AbstractThis article considers the processes of grammaticalization that involve tense and aspect markers from the perspective of a layered, hierarchical approach to grammatical categories. It discusses the notion of hierarchical layering and provides a summary of the paths of grammaticalization involving tense and aspect. It concludes that developments in the domain of tense and aspect may be fruitfully interpreted in terms of scope increase along hierarchically organized layers of semantic organisation.

Abstract The paper discusses the role of tense and time from a cross-linguistic perspective by comparing English (a tensed language) and Mandarin (a language without formal tense marking). Multiple translations of the same literary piece are used to test the correspondence between the tense, the perfective aspect and temporal adverbials. In English, tense marking is found to work with at least two language-specific stylistic means, clause interpolation and inversion, to create a mixed narrative viewpoint. In Mandarin, neither the perfective aspect nor temporal adverbials, i.e., constructions that invoke time, are systematically used across the renditions, which shows the Mandarin system’s overall indifference to time in managing viewpoint in discourse. The Mandarin renditions, in addition to an overall indifference to time, feature consistent and frequent use of reduplication as the system’s distinctive viewpoint strategy. The paper concludes with a discussion of the cognitive consequence of a language using an obligatory marking system to piggyback the function of viewpointing narratives.

Abstract Taking Chung’s (2001. The structure and tense interpretation of tenseless - ko coordination. Studies in Generative Grammar 11. 41–68, 2005. What does bare - ko coordination say about post-verbal morphology in Korean? Lingua 115. 549–568) discussion as a point of departure, I discuss the phenomenon of tenseless clausal coordination in Korean. I investigate the phenomenon from a broader perspective concerning the system of tense marking and temporal interpretation of the language. Showing that there are many environments where a null tense marker is used in Korean, I suggest that the null tense marker is the default realization of the tense head for both past and non-past tenses in the language. To capture the allomorphic alternation between overt and null tense markers, I propose two postsyntactic insertion rules for past and non-past tenses. Concerning how the tense head bears past or non-past specification in the first place, I adopt Stowell’s (1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 561–570, 1996. The phrase structure of tense. In Johan Rooryck & Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon , 277–291. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2007. The syntactic expression of tense. Lingua 117. 437–463) analysis and reformulate it in terms of Agree relations involving the categories C, T, and Z and their tense features, the result of which feeds the aforementioned insertion rules. Based on this, I argue that tenseless clausal coordination involves a multiple feature-valuing configuration under TP-coordination. The current analysis not only explains tenseless clausal coordination in a way that is not construction-specific, but it also provides a novel account of the system of morphological tense marking in Korean. It is also suggested, albeit tentatively, that phases and spell-out domains may be relevant to determining how tense is morphologically marked. The current analysis is in line with the cartographic approach to clause structure – especially, that the traditional CP consists of a series of functional projections (Cinque 1999. Adverbs and functional heads . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Restructuring and functional heads: The cartography of syntactic structures , vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Rizzi 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar , 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

This book advances research on grammatical change and shows the breadth and liveliness of the field. This book advances research on grammatical change and shows the breadth and liveliness of the field. Leading international scholars report and reflect on the latest research into the nature and outcomes of all aspects of syntactic change including grammaticalization, variation, complementation, syntactic movement, determiner-phrase syntax, pronominal systems, case systems, negation, and alignment. The authors deploy a variety of generative frameworks, including minimalist and optimality theoretic, and bring these to bear on a wide range of languages: among the latter are typologically distinct examples from Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Greek, Korean and Japanese, Austronesian, Celtic, and Nahuatl. They draw on sociolinguistic evidence where appropriate. Taken as a whole, the volume provides

The German verb haben occupies a pivotal position in the diachronic analysis of the Germanic languages, serving as a key example of how lexical items evolve through the interwoven processes of semantic expansion, morphological restructuring, and grammaticalization. Deriving from the Proto-Indo-European root keh₂p- (‘to seize, grasp, or take possession of’), the verb originally conveyed a concrete sense of physical control or acquisition. In Proto-Germanic, this root developed into both stative forms (haben-) and factitive forms (habjan- / hafjan-), reflecting an early diversification of aspectual and valency distinctions within the verbal system. These forms eventually gave rise to the modern German haben, whose semantic and grammatical versatility makes it a cornerstone of the language’s verbal paradigm. Over time, haben underwent a profound semantic shift from expressing tangible acts of possession or holding to denoting more abstract relationships of ownership and obligation. This transition exemplifies a broader typological tendency in the world’s languages, whereby verbs of possession often grammaticalize into auxiliary verbs marking perfect aspect constructions. By the Middle High German period, haben had become fully integrated as an auxiliary in compound tenses, functioning alongside sein (‘to be’) to mark the distinction between transitive and intransitive verbal classes in the formation of the perfect and pluperfect. Comparative evidence from related early Germanic languages Gothic, Old Norse, Old English, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Dutch, and Old High German illustrates both the shared Proto-Germanic inheritance and subsequent dialect-specific innovations. For instance, Gothic habais and Old English hæbbe retain the original lexical meaning ‘to have,’ while their use as auxiliaries emerges progressively in later stages. This gradual grammaticalization trajectory highlights the dynamic interplay between syntax, semantics, and morphology in historical language development. Furthermore, the productivity of the root keh₂p- extends beyond the verbal domain. Nominal derivatives such as English haven (‘harbor’), German Hafen (‘port’), and even Old Irish cuan (‘bay’) testify to the enduring semantic field of containment and possession across the Indo-European languages. These reflexes underscore the conceptual continuity linking physical possession with spatial enclosure and, by extension, grammatical possession.