This study explores the evolution of the present perfect progressive (PerfProg) in American English from the early nineteenth century to the twenty-first century. Drawing on data from the Corpus of Historical American English, this study examines the PerfProg in relation to the past progressive and the present perfect simple. The frequency of the PerfProg increased steadily until the mid-twentieth century; thereafter it stabilized in popular writing but declined in speech-based registers. Multinomial regression analysis shows that the PerfProg retains more of its earlier conditioning patterns than the simple verb forms. Its evolution is characterized by a shift toward more eventive uses and specification by adverbials headed by for and since. The results underscore the non-compositionality of this complex verb form on synchronic and diachronic levels.
BiberDouglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BiberDouglasJohanssonStigLeechGeoffreyEdward FineganSusan Conrad. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
3.
BrintonLaurel J.1988. The development of English aspectual systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BybeeJoan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In D. JosephBrianJandaRichard D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602-623. Oxford: Blackwell.
5.
BybeeJoan. 2006. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BybeeJoan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CareyKathleen. 1994. Pragmatics, subjectivity, and the grammaticalization of the English perfect. San Diego, CA: University of California PhD dissertation.
8.
ComrieBernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de AcostaDiego. 2013. The Old English have-perfect and its congeners. Journal of English Linguistics41(1). 33-64.
11.
De WitAstridPetréPeterBrisardFrank. 2020. Standing out with the progressive. Journal of Linguistics56(3). 479-514.
12.
DenisonDavid. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.
13.
DenisonDavid. 1998. Syntax. In RomaineSuzanne (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 4, 1776-1997, 92-329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DowtyDavid R.1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language67(3). 547-619.
15.
ElsnessJohan. 1994. On the progression of the progressive in early Modern English. ICAME Journal18. 5-25.
16.
ElsnessJohan. 1997. The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and earlier English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
17.
FischerOlga. 1992. Syntax. In BlakeNorman (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English Language, vol. 2, 1066-1476, 207-408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
GoldbergAdele E.2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
GreenbaumSidneyNelsonGerald. 2002. An introduction to English grammar. London: Longman.
20.
GriesStefan Th. 2021. Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. 3rd edn.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
21.
GriesStefan Th.HilpertMartin. 2012. Variability-based neighbor clustering: A bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In NevalainenTerttuTraugottElizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the History of English. Online edn. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0014.
22.
HarrisMartin. 1982. The “past simple” and “present perfect” in Romance. In HarrisMartinVincentNigel (eds.), Studies in the Romance verb, 42-70. London: Croom Helm.
23.
HopperPaul J.TraugottElizabeth C.1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HuddlestonRodneyPullumGeoffrey K.2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HundtMarianne. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in modern English. English Language and Linguistics8(1). 49-76.
27.
JespersenOtto. 1931. A modern English grammar on historical principles, part IV, Syntax, vol. 3, Time and tense. London: Allen and Unwin.
28.
KillieKristin. 2014. The development of the English BE+V-ENDE/V-ING periphrasis. English Language and Linguistics18(3). 361-386.
29.
KranichSvenja. 2010. The progressive in Modern English: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization and related changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
30.
KytöMerja. 1997. Be/have + past participle: The choice of the auxiliary with intransitives from Late Middle to Modern English. In RissanenMattiKytöMerjaHeikkonenKirsi (eds.), English in transition: Corpus-based studies in linguistic variation and genre styles, 18-85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
31.
LeechGeoffreyHundtMarianneNicholas SmithChristian Mair. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
MairChristianHundtMarianne. 1995. Why is the progressive becoming more frequent in English? A corpus-based investigation of language change in progress. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik2. 111-122.
33.
McCoardRobert. 1978. The English perfect: Tense choice and pragmatic inferences. Amsterdam: North-Holland Press.
34.
MichaelisLaura A.2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics15(1). 1-68.
35.
MitchellBruce. 1985. Old English syntax, vol. 1, Concord, the parts of speech, and the sentence. Oxford: Clarendon.
36.
MosséFernand. 1938. Histoire de la forme périphrastique être + participe présent en germanique. vols. I–II. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
37.
MustanojaTauno N.1960. A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
38.
NesselhaufNadia. 2007. The spread of the progressive and its ‘future’ use. English Language and Linguistics11(1). 191-207.
39.
NickelGerhard. 1966. Die Expanded Form im Altenglischen. Vorkommen, Funktion und Herkunft der Umschreibung ‘beon/wesan’ + Partizip Präsens. Neumünster: Wachholtz.
40.
PetréPeter. 2017. The extravagant progressive: An experimental corpus study on the history of the emphatic [BE Ving]. English Language and Linguistics21(12). 227-250.
41.
QuirkRandolphGreenbaumSidneyJan SvartvikGeoffrey Leech. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
42.
RissanenMatti. 1999. Syntax. In LassRoger (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3, 1476 to 1776, 187-321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
RothsteinBjörn. 2008. The perfect time span: On the present perfect in German, Swedish and English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
44.
SchlesingerIzchak M.1995. Cognitive space and linguistic case: Semantic and syntactic categories in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
SchlüterNorbert. 2006. How reliable are the results? Comparing corpus-based studies of the present perfect. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik54(2). 135-148.
46.
SmitterbergErik. 2005. The progressive in 19th-century English: A process of integration. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
47.
StrangBabara M. H.1982. Some aspects of the history of the be + ing construction. In AndersonJohn (ed.), Language form and linguistic variation: Papers dedicated to Angus McIntosh, 427-474. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
48.
TraugottElizabeth C.1992. Syntax. In HoggRichard M. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1, The beginnings to1066, 168-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
TraugottElizabeth C.1995. Subjectification in grammaticalization. In SteinDieterWrightSusan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 37-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
TraugottElizabeth C.2006. Semantic change: Bleaching, strengthening, narrowing, extension. In BrownKeith (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 124-131. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
51.
TraugottElizabeth C.TrousdaleGraeme (eds.). 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
52.
VanneckGerard. 1958. The colloquial preterite in Modern American English. Word14(2-3). 237-242.
53.
VendlerZeno. 1967. Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
54.
VisserFrederic Th. 1973. An historical syntax of the English language. 3/2. Syntactical units with two and more verbs.Leiden: Brill.
55.
WrightSusan. 1995. Subjectivity and experiential syntax. In SteinDieterWrightSusan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation, 151-172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
YaoXinyue. 2024. The present perfect and the preterite in Late Modern and Contemporary English: A corpus-based study of grammatical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
57.
ZiegelerDebra. 1999. Agentivity and the history of the English progressive. Transactions of the Philological Society97(1). 51-101.
