin
to hold not with fear hell but with Christ’s love
‘[You] . . . begin to hold not with fear of hell but with love of Christ’
(BenRG1 36.15; Sims 2008: 109)
5
Conversely, beginnan frequently occurs with to-infinitive, as in (12). According to the
OED (s.v. begin) beginnan was “very rare” and it is interesting that its complement is a
to-infinitive.
(12)
þurh
þa lufe he beginþ to healdenne swylce gecyndelice and gewunlice
through the love he begins to hold
such natural and common
‘through the love [of Christ] he begins to hold as if natural and innate’
(BenR 7.31.18; Sims 2008: 109)
Finally, Wuth (1915: 54) and Brinton (1981: 90) argue that –ginnan forms cannot occur
with prefixed verbs (i.e., ge-, for-, of-) because these prefixes mark perfective aspect.
Thus, Wuth considers the single onginnan + ge-infinitive in Cynewulf to be scribal error.
However, Sims (2008: 108-10) provides several examples of on/aginnan + gecomplement constructions from the Lindisfarne Gospels and The Rule of St. Benet and
argues against scribal error. Sims also indicates that this is another area in which
onginnan and beginnan differ: onginnan occurs with a prefixed complement while
beginnan does not.
As Table 4 shows, the on-prefixed variant occurs very frequently with the bare
infinitive (96%) while the be-prefixed variant selects the to-infinitive (67%) (see Sims
2008: 113; Los 1995).
______________________________________________________________________
bare infinitive
%
to-infinitive
%
onginnan
Alfred
246
99%
2
1%
Ælfric
82
77%
25
23%
Other texts
649
98%
10
2%
Total onginnan
977
96%
37
4%
aginnan
Total other texts
28
85%
5
15%
beginnan
Alfred
0
-0
-Ælfric
19
26%
54
74%
Other texts
9
75%
3
25%
Total beginnan
28
33%
57
67%
____________________________________________________________________
Table 4:
OE –ginnan Forms in Periphrastic Constructions (Sims 2008: 113;
compiled from data in Callaway 1913: 279-287)
To conclude this section: OE onginnan is the only form that shifts significantly (in terms
of a grammaticalization cline): it becomes more restricted in uses (e.g. preterit and type
of complement) and more phonologically reduced. As the inceptive meaning of the onprefix weakens during OE, the to-infinitive may initially come to strengthen or renew the
notion of inceptive aspect associated with onginnan/aginnan, and then beginnan takes
over.
3.
Renewal and loss
6
3.1
Early Middle English
In ME, begin and (a)gan continue but there are numerous new candidates, namely
commencen (comsen and becomsen), proceden, fallen, grouen, setten, breken, and
bresten. Begin becomes the most frequently used form, and it loses its bare infinitival
complement at the same time (around 1200) that an –ing complement is introduced. In
Early Modern English, start is also introduced as a verb, but it does not occur with other
verbs until the 1800s. In the Modern English period, start seems to be the one
grammaticalizing the quickest but interesting developments with begin are also occurring.
We suggest that early ME gon/gan ‘began’, as in (13), was the successor of ongan
but grammaticalized early to the point where it disappeared in Early Modern English.
(13)
þer he gon bulde castel swiðe strongne
there he began build castle very strong
‘He began to build a very strong castle there’
(Layamon’s Brut, 3186)
During the ME period, gan’s infinitival complement becomes more restricted, occurring
mainly with the bare infinitive, as in (13).
In Layamon’s (13th c.) text, gan is still very frequent. The forms are typically gon
for the singular ‘began’ and gunnen for the plural ‘began’; the singular gan and plural
gonnen, also with the meaning ‘began’, are less frequent. They are mainly followed by a
bare infinitive, as in (14). However, surprisingly, the infinitive marker can still be robust
(see Table 5), even a forto occurs, as in (15).
