11. Historical replication in contact grammaticalization

Stative progressives in Inner and Outer Circle varieties of English

“…There is yet another way of considering the extension of the progressive to statives in Outer Circle Varieties, however. Ziegeler's (2014, 2017) and Ziegeler and Lenoble (2020) propose the replication of the reanalysis of old usages dating back to Old and Middle English times. The hypothesis is grounded in the studies of diachronic grammaticalization routes as posited in Heine and Kuteva (2003, 2005), who distinguish between a universal strategy of grammaticalization and a language specific one (called ‘Replica Grammaticalization’), which often uses a L1 as a model.…”

“…The hypothesis is grounded in the studies of diachronic grammaticalization routes as posited in Heine and Kuteva (2003, 2005), who distinguish between a universal strategy of grammaticalization and a language specific one (called ‘Replica Grammaticalization’), which often uses a L1 as a model. Ziegeler (2017) suggests a third way of considering grammaticalization in contact. Indeed, in the aforementioned Replica Grammaticalization model, what is grammaticalized into the replicated language is the grammaticalization process of the substrate language.…”

“…Indeed, in the aforementioned Replica Grammaticalization model, what is grammaticalized into the replicated language is the grammaticalization process of the substrate language. Ziegeler (2014, 2017) suggests another scenario: the modelling of grammaticalization pathways that are features of the lexifier. Ziegeler labels this theory ‘Grammaticalization by Recapitulation’.…”

“…This somewhat reversal of perspective does not call into question the principle of unidirectionality of grammaticalization as established by authors such as Brinton and Traugott (2005), Haspelmath (1999), Heine and Kuteva (2005, p. 108), Heine and Reh (1984, among other scholars. The very concept of replication is simply applied to the phenomenon of reanalysis (in the case of the progressive), which is not unidirectional, contrary to grammaticalization (Ziegeler, 2017, p. 344). Following Haspelmath's (1994) account of passives, Ziegeler (1999, p. 97) posited the reanalysis along a noun‐to‐verb continuum of the Old English be + V‐ ende construction, which ended up acquiring verbal properties through the gradually increased agentivity of what became a present participle.…”

“…Furthermore, many studies have brought to light that the potential origin of the Present‐Day English be + ‐ ing construction can be traced back to Old English times (Brinton & Traugott, 2005; Nehls, 1988; Scheffer, 1975; Traugott, 1992; Walker, 2001; Warner, 1993; Nuñez‐Pertejo, 2004, cited in Ziegeler, 2017); even though consensus on that issue has never been reached, many other scholars attribute its origins to the Middle English Location Schema. However, Walker (2001), Ziegeler (2006, 2014, 2017), and Ziegeler and Lenoble (2020) posit that the use of the progressive with statives can be perceived as reflecting older stages of its reanalysis that date all the way back to Old English and Middle English. This will be the second hypothesis of the present article, the goal of which is to propose that the extension of use of the progressive and the imperfective in all varieties could find some common original ground in the general imperfective aspect encapsulated by the Old English be + ‐ ende form.…”