Grammaticalization Processes in Non-Standard Varieties: Do

LOT Winter School 2007, 15-19 January Variation matters! Friday, 16.00-18.30, Room GN6 Bernd Kortmann

The historical dimension: grammaticalization processes in non-standard varieties: do

Do AS A TENSE AND ASPECT MARKER IN VARIETIES OF ENGLISH

1. Why interesting? 2. Do as a tense and aspect marker in varieties of English 2.1 Progressive 2.2 Habitual 2.3 Perfect and related categories 2.4 Unstressed tense carrier in affirmatives 2.5 Summary 3. Do/doen/tun as TAM markers in Germanic 4. T/A do in English varieties from a typological perspective: Grammaticalization paths 5. Conclusion

1. Why interesting?

• (a) with regard to grammaticalized uses of do: interesting range of variation across varieties of English, first and foremost in the tense and aspect (T/A) domain (-> focus of today's talk): completive/perfect (1a,b), progressive (1c-f), habitual (1g,h), unstressed tense carrier in affirmatives (1i,j);

(1) a. a don klin di hos gud. ('I have cleaned the house well.'; Belizean Creole) b. I don know you stupid ('I have (always) known…'; Trinidad Creole) c. ??Don't be talking like that. (IrE; EF, but at best marginally progressive in meaning) d. Do rain, don't it? ('It's raining, doesn't it'; very trad. SW; 18th/19th c. SW) e. Gregg duh hide. ('Gregg is hiding.'; older form in Gullah Creole) f. i di go maket. ('I am going to the market'; Cameroonian Pidgin) g. He do/did go to the cinema every week. (WelE) h. Two lorries of them [i.e. turf] now in the year we do burn. (IrE) i. This man what do own this,... (SW; West Somerset) j. I did see thee this morning, [thee]' know (SW; Wiltshire)

first task: 'mapping' this cross-varietal variation of do as tense and aspect marker (section 2); only cursorily today: DO as mood marker in Germanic (section 3)

other non-standard uses of grammaticalized do in varieties of English:

(2) a. invariant don't in negation: She don't come. b. do as conjunction ('otherwise'; East Anglia; Trudgill 1995: 139-142): You lot must have moved it, do I wouldn't have fell in. c. morphological distinction main verb – AUX: done – did He done it, didn't he? (cf. also in Low German; Rohdenburg 2002)

(b) this variation is fascinating to judge against cross-linguistic variation in the TMA domain (e.g. Dahl 1985, Bybee/Dahl 1989, Bybee et al. 1994, Dahl 2000); an approach as yet hardly ever adopted (but cf. Gachelin 1997; related in spirit: van der Auwera 1999, Siemund 2001, 2002; Schneider 2000)

(in parentheses note: do-periphrasis in Standard English is rare enough in the world's languages (cf. van der Auwera 1999: e.g. no analogue in the world for using a do-AUX in questions; for negation: virtually no analogue in Europe (cf. Bernini/Ramat 1996); emphatic positives: more widespread, e.g. in Gmc & Celtic (especially Welsh))

general context of this topic: Freiburg project on English dialect syntax

• history of do as tense and aspect marker: do-periphrasis in general (e.g. Stein 1990, 1992, Denison 1993, Garrett 1998; Baekken 1999), Celtic substrate vs. dialectal superstrate debate with regard to Irish English, AAVE, English-based pidgins and creoles (e.g. Harris 1986, Montgomery 2001, Tristram 1997, van der Auwera/Genee fc.)