(14)
þat heore uolc gon waxen; and Bruttes gunnen wonien
that their people began grow and Brits began wane
‘that their own people became stronger and the British weaker’
(Layamon’s Brut Caligula, 13472)
(15)
þer ich lai a sweuete.
agan ich forto slepe
As I lay in slumber,
began I forto sleep
‘As I lay in slumber, I began to sleep’
(Layamon’s Brut Caligula, 12767; Sims 2008: 143)
With biginnan, as in (16a. and 16b.), an infinitive marker is more common.
(16)
a.
þa bigunnen blissen in Brutene to wunien
then began
joys in Britain to dwell
‘then happiness began to reign in Britain’
(Layamon’s Brut Caligula 14350)
b.
þo
then
bigan þar
began there
blisse for
bliss for
wonie in
Brutayne
live in
Britain
(idem, Otho version)
7
Layamon’s Caligula version has 146 instances of plural gunnen (4 of gunne and 2 of
gonnen) and 222 of singular gon (and 1 of gun and 5 of gan) as opposed to 43 forms of
bigun(nen) and bigon(nen). These numbers are given in Table 5.
Bare
to-infinitive
-ing
total
316 (83%)
64 (17%)
0
380
bigun(nen)/bigon(nen)
27 (63%)
14 (33%)
2 (5%*)
43
agon (agan once)
21 (100%)
0
21
gunne(n)/gonnen/gan/gon
Table 5:
0
Inceptive complements in Caligula (*does not add to 100% due to
rounding off)
As in OE, forms without be- are typically followed by a bare-infinitive, as in (14),
whereas bigun(nen) and bigon(nen) are followed by to-infinitives, as in (16a.) and (17),
and two have an –ing, as we’ll see.
(17)
heo bigunnen to fihten
they began to fight
(Layamon’s Brut Caligula, 14132)
In the mid 13th century, -ing complements are introduced, as in (18) and (19), both
cited in Visser (1973: 1890). These reinforce the durative aspect and begin could be in
an ASP position with the sentence being mono-clausal.
(18)
he sone bi-com in-to Brutlonde & anan bigon ræuinge uppen Basian þene kinge
he soon came into Britain & immediately began pillaging over Basian the king
‘and soon he arrived in Britain and immediately began pillaging Basian’s land’
(Layamon’s Brut, Caligula 5267-5268; Sims 2008: 158)
(19)
Vmben ane stunde; heo bigunnen striuinge
By
a time; they began to fight/fighting
‘after a little while, they began to fight’
(Layamon’s Brut, Caligula 7765; Sims 2008: 159)
Summarizing the early ME Layamon facts:
(a) the OE differences between onginnan and beginnan continue to a certain
extent (see Table 5), but
(b) new complements arise
The (on)ginnan form is lost by the end of ME and, before it was lost, it showed signs of
grammaticalization. What we might expect is for the –ing option in (18) and (19) to
grammaticalize further, like the bare infinitive before it. First, we see a real increase of
begin + forto and begin + ing. Below, we suggest that start + ing is a competitor to begin
+ ing. These changes are represented as Figure 1.
8
Old English
Middle English
Early Modern
onginnan + infinitive → gan + infinitive → 0
beginnan + infinitive → → → → 0
beginnan + to-infinitive → → → → → → → → → → →
beginnan + V-ing → → → → → → → → → → →
start + infinitive → → → →
start + V-ing → → →
_______________________________________________________________________
Figure 1:
From Old to Middle English
3.2
Middle English begin
Of the approximately 46 occurrences of beginnen in Ormulum (c1200), none occur with a
bare infinitive (see also Ogura 1997). At the same time, as we have shown for Layamon,
other infinitival complements occur with beginnen. While Visser and the OED (s.v.
begin) indicate that begin + forto constructions are attested from a1300, examples (15),
(20), and (21) show that the construction was used in early ME.
