Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume III
- General Preface
- Abbreviations
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume III
- Part I The Transmission of English
- Part II Tracking Change in the History of English
- 6 Spelling Practices and Emergent Standard Writing
- 7 Phonological Change
- 8 Applying Historical Phonology
- 9 The Emerging Phonological Standard
- 10 The History of R in English
- 11 The System of Clausal Complementation
- 12 Tense, Aspect and Modality in the History of English
- 13 Developments in the Passive Construction
- 14 Adverbs in the History of English
- 15 The Story of English Negation
- 16 Dative and Genitive Variability in the History of English
- 17 Relativisation
- 18 Recent Grammatical Change in English
- 19 The History of English Registers
- 20 The History of Semantic Theory
- 21 The Development of Pragmatic Markers
- Part III Ideology, Society and the History of English
- Index
- References
12 - Tense, Aspect and Modality in the History of English
from Part II - Tracking Change in the History of English
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2025
Edited by
Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume III
- General Preface
- Abbreviations
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume III
- Part I The Transmission of English
- Part II Tracking Change in the History of English
- 6 Spelling Practices and Emergent Standard Writing
- 7 Phonological Change
- 8 Applying Historical Phonology
- 9 The Emerging Phonological Standard
- 10 The History of R in English
- 11 The System of Clausal Complementation
- 12 Tense, Aspect and Modality in the History of English
- 13 Developments in the Passive Construction
- 14 Adverbs in the History of English
- 15 The Story of English Negation
- 16 Dative and Genitive Variability in the History of English
- 17 Relativisation
- 18 Recent Grammatical Change in English
- 19 The History of English Registers
- 20 The History of Semantic Theory
- 21 The Development of Pragmatic Markers
- Part III Ideology, Society and the History of English
- Index
- References
Summary
The verbal system of Proto-Indo-European was primarily based not on distinctions of tense, but rather on distinctions of aspect. The shift from the three aspect system (imperfective, perfective, retrospective) of late Proto-Indo-European to the binary tense system (past vs. non-past) of Germanic explains why the older forms of Germanic lack aspectual forms completely, and also why in historical times the various Germanic languages have developed analytic aspectual patterns of various kinds. In the case of English, these include two perfects to mark past events relevant to the present (I have seen her twice; The warm sea wind was risen and blew over them now), a fully grammaticalised be progressive (She is reading a book) and a second, partly grammaticalised progressive periphrasis formed on a deictic motion verb (Bill went whistling down the street). Also examined in the chapter are changes pertaining to the domain of modality.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The New Cambridge History of the English LanguageTransmission, Change and Ideology, pp. 326 - 359Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Auer, Anita. 2009. The Subjunctive in the Age of Prescriptivism: English and German Developments during the Eighteenth Century. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230584365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
B&T = Bosworth, Joseph and Northcote Toller, T.. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. 1921. Supplement by T. Northcote Toller. 1972. Revised and enlarged addenda by Alistair Campbell. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Behre, Frank. 1950. The origin and early history of meditative-polemic should in that-clauses. Göteborg Högskolas Årsskrift 56.3: 275–309. [Reprinted in Alvar Ellegård and Yngve Olsson (eds.)]. 1961. Frank Behre. Papers on English Vocabulary and Syntax. Edited on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday. Göteborg: Gothenburg Studies in English XVI: 87–127.Google Scholar
Benson, Larry D. (ed.). 2008. The Riverside Chaucer. Third edition, with a new foreword by Christopher Cannon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2004. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5.1: 107–136.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey N., Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Blake, Norman (ed.). 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume II: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CHOL9780521264754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
CLMET = De Smet, Hendrik, Hans-Jürgen Diller and Jukka Tyrkkö. 2013. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0. Leuven: K.U. Leuven.Google Scholar
Crawford, William J. 2009. The mandative subjunctive. In Rohdenburg, and Schlüter, (eds.), pp. 257–276.Google Scholar
Daugs, Robert. 2017. On the development of modals and semi-modals in American English in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In Hiltunen, Turo, McVeigh, Joe and Säily, Tanja (eds.), Big and Rich Data in English Corpus Linguistics: Methods and Explorations. Helsinki: VARIENG. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/19/.Google Scholar
de Groot, Casper. 2007. The king is on huntunge. On the relation between progressive and absentive in Old and Early Modern English. In Hannay, Mike and Steen, Gerard J. (eds.), Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar. In Honour of Lachlan Mackenzie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 175–190.10.1075/slcs.83.10groCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2013. Sources of auxiliation in the perfects of Europe. Studies in Language 37.3: 599–644.10.1075/sl.37.3.06driCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Karen H. 2000. Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In Dahl, Östen (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 605–653.Google Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 1997. The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110810264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsness, Johan. 2014. The present perfect and the preterite in Late Modern and Contemporary English: A longitudinal look. In Davidse, Kristin, Gentens, Caroline, Ghesquière, Lobke and Vandelanotte, Lieven (eds.), Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 81–103.10.1075/scl.63.08elsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 1990. Finite complement clauses in Shakespeare’s English, Part 2. Studia Neophilologica 62.2: 129–149.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2020. On the history of the English progressive construction Jane came whistling down the street. Journal of English Linguistics 48.4: 319–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2023. Tomorrow I’ll go (a) shopping: on the history of the Expeditionary Go construction and its relation to the absentive. Folia Linguistica Historica 44.1: 1–40.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa 2024. English motion and progressive constructions, and the typological drift from bounded to unbounded discourse construal. Language Sciences 101: 1–19.10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa, Seamus Johnston and Zeltia Blanco-Suárez. 2025. Tracing the origins and grammaticalization path of Irish English habitual do V: an analysis of the 1641 Depositions. Folia Linguistica Historica 46.1: 1–37.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fludernik, Monika. 1992. The historical present tense in English literature: an oral pattern and its literary adaptation. Language and Literature 17: 77–107.Google Scholar
Harsh, Wayne. 1968. The Subjunctive in English. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1492–1510.Google Scholar
Hewson, John. 2001. Aspect and tense from PIE to Germanic: the systemic evolution. In Watts, Sheila, West, Jonathan and Solms, Hans-Joachim (eds.), Zur Verbmorphologie germanischer Sprachen/Verbal Morphology in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 73–82.Google Scholar