• the story of do in English: fascinating from the following perspectives: grammaticalization, variation, typology, history and spread of English (e.g. superstrate-substrate debate)

2. Do as a tense and aspect marker in varieties of English

• "It emerges that a number of non-standard dialects have a rather richer range of aspectual distinctions available than does the standard dialect."(Trudgill/Chambers 1991:145) • "Pidgins and creoles are often said to differ from European superstrate languages in having aspect-prominent verbal marking, rather than tense-prominent systems…" (Patrick 1999: 169; cf. also Parkvall 2000: 87); • in fact: with one exception (section 2.4), the T/A marker do is used exclusively for the marking of aspect in varieties of English: PROG (2.1), HAB (2.2), PFCT (2.3)

2.1 Progressive

• virtually non-existent outside English-based pidgins and creoles (cf. (1e,f) and (3)); of all three aspectual categories lowest degree of grammaticalization (PROG-marking optional and use of DO form as PROG-marker optional)

(3) a. You da sleepin? (Barbados; Holm 1989: 449) b. Jaaj did a plie wid mi kyaa wen mi neba de. (Jam. Creole; Craig 1991: 190) 'George was playing with my car when I was not there.' c. di man di sel bins an rays (Belizean Creole; Greene 1999: 43) 'The man is selling beans and rice' d. i di go maket. (Cameroonian Pidgin; Mühlhäusler 1986: 186) e. wan gò giv sain se somebodi dè kam (Ghanaian Pidgin; Huber 1999: 225) 'one will give a sign that somebody is coming' f. A dè wash plet (Nigerian Pidgin; Faraclas 1996: 204) 'I am washing the dishes.' g. I still de(z) look (Sea Island Creole; Cunningham 1992: 49)

• British Isles: remember the shaky (IrE) or very traditional (SW) examples (1c,d); more frequent in EModE and older stages of SW dialects (but even for SW unclear evidence; cf. Klemola 1996: 122f.): so in principle available as a superstrate model

2.2 Habitual

• strongest aspectual category in all varieties with T/A do • PRS do(es)/do be vastly preferred over did (did: extremely rare in IrE and in SW more restricted than invariant PRS form do); in several P&Cs: doz both in present and past contexts • British Isles: most distinctive aspectual property of IrE (4a-c); distinctive also of southern (i.e. early anglicised) dialects of WelE (4d) and SW dialects (4e,f); (occ. in other dialects) 3

-> British Isles powerful superstrate model (especially IrE; Harris 1986; note also: model for P & C doz not available in SW; and yet Gachelin (1997: 42): SW likely starting point for aspectual do in Atlantic creoles)

(4) a. There does be a meeting of the company every Tuesday. (IrE; in Tristram 1997: 404) b. They do be cheering. (IrE; same source) c. Two lorries of them [i.e. turf] now in the year we do burn. (IrE; Filppula 1999: 130) d. He do/did go to the cinema every week. (WelE; Thomas 1985 in Tristram 1997: 405) e. … and you do do it like that all the way. (pronounced like Fr. de; SW, Wiltshire; FRED) f. It was all theory, yes, yes. And then what you did do, what I used to do, …. (SW; FRED)

(5) a. He does catch fish pretty (Barbados; Holm 1989: 449) b. hau hi doz raid bru lai-an (Comm. Windward Is.; Holm 1989: 459) 'how he HAB ride Brother Lion ' c. dyuurin di paas yeer she a/doz waak tu skuul. (Guyanese; Gibson 1982: 208) 'During the past year she has been walking to school.' d. Ai doz gow siy niyli ebriy sondey” (Panamanian Creole; Craig 1991: 189) 'I go to the beach nearly every Sunday' e. dε fait dè go on, dè dè kil pipu. (Ghanaian Pidgin English; Huber 1999: 225) 'The fight went on, they killed people.' f. Sometime we does hadi get cabbage for food. (Bahamas Creole; Holm 1989: 490)

2.3 Perfect

• non-existent in British Isles; possibly once existent in ScE dialects (16th century) • clearly P&C innovation (across superstrate languages); English-based P&Cs adopting done; in P&Cs of all three aspectual categories highest degree of grammaticalization • mind terminology: perfect/anterior/resultative in typological studies vs. perfect, completive, anterior in P&C studies