(20)
Forr nollde
nohht te Laferrd Crist
Biginnenn forr to spellenn,
For would-not not the Lord Christ
Begin
for to preach
‘For the Lord Christ would not begin to preach’
(Ormulum 10886-887; Sims 2008: 155)
(21)
[when] þeo hefden alles bigunnen uorto speaken
(c1225 Ancr. R (EETS 1952) 31, 23; Visser 1973: 2047)
Also, OE and ME occasionally use constructions that include an aspectual marker
to express continuous events. A similar ME construction, now considered dialectal,
occurs with begin, as in (22).
(22)
Quen þai vnderstode þis worde A soruing
þai bigan
When they understood this word on-sorrowing they began
‘When they understood this word, they began (a)grieving’
(Cursor Mundi 15518; Visser 1973: 1890; Sims 2008: 159)
In (23), Gower (c1390) uses an unambiguous begin + participle construction to express
movement into a continuous event.
(23)
this holy man To me spekende thus began and saide: Benedicite
this holy man to me speaking thus began and said: Benedicite
‘this holy man began speaking to me thusly and said, Benedicite’
(Gower, Confessio I, 203; Visser 1973: 1890; Sims 2008: 160)
9
Example (24), from c1400, includes a participial form. Visser notes that the
corresponding form which occurs in the Vernon manuscript uses the –ing affix (sittinge)
rather than –ynde.
(24)
. . . fro þat he bi-gan syttynde in a churche-ȝerd Amonges oþer men . . .
. . . from that he began sitting in a church yard amongst other men . . .
‘. . .from the time that he began sitting in a church yard with other men . . .’
(Life St. Alexius, Laud MS, 108, [ed. Furnivall] 41.178; Visser 1973: 1890; Sims
2008 160)
The next four examples are from c1410, c1464, 1532-33, and c1553, respectively (Sims
2008: 160-61 from Visser 1973: 1890). According to Visser, there is a “gap in the
evidence” between the years 1553 and 1813. We need to look into this gap more but for
the moment assume that it is accidental.
(25)
Sore begeringe [read bikeringe] they begonne
sore bickering
they began
‘they began bickering sorely’
(Lovelich, History Holy Grail [EETS] 20, 244)
(26)
Tubal-Cain . . . began first graving
in metallis
Tubal-Cain . . . began first engraving in metallis
‘Tubal-Cain first began engraving in metal’
(Capgrave, Chron. [ed. Hingeston] 8)
(27)
some of them begin already giuing no credence to no man but if it be . . .
some of them begin already giving no credence to no man but if it be . . .
‘some of them already stopped giving any credence to any man unless he be . . .’
(St. Th. More, Wks [1557] 687 D 19)
(28)
Now Roister Doister will no more wowying begin
Now Roister Doister will no more wooing begin
‘Now Roister Doister will not begin courting any more’
(Udall, Roister IV, viii)
The inceptive aspect associated with the above begin + -ing/-ende examples
appears to be no different from that in the Jane Austen (1813) example below and the
later examples (up to 1962) provided by Visser (1973: 1890).
(29)
Unable to contain herself, she began scolding one of her daughters
(J. Austen, Pride & Prejudice II. 10; Sims 2008 : 162)
Jane Austen (at least in Pride & Prejudice) does not use inceptive start; instead, the toinfinitive is preferred over the –ing complement (began V-ing 5; begin* V-ing 1; began
to 24; begin* to 8).
10
3.3
Early Modern and Modern English
At Table 6 shows, both –ing as the verbal complement inflection and inceptive start, the
possible reinforcement for begin, have a slow start. The Helsinki Corpus EMOD period
covers the period from 1500 to 1710 (Kytö & Rissanen 1988). In this corpus, start does
not appear and begin appears only with a to complement.
begin* to 39
begin* -ing 0
began to 54
began –ing 0
start* to
start* –ing 0
started to 0
started –ing 0
0
Table 6: Inceptives in HC-EMOD (588,820 words)
The situation in Shakespeare’s First Folio is the same: inflected forms of the present and
past of begin occur followed by a to infinitive, although the present is more frequent (59
inflected begin, 13 inflected past tense, and 4 participle forms). Again there are no
instances of –ing complements or of inceptive start (though start occurs 56 times as an
intransitive, with meanings such as ‘rush forth’ and a possible ‘begin’, as in (30)).