Hewson, John and Bubenik, Vit. 1997. Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. (ed.). 1992b. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume I: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hristov, Bozhil. 2020. Grammaticalising the Perfect and Explanations of Language Change: Have- and Be-perfects in the History and Structure of English and Bulgarian. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004414051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8.1: 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2009. Colonial lag, colonial innovation or simply language change? In Rohdenburg, and Schlüter, (eds.), pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2021. ‘The next morning I got a warrant for the man and his wife, but he was fled’: Did sociolinguistic factors play a role in the loss of the be-perfect? In Kranich, Svenja and Breban, Tine (eds.), Lost in Change. Causes and Processes in the Loss of Grammatical Elements and Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–233.10.1075/slcs.218.07hunCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Howard and Macleod, Morgan. 2020. Semantics and syntax in Old English mood selection. Transactions of the Philological Society 118.2: 304–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killie, Kristin. 2008. From locative to durative to focalized? The English progressive and ‘PROG Imperfective Drift’. In Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina and Dury, Richard (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2006. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–88.10.1075/cilt.295.07kilCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matti, Kilpiö. 2007. Auxiliation in progress: diachronic grammaticalisation changes in Old English and Early Middle English HAVE perfects. In Rissanen, Matti, Hintikka, Marianna, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena and McConchie, Rod (eds.), Change in Meaning and the Meaning of Change: Studies in Semantics and Grammar from Old to Present-Day English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 323–343.Google Scholar
Klein, Thomas. 2022. Does preverbal Old English ge- have semantic or aspectual force?: evidence from the Dictionary of Old English. Studia Neophilologica 94.1: 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja. 2010. The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789042031449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110820980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2009. Modality and the history of English adhortatives. In Salkie, et al. (eds.), pp. 315–347.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (ed.). 1999b. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2003. Modality on the move: the English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred and Palmer, Frank (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 223–240.10.1515/9783110895339.223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian and Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511642210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, J. W. Richard. 1970. Old English Preverbal Ge-: Its Meaning. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 1996. On the use of the subjunctive and modals in Old and Middle English dependent commands and requests: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97: 411–421.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2012. The loss of verb-second and the switch from bounded to unbounded systems. In Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María José and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2015. A Historical Syntax of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748694563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macleod, Morgan. 2014. Synchronic variation in the Old English perfect. Transactions of the Philological Society 112.3: 319–343.10.1111/1467-968X.12029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian and Leech, Geoffrey. 2006. Current change in English syntax. In Aarts, Bas and MacMahon, April (eds.), The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 318–342.Google Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2020. The History of the Present English Subjunctive. A Corpus-Based Study of Mood and Modality. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Part I. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 1995. Change and continuity in the functions of the American English modals. Linguistics 33.2: 157–211.10.1515/ling.1995.33.2.157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 2: Complex Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 42–140.Google Scholar
Övergaard, Gerd. 1995. The Mandative Subjunctive in American and British English. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter and Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language 94.4: 867–901.10.1353/lan.2018.0056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph and Wrenn, C. L.. 1955. An Old English Grammar. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2009. Grammatical divergence between British and American English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Current Issues in Late Modern English. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 301–329.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.). 2009. One Language, Two Grammars? Differences Between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rütten, Tanja. 2015. For whom the bell tolls, or: why we predicted the death of the English subjunctive. In Sanchez-Stockhammer, Christina (ed.), Can We Predict Linguistic Change? Helsinki: VARIENG. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/16/.Google Scholar
Rütten, Tanja. 2017. Speech, texts, and choices from the modal system: mood distribution in Old English sermons. Nordic Journal of English Studies 16.1: 190–213.Google Scholar
Salkie, Raphael, Busuttil, Pierre and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.). 2009. Modality in English: Theory and Description. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2009. The conditional subjunctive. In Rohdenburg, and Schlüter, (eds.), pp. 277–305.Google Scholar
Steadman, J. M. 1917. The origin of the historical present in English. Studies in Philology 14.1: 1–46.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A History of English Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2019. Are comparative modals converging or diverging in English? Different answers from the perspectives of grammaticalisation and constructionalisation. In Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, Moore, Emma, Van Bergen, Linda and Hollmann, Willem B. (eds.), Categories, Constructions and Change in English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 105–129.10.1017/9781108303576.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan and Plungian, Wladimir A.. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963–1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax: A Study of the Wyclifite Sermons. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511752995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Stanley and Taylor, Gary (eds.). 1986. The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2006. Grammaticalisation and language contact in the history of English: the evolution of the progressive form. In Ritt, Nikolaus, Schendl, Herbert, Dalton-Puffer, Christiane and Kastovsky, Dieter (eds.), Medieval English and Its Heritage: Structure, Meaning and Mechanisms of Change. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 165–187.Google Scholar
Yao, Xinyue. 2024. The Present Perfect and the Preterite in Late Modern and Contemporary English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammatical Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this book
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.