2.3.1 Completive ('finish, stop', 'have already V-ed'; completed action)

• exclusively in P&Cs (-> near-'universal' property of Atlantic creoles)

(6) a. He don don (Guyanese Creole; Edwards 1991a: 242) 'He is/has already finished.' b. You done ate what I has sent you? (Dutch Windward Is.; Holm 1989: 454) c. Jeemz no riid di buk don yet. (Jamaican English; Winford 1993: 46) 'James hasn`t finished reading the book yet.' d. Jan don plant di rais. (Jamaican English; Winford 1993: 48) 'John has finished planting / has already planted the rice.' e. a don klin di hos gud. (Belizean Creole; Greene 1999: 47) 'I have cleaned the house well.' f. I don go maket (naunau) (Cameroonian Pidgin; Mühlhäusler 1986: 186) 'She has (just) gone to market.' g. I done finish. (St. Helena; Hancock 1979?: 21/22)

2.3.2 Perfect (experiential perfect, continuative perfect)

• rare and exclusively in P&Cs

(7) a. Hii did-a plee krikit evasens (Barbados; Craig 1991: 190) 'He has played cricket ever since' 4

b. I don know you stupid (Trinidad Creole; Edwards 1991a: 244) 'I have (always) known…' c. I done tak to am. (Gullah Creole; Mufwene 1991: 126) 'I have talked / finished talking to him'

2.3.3 Anterior (tense: Past or Past Perfect)

• can correspond to Past & Past Perfect BUT relative to Topic Time rather than CT • rare and almost exclusively in P&Cs

(8) a. i sey, `a did tayad an neva kom. (Miskito Coast Creole; Holm 1989: 475) 'he says `I ANT tired and didn`t come' b. Wa di inglish stuor did niem agen? (Jamaican Creole; Holm in Patrick 1999: 149) 'What was the English store called again?' c. Daa taim ai don nuo wo hii see aredi. (Barbados; Craig 1991: 190) 'That time I knew what he said already' d. im did win a tawzn dalaz in Kolown. (Providencia Creole; Holm 1989: 469) 'He had won a thousand dollars in Colón' e. Wen ai did smaal / tiΝ woz chiyp. (Panamanian Creole; Craig 1991: 189) 'When I was small / things were cheap.' f. Mi did hav a kozin. (Costa Rican Creole; Holm 1989: 485) 'I ANT had a cousin.'

2.4 Unstressed tense carrier in affirmatives

• non-habitual (SW: marked use compared with the habitual use, for did (3-15%) even more so than for do; rare in Western Caribbean & Am. P & Cs; very frequent in Capetown, SA))

(9) a. We do breed our own cows. (SW; West Somerset) b. This man what do own this,... (SW; West Somerset) c. I did see thee this morning, [thee]’ know (SW; Wiltshire; Klemola 1996: 108) d. I thought you did mean a rubber. (SW periphery, Herefordshire; Klemola 1996: 108)

(10) John did see it last night. (younger speakers from Somerset,Wiltshire and South Wales; Weltens 1983 in Klemola 1996; Gachelin 1997: 42)

• Note: theoretical problems for Chomsky (1995); addressed in Chambers/Trudgill 1991, Kortmann 2002

2.5 Summary

• survey (on transparency): (a) greater importance of the do-model in P&Cs than in the British Isles varieties and other New World Englishes (b) HAB-marking: most widespread use of T/A do (c) PROG, COMPL/PFCT and ANT: (virtually) non-existent in British Isles varieties

• the morphology of T/A do:

aspect: progressive: do (be), da/dé/di

habitual: do (invariant in SW), does/doz/ez/iz/z, de; only in SW also did (HAB primary function)

completive/perfect: don(e)

anterior: did

tense: unstressed TC: did (in P&Cs exclusively), PRS do in SW & SA

• archaism vs. innovation: Gachelin (1997: 43) treats non-standard do in English as a "definitely archaic" trait; BUT NOTE:

(a) P & Cs: greatest chance for direct British Isles models for HAB (most likely IrE; doubtful SW, contrary to Trudgill 1986 in Gachelin 1997: 42) and TC (e.g. very common in later ME & EModE up to late 16th c., still frequent after that); doubtful: PROG (SW unstressed do > PROG; Trudgill/Chambers 1991:146) (b) P & Cs: a high degree of innovation AND highest degree of grammaticalization in the field of Perfect (COMPL, PFCT) and ANT (i.e. Past (Perfect)); no grammaticalized done-construction in non-std. English superstrate (yet note: do + INF (with telic verbs) 'accomplish, manage, bring about' from late ME onwards; cf. Denison in van der Auwera 1999: 464f.) (c) P & Cs: in general: how important the non-standard superstrate was for the evolution of the T&A systems of P&Cs

3. Do/doen/tun as TAM markers in Germanic

• unstressed tense-carrier:

(11) a. Ihr ick dat vergeeten doo,… (Low German; Rohdenburg 1986) b. …, wenn he nich veel swimmen deit. (North Saxon) c. Nu, da kannste nich heemgiehn, da tuste bei uns iwwernachten (Meißen, U. Saxon) d. Tust Du gerade fernsehen? e. Zij doet werken. (Herlen Dutch; Cornips 1998) f. Zij doet haar huiswerk maken. g. We deden met het altaartje spelen. (dialectal or informal Northern Dutch; Nuijtens 1962 in van der Auwera 1999: 460)

(i) oldest use of grammaticalized do/doen/tun (cf. Langer 2001): documented from ME (13th c. in SW texts), MDut, MHG (Weiss 1956) onwards; (parallel rise in MWel & MBrt)

(ii) widely documented in German and Dutch (e.g. Cornips 1998): in regional dialects, in supraregional non-standard (-> spoken), in speech of children; contrast: extreme regional restriction in British Isles: only SW -> N.B.: here a higher degree of analyticity in German than in English (cf. similarly Burridge 1993: 69 on Canadian Pennsylvania Dutch)

(iii) motivations for use: e.g. Abraham 2002, Rohdenburg 1986, 2002, Russ 1990, Stein 1992, Cornips 1998, van der Auwera 1999

- avoid inflecting a lexical verb (especially for complex verbs or verbs typical of higher register; -> no splitting) - metrical purposes, incl. avoidance of phonologically undesirable structure (i.e. of main stress on clause-final lexical verb); -> may lead to syntactic change: unstressed TC do restricted to subordinate clauses (e.g. in Low German) - discourse-pragmatic purposes: identifying the rheme (e.g. Upper German) 6

- additional uses in individual varieties: progressive (e.g. Central Franconian, Swiss (Zurich) German), habitual (e.g. Herlen Dutch, East Franconian)

(iv) untypical for SW: besides do, there is also did in TC use (especially among younger speakers it seems); normally in Gmc: only PRS

(v) Given the prominence (and old age) of unstressed TC use in West Germanic: Chomsky's problems (1995) increase

• subjunctive marker (PAST SBJV of tun -> tät(e) 'would' instead of Std. German würde):

(12) a. Isch deed's net mache. (South Hessian) b. Isch han gedenkt er deet widdemol do sidse. (Palatian) c. Ich tääti schrieba (High Alemannic; -> Bosco Gurin) d. I daad mi schamma. (Bavarian) e. Ich deed gleiche e Kobbli Tee hawwe (Canadian Pennsylvania Dutch)

(i) very frequently found in German dialects (incl. the western Swiss German dialects); e.g. Abraham 2002, Russ 1990, Eroms 1984, Schönenberger/Penner in Penner 1995); also in Canadian Pennsylvania Dutch (Burridge 1993: 69); (ii) in certain environments also in supraregional non-standard (e.g. Ich tät gerne wissen..., Tätst Du ihm die Wahrheit sagen?)