(30)
Do but start an eccho with the clamor of thy drumme.
(1595, Shakespeare, John, V.ii.167; Sims 2005)
While the origin of start is not exactly clear and its semantic history is complex, it is
considered a motion verb. Early periphrastic constructions involving start do not express
inceptive aspect, but they do demonstrate its inherent notion of movement and its
grammatical-like function, as (31) and (32) indicate.
(31)
who so is nexte shulde sterte to geete her hoole fro hem
‘whoever is nearest should move to guard her den from them’
(c1410, Master of Game, xxxiv; Sims 2005)
(32)
Atte the dredfulle day he wolle axe acomptes where as there shalle none sterte to
yelde ansuere
‘On that dreadful day he will demand account and none shall escape to yield an
answer’
(1450, Knight de la Tour (1868) 113; Sims 2005)
From the late 1500s to the1800s, we find examples of start being used as a lexical verb
with the sense of ‘to initiate/begin’, as in (30) and (33).
(33)
He started a discourse of a talk he hears about the town.
(1666, Pepy’s Diary, 24 June; Sims 2005)
The result of start’s semantic shift appears to make it available for use in grammatical
constructions similar to the begin + infinitive construction. Thus, in the mid-1800s, we
11
begin to see textual examples of start + V-ing and start + (in) to-V constructions, as
examples (34) to (39) show (from Sims 2005).
(34)
I had before this written to Rose how we had best start agitating
(1833, J. H. Newman, Letters & Correspondence)
(35)
however, after he started dictating directly to the typewriter
(1869, Henry James, Pyramus & Thisbe)
(36)
Alexander finally started rehearsing the play in December
(1893, Henry James, Guy Domville)
(37)
and I started to hear Sylvie’s sudden bark in the garden
(1853, C. Brontë, Villette)
(38)
I saw a dog of this kind start to nibble at a flea
(1869, Mark Twain, Innocents Abroad)
(39)
There would be no chance of crossing it [the river] for some days . . . even if it
started to go down at once. (1891, C. Roberts, Adrift Amer., 181)
In the Modern English period, as in Table 7, it seems as if the new form start is closer to
grammaticalizing. The present tense of the verb begin followed by the to-infinitive is by
far the most frequent and this is evidence of less grammaticalization. Start, on the other
hand, occurs more frequently with –ing and could be mono-clausal.
begin* to 37
begin* –ing 5
began to 2
began –ing 1
start* to 0
start* –ing 11
started to 0
started –ing 6
Table 7:
Inceptives in CSE-FACT (161,050 words)
Table 8 draws upon a slightly larger corpora, the half million White House Conversation
corpus. The results show the same trend but not quite as drastic as Table 7.
begin* to 55
begin* -ing 8
began to 11
began –ing
start* to 11
start* –ing 18
started to 7
started –ing 10
Table 8:
6
Inceptives in CSE-WH
Tables 7 and 8 suggest that start prefers an –ing complement and that begin
prefers a to-infinitive.
Recall also that with OE –ginnan, the preterit form fossilizes. The same might be
happening with start: the present forms appear to favor begin (79% in Table 7; 68% in
Table 8); and the preterit forms lean toward start (67% in Table 7; 50% in Table 8).
12
In terms of cycles, started + -ing seems to be replacing the earlier began + -ing
construction (in both the present and past tenses), and/but begin (both present and past)
still—since the Old English period—seems to prefer the to infinitival complement.
However, as Table 9 shows, begin + to- constructions have declined noticeably in the
past twenty years.
Using the Corpus of Contemporary American English, over 400 million words
collected between 1990 and 2009, the evidence of change is as follows. The numbers
represent instances per million words. It seems as if all forms of begin are losing ground,
but especially those with to-infinitives. This is true across all genres. Start on the other
hand seems to be gaining ground.
