Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton October 14, 2021

Loss of intersective gradience as the lifeboat of a dying construction. An analysis of the diachronic change of causative bring

Ulrike Schneider EMAIL logo
From the journal Folia Linguistica

Abstract

This paper focusses on diachronic processes which lead to the disambiguation between different constructions involving the same verb. It follows the development of bring as a periphrastic causative over the course of the Early Modern and Late Modern English periods and compares it to the development of other bring constructions. In a corpus-based analysis, it utilizes measures of cue strength as well as collostructional analysis to determine whether reflexive objects, negation, modals or the passive are cues strongly associated with the dying periphrastic causative X bring cause Y to-inf. Results indicate that the construction indeed increasingly attracts reflexive objects in combination with a modal or negation. This finding is interpreted as an indication that non-prototypical verbal properties developing into strong cues for a construction may serve to make a rare construction more salient and thus easier to recognize and process. Furthermore, the construction’s restriction to reflexive patients vastly reduces variability in the object slot.


Corresponding author: Ulrike Schneider, Department of English and Linguistics, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany, E-mail:

References

Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Andersson, Evert. 1985. On verb complementation in written English. Malmö: Gleerup/Liber.Search in Google Scholar

Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntConc, version 3.4.3m [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software (accessed 17 September 2014).Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, 899–919. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Bailey, Guy, Tom Wikle, Jan Tillery & Lori Sand. 1991. The apparent time construct. Language Variation and Change 3. 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394500000569.Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth & Brian MacWhinney. 1987. Competition, variation, and language learning. In Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 157–193. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Cole, Peter. 1983. The grammatical role of the causee in Universal Grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 49(2). 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1086/465778.Search in Google Scholar

Edwards, Robert R. (ed.). 2001. John Lydgate: The siege of Thebes (TEAMS Middle English Texts Series). Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publication. https://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/edwards-lydgate-siege-of-thebes-secunda-pars (accessed 3 August 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.39Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.17Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax. An introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.syn1Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization. International symposium, Potsdam, 17–19 June, 1999, 83–101. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.49.08heiSearch in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. https://doi.org/10.2307/413757.Search in Google Scholar

Kirchner, Gustav. 1951. A special case of the object of result. English Studies 32. 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00138385108596870.Search in Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2000. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 17(1). 39–84. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.17.1.04kon.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lee, David. 2001. Cognitive linguistics. An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R. Data explorations and statistical analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.195Search in Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian. 1987. The competition model. In Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 249–308. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315798721-15Search in Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 1990a. A contrastive analysis of object-control in English and German. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 25. 85–101.Search in Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 1990b. Infinitival complement clauses in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

McDonald, Janet L. 1984. Semantic and syntactic processing cues used by first and second language learners of English, Dutch and German. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Mondorf, Britta. 2010. Genre effects in the replacement of reflexives by particles. In Heidrun Dorgeloh & Anja Wanner (eds.), Syntactic variation and genre, 219–245. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226485.2.219Search in Google Scholar

Mondorf, Britta. 2011. Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change 22. 397–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394510000165.Search in Google Scholar

Mondorf, Britta. 2016. ‘Snake legs it to freedom’: Dummy it as pseudo-object. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12(1). 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0071.Search in Google Scholar

Mondorf, Britta & Javier Pérez-Guerra. 2016. Support strategies in language variation and change. [Special Issue]. English Language and Linguistics 20(3). 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674316000289.Search in Google Scholar

Mondorf, Britta & Ulrike Schneider. 2016. Detransitivization as a support strategy for causative bring. English Language and Linguistics 20(3). 439–462. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674316000290.Search in Google Scholar

OED  = Oxford English Dictionary, online version. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://oed.com (accessed 31 July 2020).Search in Google Scholar

Peitsara, Kristi. 1997. The development of reflexive strategies in English. In Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö & Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.), Grammaticalization at work. Studies of long-term developments in English, 277–370. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110810745.277Search in Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 2009. Reflexive structures. In Günter Rohdenburg & Julia Schlüter (eds.), One language, two grammars? Grammatical differences between British and American English, 166–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551970.009Search in Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 2014. Reflections of reflexives in modern English. Anglia 132(3). 536–574. https://doi.org/10.1515/ang-2014-0057.Search in Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2001. Constructing causation: A construction grammar approach to analytic causatives. Houston: Rice University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste.Search in Google Scholar

Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A history of English. London: Methuen.Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. How do they interact? In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization, 19–44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.90.04traSearch in Google Scholar

Visser, Fredericus Th. 1973. An historical syntax of the English language. Part three, second half. Syntactical units with two and with more verbs. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-09-29
Accepted: 2021-03-21
Published Online: 2021-10-14
Published in Print: 2021-11-25

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 1.2.2023 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/flin-2021-2034/html
Scroll Up Arrow