• do as a SBJV marker in English (?):

- no use as SBJV marker in present-day varieties (did 'would' in cond. clauses in a few SW examples, but mostly in a habitual context; exception: he said, if the Squire did hear that, he said, he'd give us all the sack. (Klemola 1996: 119); rather unstressed TC use)

- historically: latter use already in 19th & early 20th c. SW dialects (e.g. Garrett 1998: 319f.)

4. T/A do in English varieties from a typological perspective: Grammaticalization paths

• checking the facts from English varieties against typological T&A surveys: Comrie 1976, 1985, Dahl 1985, Bybee/Dahl 1989, Bybee et al. 1994, Dahl 2000, Lindstedt 2001

• DO-verbs as sources of PROG, HAB, PFCT/ANT? Not reported! (possible exception: Bybee et al. (1994: 65): (W Sudan) Mano ké 'be,do,make' > Anterior marker)

• but once grammaticalized as a T/A marker, the paths do has taken largely conform to cross- linguistic grammaticalization patterns:

(a) formal identity or at least strong formal resemblance for PROG and HAB: PRS forms (as subtypes of a more general IMPERFECTIVE; Comrie 1976); BUT: no claim of PROG > HAB development here; (Note: (shaky) historical claims for SW and impact of SW do on development of Atlantic creoles: source of HAB and PROG markers) (b) HAB: it conforms to cross-linguistic findings (Bybee et al. 1994: 151) (a) to have the same HAB marker for present & past (doz in P&Cs) and (b) to have a special HAB marker for the past (did in SW); BUT: SW do runs counter to: "… no grammaticalization path leads to a strictly present habitual." (c) formal similarity for COMPL/PFCT and PAST (Perfect): PAST (Participle) (d) formal identity for COMPL/PFCT: don(e) 7

(e) activity verbs meaning 'finish' as a source for a COMPL/PFCT marker (like done): reported in Bybee et al. (1994: 69-74); moreover: (f) COMPL > PFCT development would make sense (NOTE: for all English-based P&Cs looked at for this talk: where don(e) PFCT marker, also COMPL marker); cf. Dahl 1985 and Bybee et al. (1994: 69f.): "anteriors from 'finish' may attain a range of use very similar to that of anteriors from resultatives" (g) however: the well-documented grammaticalization path RES > PFCT > PAST (perfective) does not seem to capture what has been going on in English-based P&Cs: 1. no RES > PFCT but, if at all, COMPL > PFCT 2. no PFCT > PAST (different forms: don(e) vs. did); BUT: (h) given formal identity (did), one can hypothesize a further step in the grammaticalization of did as a tense marker: PAST > TC (in decreolization process; obligatorification, etc. )

5. Conclusion

• interesting things going on in varieties of languages unknown in the relevant written standard varieties (Æ and thus overlooked in typological studies; cf. Miller/Weinert 1998); in today's case, grammar of do as a TAM-marker, more exactly:

• in varieties of English: only T/A marker: for aspect (primarily)

HAB (PROG) PERFECT (as general category) (everywhere) only P & Cs only P & Cs (here: highest (lowest degree degree of grammaticalization => of grammatical- obligatory marker) ization; one option out of several)

• do/doen/tun as tense marker: unstressed TC in affirmatives

(a) oldest Germanic use and still a salient feature of Germanic dialects (b) Note: a) most constrained in English (Æ only noticeable pocket: SW) b) most constrained in all standard varieties (cf. Langer 2001 on the stigmatisation of DO)

• tendency towards more analyticity especially pronounced in Continental Gmc. dialects

• importance of non-standard superstrate influence on P & Cs:

for HAB: IrE = source

for COMPL: non-grammaticalized done (e.g. we're done, I'm done with it)

for unstressed TC: possibly SW model

• from the point of view of grammaticalization:

a) the third major operator in English underwent additional grammaticalization processes in non-standard varieties compared with Standard English; Æ rarely or not at all documented across languages for a verb DO

b) well-known grammaticalization paths largely followed, and where not, at least not gone against 8