1990-94
1995-99
2000-04
2005-09
began to
105.43
93.72
88.19
81.11
began *ing
64.45
65.87
70.13
64.57
begin* to
101.60
91.02
82.14
73.23
begin* *ing
24.20
24.34
24.34
20.51
beginning to 37.18
31.11
29.22
25.97
started to
32.67
34.20
34.65
39.01
started *ing
63.39
75.94
84.04
90.44
start to
16.89
19.87
20.82
22.47
start *ing
52.95
59.81
60.13
64.43
starting to
18.15
21.44
23.52
25.53
starts to
14.98
15.61
14.37
12.70
starts *ing
13.24
15.26
14.91
13.68
Table 9:
Begin and start in COCA (per million words)
4.
Cycles
In Figure 2, we show some of the changes that occur regarding the –ginnan and start
inceptives. In this figure, we have not taken the difference between present and past tense
into account. We think (as also argued by Ogura (1997) for onginnan and van Gelderen
2004 for saw) that it is the preterit form that is the first to grammaticalize. This forms a
pattern with other grammaticalizations.
13
Middle English
begin to-/begin -ing
OE
ongin + bare infinitive
Early ModE
(begin + to-infinitive)
begin to-/begin –ing
(start to-/start –ing)
??
Modern English
start to-/start -ing
begin to-/begin –ing
Figure 1:
5.
The Inceptive Cycle
Other Germanic languages
In addition to the cyclical pattern of inceptives in English, we are interested in how this
pattern compares to the development of inceptives in other Germanic languages. While
we continue to look at other Germanic languages, the following provides our preliminary
data.
The use of –ginnan to mark inceptive aspect is well documented in early
Germanic languages, and standard OE dictionaries list the following counterparts to Old
English –ginnan: Gothic duginnan, as in (40) and (41), Old Saxon beginnan, as in (42)
and (43), and Old High German biginnan, as in (44) to (46).
(40)
dugann Iesus qiþan þaim manageim bi Iohannen
‘Jesus began to speak to the many with John’ (Matthew 11.7)
Gothic
(41)
jah dugunnun þagkjan
‘They began to consider’ (Luke 5.21)
Gothic
(42)
Thô begunnun thea uuîson man seggean iro sueðanos
‘Then began the wise men to speak of their dreams’
(Heliand 687b-688a)
Old Saxon
(43)
He began is liði hrôrien
‘he began his limbs to move’(Heliand 4099b)
Old Saxon
(44)
pegont er sie leren
Began he them to teach (Georgslied 52)
Old High German
14
(45)
bigonda tho leidezen inti forsahhan inti sueran quedenti Old High German
‘then he began to abominate and to curse and to swear, saying’
(Tatian 188.5)
(46)
inti so her bigonda sinkan
‘and when he began to sink’ (Tatian 81.4)
Old High German
Inceptives in other Germanic languages occur with the same types of verbs (i.e.,
process verbs, verbs of communication) as OE inceptives (cf. Brinton 1981: 99-108).
However, unlike OE, the -ginnan forms in other early Germanic languages occur only
with a bare infinitive.
In Old Norse, there are two verbs, taka and nema. Faarlund (2004: 159; 278-9) mentions
taka and suggests a transition is obvious from main verb taka in (47) to auxiliary in (48).
(47)
hon tok at grata
‘she began to cry’
(48)
er
hausta
tok
when become-fall began
‘when autumn began to fall’
Old Norse
(Njal’s Saga 18.1, Faarlund 2004: 278)
Old Norse
(Hkr II 263-4, Faarlund 2004: 279)
We also found forms of nema in the Poetic Edda, as in (49) and (50), but Faarlund does
not mention this verb. The Poetic Edda also has taka, as in (51).
(49)
(50)
(51)
6.
