Multiple sources in the copularization of become

Multiple sources in the copularization of become

This paper shows how general productivity (see Barðdal 2009: 38) of the copular function of the verb become abruptly followed when a pre-copular stage had reached a threshold value about 1150, prior to which become only occurred with a spatial sense ‘arrive’, and with extensions of this sense. It is argued that this abrupt switch to general productivity rather than a gradual increase in productivity results from the fact that copular become is not the end result of a single diachronic lineage of constructions (i.e. a simple grammaticalization process, see Croft 2000: 32-37), but instead resulted from an interaction between lineages, as well as external influence, and from the coming together of all factors involved in the twelfth century.
First, certain constructions in which become occurred gradually changed and interacted with each other. In a first stage, two constructions developed (through metaphor) out of become ‘arrive’. These are the constructions in (1), with a human subject and become meaning ‘attain’, and in (2), with an inanimate subject, a dative experiencer and become meaning ‘come upon’.

(1) Heo becom to soþum wisdome. ‘She attained to true wisdom.’
(2) Seo þearlwisnis þæs heardan lifes him becwom. ‘The austerity of life came upon him.’

In a second stage a two-participant resultative construction, as in (3), developed as a syntactic blend of (1) and (2) (cf. De Smet 2009: 1747), which provided a formal template for a one-participant prepositional copular construction as in (4).

(3) Andetnysse him becumeð to hæle ‘Confession results (for him) in salvation’
(4) Þii fader bi-com to one childe ‘Your father turned into a child.’

Another, unrelated construction provided a formal template for the adjectival copular construction. This is the depictive construction given in (5), in which an adjective serves as a secondary predicate, but become does not have a linking function (is not a copula).

(5) He gesund becom to Æðelingege. ‘He arrived (and was) safe at Æðelinge.’

Second, the already existing copula weorðan ‘become’ (see Petré & Cuyckens 2009) provided a template of general productivity upon which the resultative construction could graft once it had become semantically sufficiently similar to a copular construction, and, once the copular stage was reached, the depictive construction also started to serve as a formal input for this analogical process, with as a result adjectival and nominal copular constructions.
Finally, Old French probably also contributed (though only as a strengthening factor) to the success of copular become in precisely the twelfth century.
From a balanced explanation taking into account all of these factors it is concluded that the sudden emergence of copular becuman is not as catastrophic as it at first seemed.

References
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2009. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic (Constructional Approaches to Language 8). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach. London: Longman.
De Smet, Hendrik. 2009. Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119: 1728-1755.
Petré, Peter & Hubert Cuyckens. 2009. Constructional change in Old and Middle English Copular Constructions and its impact on the lexicon. Folia Lingistuica Historia 30: 311-365.