References

Abraham, Werner. 2002. "Characteristics of spoken vernaculars: parsing strategies? The case of German." In: Berns, Jan/Jaap van Marle, eds. Present-day dialectology. Problems and findings. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-33. Andersen, Henning, ed. 1995. Historical linguistics 1993. Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Los Angeles, 16-20 August 1993. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Ard, Josh. 1982. "Auxiliary do: Support or emphasis." Linguistics 20: 445-466. Bækken, Bjørg. 1999. "Periphrastic do in Early Modern English." Folia Linguistica Historica XX: 107-128. Bakker, Peter/Marike Post/Hein van der Voort. 1995. "TMA particles and auxiliaries." In: Arends, Jacques/Pieter Muysken/Norval Smith, eds. Pidgins and creoles: An introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 247-258. Battistella, Edwin. 1985. "Markedness isomorphism as a goal of language change: the spread of periphrastic do in English." Lingua 65: 307-322. Bertinetto, Pier Marco/Karen H. Ebert/Caspar de Groot. 2000. "The progressive in Europe." In: Dahl, Östen, ed. 517-558. Burridge, Kate. 1995. "Evidence of grammaticalization in Pennsylvania German.". In: Andersen, Henning, ed. 59-75. Bybee, Joan L./Östen Dahl. 1989. "The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world." Studies in Language 13: 51-103. Bybee, Joan L./Revere Perkins/William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. "Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation". In: Chomsky, Noam, ed. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 129-166. Clarke, Sandra. 1997. "On establishing historical relationships between new and old world varieties: Habitual aspect and Newfoundland vernacular English." In: Schneider, Edgar W., ed. Englishes around the world: studies in honour of Manfred Görlach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 277-293. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cornips, Leonie. 1994. "De hardnekkige vooroordelen over de regionale doen+infinitief-constructie." Forum de Letteren 35: 282-294. Cornips, Leonie. 1998. "Habitual doen in Herlen Dutch." In: Tieken Boon-van Ostade, Ingrid et al., eds. DO in English, Dutch and German: history and present-day variation. Münster: Nodus. 83-102. Craig, Dennis R. 1991. "The concept do in English and English-Lexicon Creole." In: Edwards, Walter F./Donald Winford, eds. Verb phrase patterns in Black English and Creole. Detroit: Wayne State UP. 189-208. Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dahl, Östen, ed. 2000. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London/New York: Longman. Duinhoven, A.M. 1994. "Het hulpwerkwoord doen heft afgedaan." Forum de Letteren 5: 110-131. Ebert, Karen H. 2000. "Progressive markers in Germanic languages." In: Dahl, Östen, ed. 605-653. Edwards, Walter F. 1991a. "A comparative description of Guyanese Creole and Black English preverbal aspect marker don." In: Edwards, Walter F./Donald Winford, eds. Verb phrase patterns in Black English and Creole. Detroit: Wayne State UP. 240-255. Edwards, Walter F. 1991b. "General introduction. Linguistic relations between Black English and Caribbean Creoles." In: Edwards, Walter F./Donald Winford, eds. Verb phrase patterns in Black English and Creole. Detroit: Wayne State UP. 15-24. Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do. The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Elworthy, Thomas. 1877-79. "An Outline of the Grammar of the Dialect of West Somerset". Transactions of the Philological Society: 143-257. Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1984. "Indikativische periphrastische Formen mit doã im Bairischen als Beispiel für latente und virulente syntaktische Regeln." In: Wiesingen, Peter, ed. Beiträge zur bairischen und ostfränkischen Dialektologie. Göppingen: Kümmerle. 123-135. Feagin, Crawford. 1991. "Preverbal done in Southern States English." In: Trudgill, Peter/J.K. Chambers, eds. 161-190. Filppula, Markku. 1999. The grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian style. New York: Routledge. 9