þa nam ek frævask ok frodr vera
then began I thrive and wise be
‘then I began to thrive and to gain knowledge’
þat nam at mæla mær fjörsjuka
that began to speak maiden sick
‘The sick maiden began to speak’
bruðr mæla tekr
bride speak begins
‘The bride begins to speak’
Old Norse
(Havamal 141)
Old Norse
(Oddrunargratr 8)
Old Norse
(Gripisspa 16, Kuhn 1968: 147)
Conclusion
In this paper, we have examined replacements and renewals of the inceptive in English.
The cycle in Figure 2 summarizes the developments.
We found that inceptives typically allow two possibilities: one that creates
distance between the start of the action and the actual action (done through a to-infinitive)
and one where the beginning of the action is emphasized (done through an –ing).
Ironically, the meanings of begin and start are such that we’d expect begin with an ing
and start with to. As Freed (1979: 68; 71) says, “begin occurs in a more restricted
15
number of contexts than start”; “begin refers to the initial temporal segment of the
nucleus of an event” while start “refers to the onset of an event”. Thus, one can ‘start to
sneeze’ but stop it but not ‘begin to sneeze’ and then stop it. Start with an –ing
complement loses this possibility. This is what she means by the wider context of start.
References
Brinton, L. (1981). The historical development of aspectual periphrases in English. Doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley.
Brinton, L. (1988). The development of English aspectual systems: Aspectualizers and post-verbal
particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Callaway, M., Jr. (1913). The infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. Washington, D. C.: Carnegie Institution of
Washington.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De la Cruz, J. M. (1972). Transference and metaphor in Middle English verbs accompanied by a locative
particle. Orbis, 21, 114-135.
Freed, A. (1979). The semantics of English aspectual complementation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Funke, O. (1922). Die Fügung ginnen mit dem Infinitive im Mittelenglischen [The construction ginnen
plus infinitive in Middle English]. Englische Studien, 56,
1-27.
Gelderen, E. van (2004). Grammaticalization as economy. Philadelphia: John Benjamin's Publishing
Company.
Gelderen, E. van (2008). Where did Late Merge go? Grammaticalization as Feature
Economy, Studia Linguistica, 287-300.
Gonda, J. (1962). The aspectual function of the Rgevedic present and aorist. Disputationes RhenoTrajectinae. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hiltunen, R. (1983). The decline of the prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verb. Turku:
Turun Yliopisto.
Kytö, Merja & Matti Rissanen 1988. "The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts". In: Ossi Ihalainen et al. (eds),
Corpus Linguistics: Hard and Soft 169-79. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Los, B. (2000). Onginnan/beginnan with bare and to-infinitive in Ælfric. In O. Fischer (Ed.), Pathways
of change: Grammaticalization in English (pp. 251-274). Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s
Publishing Company.
Los, B. (2005). The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, B. (1985). Old English syntax. Vols. I and II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nordlander, J. (1997). Towards a semantics of linguistic time. Sweden: Umeå University Press.
Ogura, M. (1997). On the beginning and development of the begin to construction. In J. Fisiak (Ed.),
Studies in Middle English linguistics (pp. 403-428). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sims, L. (2004). The function of ‘gan’ in Layamon’s ‘Brut’. Unpublished paper.
Sims, L. (2005). Arrested Grammaticalization: A diachronic analysis of ‘start’. Conference presentation.
SHEL 4.
Sims, L. (2008). The grammaticalization of ingressive aspect in early English. Doctoral dissertation,
Arizona State University.
Smith, C. (1997). The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Terasawa, Y. (1974). Some notes on ME gan periphrasis. Poetica, 89-105.
Visser, F. (1969). An historical syntax of the English language (Part 3, First Half).
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Visser, F. (1973). An historical syntax of the English language (Part 3, Second Half). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Wuth, A. (1915). Aktionarten der Verb bei Cynewulf [The aktionsart of the verb in Cynewulf]. Weid i.
Thüringen: Thomas & Hubert.