The verb have operates with two distinct meanings in Present Day English. The first is dynamic, in which have alternates with take and is roughly equivalent to ‘receive’, ‘take’, or ‘experience’. In this function the verb takes an eventive object, as in have breakfast (Quirk et al. 1985: 132, Trudgill et al. 2002: 3). The second meaning of have is stative, in which it denotes an ongoing state of possession, as in have a car. Stative have is also variable, exhibiting competition between have, have got, and got. This variability is exemplified in (1) with vernacular data from Victoria, Canada.
Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.comAt the crossroads of change 45 (1) a. They have three children and we got four grandchildren now. (79 year
old male)
b. I have a group of . small group of really tight-knit friends and then I’ve got a whole bunch of kinda people that I guess I’d classify as acquaintances. (18 year old male)
This variability is not stable in either time or space. Research examining a broad array of Englishes in both the northern and southern hemispheres consistently finds evi- dence for ongoing change in the system, change that can be traced over a period of more than 400 years (Noble 1985; Kroch 1989; Biber et al. 1999; Tagliamonte 2003;
Nelson 2004; Jankowski 2005; Quinn 2009, 2010). Thus the traditional form, have, was well entrenched during Old English, as in (2a). Its use for possessive meaning was categorical and stable for centuries. Form/function asymmetry was not a facet of this grammatical sector until the Early Modern period, when have got emerged (Crowell 1959: 280; Jespersen 1961: 47–54; Visser 1963–1973: 1475, 2202–2204). The example in (2b), from Shakespeare, reports the earliest attestation in the Oxford English Diction- ary. Finally, got (without have), as in (2c), emerged in the Modern period, attested in the written record from c.1850 onward.
(2) a. Nu we sind hlổane hổbbe we nan ỵing to etanne buton Manna.
‘Now we are lean, have we no thing to eat except Manna.’
(ặlfric c. 970–1000, Num. 11, 9)
b. What a beard hast thou got; thou hast got more haire on thy chin, than Dobbin my fill-horse has on his taile. (1596, Merchant of Venice ii. 99) c. They got no principles. They got no platform to stand onto.
(1849, Knickerbocker XXXIV, 12)
However, corpus data reveal that whereas British varieties, including post-colonial ones, have been moving steadily towards innovative have got (Noble 1985; Kroch 1989; Tagliamonte 2003; Quinn 2009, 2010), North American varieties are experi- encing increasing rates of the historical form, have (Biber et al. 1999; Jankowski 2005;
Tagliamonte et al. 2010), and got has traditionally been associated with AmE (Jespersen 1961: 53). The overarching trajectory of change is therefore an important transatlantic distinction between the two major varieties of English, with the British (influenced) ones (e.g. English English, New Zealand English) generally exhibiting innovative behav- iour and the North American ones (i.e. AmE, CanE) generally exhibiting conservatism.
The second cross-variety observation concerns the syntactic status of have as either auxiliary-like or main verb (Quirk et al. 1985; Denison 1998; Biber et al.
1999; Trudgill et al. 2002; Lee & Collins 2004; Nelson 2004). Along with other areas of English syntax, the verb phrase has been the site of a general (though not cate- gorical) longitudinal trend towards periphrastic constructions (Sapir 1921; Roberts 1985; Harris & Campbell 1995). In this case, the shift involves a move towards do- periphrasis (for more on do-periphrasis, see both Hundt and Collins, this volume).
www.ebook777.com
Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.com
46 Alexandra D’Arcy
Whereas be continues to resist do, have has increasingly participated in this change (Kroch 1989: 218). It has not done so indiscriminately however. Periphrasis spread first to dynamic have (e.g. I don’t have coffee with breakfast) some time around the late 18th century (Dietrich 1949; Ellegồrd 1953). Its use with stative have is a later development, not cited in English English, for example, until 1972 – 200 years later (Strevens 1972, cited by Trudgill et al. 2002: 6). It is this construction and its syn- tactic correlates which concern us here.
In British varieties (English English, Irish English, and Scottish English), stative have has the ability to pattern like an auxiliary. This entails that it does not require do-support and it may be reduced phonologically (see Nelson 2004: 301). In North American varieties, stative have tends to behave like a lexical verb. In such cases, it requires do-support and resists contraction (Trudgill et al. 2002: 3–5; Nelson 2004).
The examples in (3) and (4), from Tagliamonte et al. (2010: 154), illustrate the opera- tion of this difference. In the examples in (3), all from York, England, have patterns with auxiliary syntax. In the examples in (4), all from Toronto, Canada, have patterns with main verb syntax. The distinct pattern that emerges in these examples for stative have has been described by Denison (1998: 2) as one of “the best-known transatlantic distinctions in syntax” (see also Quirk et al. 1985: 131–132; Biber et al. 1999: 159–163).
(3) a. Have you an empty room? (York, England) b. I haven’t any strength to do it. (York, England) c. We’ve a very good relationship. (York, England) (4) a. Do I have the article here? (Toronto, Canada)
b. We don’t have any driveway. (Toronto, Canada) c. I have a booklet over there. (Toronto, Canada)
However, the syntactic status of stative have does not affect the presence/absence of do alone. It also has ramifications for the circumscription of the variable context. Typi- cally, have, have got, and got alternate when stative possessive meaning is encoded in the simple present tense, such that negation and interrogation do not constrain the choice mechanism. That is, while social norms may rule out variant choice (e.g.
got is non-standard and overtly stigmatised), linguistic ones do not. This variability is exemplified in (5). Notably, however, while do-periphrasis occurs with both have and got (5a, 5c, 5d), it cannot combine with have got (5b): see also Tagliamonte et al.
(2010: 156). This has implications for the analysis presented here, where it will be sug- gested, following Quinn (2009, 2010) that this paradigmatic gap may not be accidental.
(5) a. I have/haven’t/don’t have a headache.
b. I’ve got/haven’t got a headache.
c. I got/ain’t got/don’t got a headache.
d. Have I/have I got/do I have/do I got a headache?
Free ebooks ==> www.ebook777.comAt the crossroads of change 47 In CanE, however, the envelope of variation illustrated in (5) does not appear to oper- ate. Contemporaneously, auxiliary-like have in negatives and interrogatives seems to be restricted to speakers over the age of 60 years (Tagliamonte et al. 2010), a finding that supports Trudgill et al.’s (2002: 6) assertion that the transition of have to full verb has run to completion in North American dialects (and presumably have in the have got construction does not have auxiliary-like status either). In Toronto, as a conse- quence, productive variation is evidenced only in affirmative declarative simple pres- ent tense contexts (Tagliamonte et al. 2010: 157).
In short, the stative possessive sector sits at the intersection of two distinct changes which ultimately differentiate patterns and constraints on use across the parent variety and post-colonial ones. On the one hand, the distributional workloads are shifting, with the British and North American branches of (Inner Circle) World English going in different directions. On the other hand, the typological shift affecting the syntac- tic categorisation of have appears to be (essentially) complete in the North American branch while it lags significantly behind in the British one. As just discussed, the intersection of these two changes has at least one synchronic consequence in North America: The syntactic status of have as a lexical verb results in dependence on do- periphrasis, restricting the context of variation to declarative affirmatives. In other words, the changes which affect the stative possessive sector are not independent. One has ramifications for the other. While this ramification has been examined in syn- chronic perspective, the diachronic trajectory of the sector has not yet been examined in CanE. What happened in this variety in the period following its formation?