Gachelin, Jean-Marc. 1997. "The progressive and habitual aspects in non-standard Englishes." In: Schneider, Edgar W., ed. Englishes around the world: studies in honour of Manfred Görlach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 33-46. Garrett, Andrew. 1998. "On the origin of auxiliary do." English Language and Linguistics 2:283-330. Green, Lisa. 1998. "Aspect and predicate phrases in African-American vernacular English." In: Mufwene, Salikoko S. et al., eds. African-American English: structure, history and use. London/New York: Routledge. 37-68. Hall, Charles. 1983. Periphrastic do: History and hypotheses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Hancock, Ian. 1987. "A preliminary classification of the anglophone Atlantic creoles with syntactic data from thirty-three representative dialects." In: Gilbert, G., ed. Pidgin and creole languages: Essays in memoriam of John E. Reinecke. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 264-334. Harris, John. 1986. "Expanding the superstrate: Habitual aspect markers in Atlantic Englishes." English World Wide 7: 171-199. Haspelmath, Martin/Ekkehard König/Wulf Oesterreicher/Wolfgang Raible, eds. 2001. Language typology and language universals. An international handbook. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Heine, Bernd. 1993. Auxiliaries. Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holm, John A. 1988. Pidgins and Creoles. Vol.1: Theory and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holm, John A. 1989. Pidgins and Creoles. Vol. 2: Reference survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holm, John A. 2000. An introduction to pidgins and creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huber, Markus. 1996. "The grammaticalization of aspect markers in Ghanaian Pidgin English." In: Baker, Philip/Anand Syea, eds. Changing meanings, changing functions: papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages. London: Univ. of Westminster Press. 53-70. Ihalainen, Ossi. 1976. "Periphrastic do in affirmative sentences in the dialect of East Somerset." Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 77: 608-622. Ihalainen, Ossi. 1991. "Periphrastic do in affirmative sentences in the dialect of East Somerset." In: Trudgill, Peter/J.K. Chambers, eds. 148-160. Kleiner, Brian/Dennis R. Preston. 1997. "Discourse disputes: How come you do do like you do." Folia Linguistica XXXI: 105-131. Klemola, Juhani. 1996. Non-standard periphrastic do: A study in variation and change. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Essex. Klemola, Juhani. 2002. "Continuity and change in dialect morphosyntax." In: Kastovsky, Dieter, ed. Anglistentag 2001 Vienna. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Kortmann, Bernd. 1997. “Typology and language change”. In: W. Böker/H. Sauer, eds. Anglistentag 1996 Dresden - Proceedings. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. 109-124. Kortmann, Bernd. 2002. "New prospects for the study of dialect syntax: Impetus from syntactic theory and language typology." In: Barbiers, Sjef/Leonie Cornips/Susanne van der Kleij, eds. Syntactic Microvariation. Amsterdam. Kortmann, Bernd. 2004. "Do as a Tense and Aspect Marker in Varieties of English". In: Bernd Kortmann, ed. Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 245-275. Langer, Nils. 2001. Linguistic purism in action: How auxiliary tun was stigmatized in Early New High German. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Lindstedt, Jouko. 2001. "Tense and aspect." In: Haspelmath, Martin/Ekkehard König/Wulf Oesterreicher/Wolfgang Raible, eds. 768-783. Mesthrie, Rajend. 1999. "Fifty ways to say 'I do': tracing the origins of unstressed do in Cape Flats English, South Africa." S.-Afr. Tydskr. Taalk. 17: 58-71. Montgomery, Michael. 2001. "British and Irish antecedents." In: Algeo, John, ed. The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. VI: English in North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 86- 153. Parkvall, Mikael. 2000. Out of Africa: African influence in Atlantic creoles. London: Battlebridge. Patrick, Peter L. 1999. Urban Jamaican Creole: Variation in the mesolect. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Penner, Z., ed. 1995. Topics in Swiss German syntax. Bern/Berlin/Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. Poplack, Shana, ed. 2000. The English history of African American English. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Poplack, Shana/Sali Tagliamonte. 1996. "Nothing in context: Variation, grammaticization, and past time marking in Nigerian Pidgin English." In: Baker, Philip/Anand Syea, eds. Changing meanings, changing functions: papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages. London: Univ. of Westminster Press. 71-94. 10

Poplack, Shana/Sali Tagliamonte. 2001. African American English in the diaspora. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. Rissanen, Matti. 1991. "Spoken language and the history of do-periphrasis." In: Kastovsky, Dieter, ed. Historical English syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 321-342. Rohdenburg, Günter. 2002. "Die Umschreibung finiter Verbformen mit doon 'tun' und die Frikativierung stammauslautender Plosive in nordniederdeutschen Mundarten." Nowele 40: 84-104. Rohdenburg, Günter. to appear 2002. "Grammatical parallels between English and Low German Dialects and their typological implications." In: Kastovsky, Dieter, ed. Anglistentag 2001 Vienna. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Rohdenburg, Günter. 1986. "Phonologisch und morphologisch bedingte Variation in der Verbalsyntax des Nordniederdeutschen." Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 109: 86-117. Russ, Charles V.J., ed. 1990. The dialects of Modern German. A linguistic survey. London: Routledge. Sebba, Mark. 1997. Contact languages: Pidgins and Creoles. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Singler, John Victor, ed. 1990. Pidgin and Creole tense-mood-aspect systems. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Stein, Dieter. 1990. The semantics of syntactic change: aspects of the evolution of do in English Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Stein, Dieter. 1992. "Do and tun: A semantics and varieties-based approach to syntactic change." In: Gerritsen, Marinel/Dieter Stein, eds. Internal and external factors in syntactic change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 131-155. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1990. "The origin and development of periphrastic auxiliary do: A case of destigmatisation." Nowele 16: 3-52. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1972. A history of English syntax. A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Tristram, Hildegard L.C. 1995. "Aspect in contact." In: Riehle, Wolfgang/ Hugo Keiper, eds. Anglistentag 1994 Graz. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 269-294. Tristram, Hildegard L.C. 1997. "DO-periphrasis in contact?" In: Ramisch, Heinrich/Kenneth Wynne, eds. Language in time and space. Stuttgart: Steiner. 401-417. Trudgill, Peter. "Grammaticalization and social structure: non-standard conjunction-formation in East Anglian English." In: Palmer, Frank R., ed. Grammar and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 136-147. Trudgill, Peter/J.K. Chambers, eds. 1991. Dialects of English: studies in grammatical variation. London: Longman. Trudgill, Peter/J.K. Chambers. 1991. "Aspect in English dialects." In: Trudgill, Peter/J.K. Chambers, eds. 145- 147. Van der Auwera, Johan. 1999. "Periphrastic do: Typological prolegomena." In: Tops, Guy A./Betty Devriendt/Steven Geukens, eds. 1999. Thinking English grammar: to honour Xavier Dekeyser, Professor Emeritus. Leuven: Peeters. 457-470. Van der Auwera, Johan/Inge Genee. English 'do': converging languages and linguists. Unpubl. ms. Wakelin, Martyn F. 1986. The Southwest of England. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Weiss, Emil. 1956. TUN:MACHEN. Bezeichnungen für die kausative und die periphrastische Funktion im Deutschen bis um 1400. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Weltens, B. 1983. "Non-standard periphrastic do in the dialects of Southwest Britain". Lore and Language 3: 56-74. Winford, Donald. 2001. On the typology of creole TMA systems. Society for Caribbean Linguistics, Occasional Paper 29. The University of the West Indies.