Skip to content
Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton January 13, 2021

From movement into action to manner of causation: changes in argument mapping in the into-causative

Susanne Flach ORCID logo
From the journal Linguistics

Abstract

Over the last 300 years, the into-causative (he talked his father into giving him money) increased in frequency and lexical diversity. Changes of this kind are often taken as evidence of functional expansion. From a Construction Grammar (CxG) perspective, this paper argues that what appears to be a loss of restrictions on the verbal slot results from changes in argument mapping links. As the construction provides the argument roles by mapping semantics (causer, causee, result) onto syntax (subject, object, oblique), stronger mapping links increasingly facilitated the use of verbs that are semantically and syntactically atypical for the expression of causation. Data from the Corpus of Historical American English confirm three predictions of this hypothesis with respect to shifts in (i) the semantic classes of matrix verbs, (ii) their general argument structure preferences, and (iii) voice-marking. The results provide evidence for a subtle semantic change from movement into action to manner of causation. The increase in frequency and productivity are hence explained as the consequence of the syntactic form becoming a more reliable cue for causative meaning. We discuss implications for models of language change against the background of current issues in Diachronic Construction Grammar (DCxG) pertaining to constructionalization vs. constructional change.


Corresponding author: Susanne Flach, Englisches Seminar, Universität Zürich, Plattenstrasse 47, 8032Zürich, Switzerland, E-mail:

Funding source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF)

Award Identifier / Grant number: 100012L/169490/1

Acknowledgments

The research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF grant no. 100012L/169490/1, PI Martin Hilpert). I thank two anonymous reviewers, Martin Hilpert, Elena Smirnova, and Anatol Stefanowitsch for their helpful comments, constructive feedback, and food for thought. The usual disclaimers apply.

Appendix

Classification of matrix verbs:

communication/persuasion. argue, becoax, cajole, charm, cheer, chitchat, coax, convince, counsel, fast-talk, filibuster, flatter, hearten, heckle, impress, intrigue, invite, jive-talk, jolly, natter, overpersuade, persuade, please, romance, rouse, salestalk, scream, sign-talk, smooth-tongue, soft-soap, soothe, spur, stir, sweet-talk, talk, wheedle, woo.

fear/irritation. aggravate, alarm, anger, annoy, astonish, awe, badger, bewilder, bewitch, boss, bother, bribe, browbeat, bully, challenge, chill, chivvy, conjure, cow, cry, curse, damn, daunt, dazzle, degrade, devil, distress, dog, educate, egg, embarrass, enrage, exasperate, exhort, fret, frighten, frustrate, gall, goad, guilt, harass, harry, hector, horrify, hound, humiliate, influence, insult, intimidate, irk, irritate, jar, jeer, josh, laugh, lie, lull, manipulate, nag, needle, nerve, nettle, nudge, overwhelm, panic, pester, pique, preach, provoke, psych, quiz, railroad, reason, ridicule, sadden, scald, scare, school, scold, scowl, shame, shellshock, shock, snow, spoil, spook, stampede, stare, startle, starve, sting, storm, stun, stupefy, surprise, sway, tease, terrify, terrorize, threaten, urge, victimize, wear, weary, witch, worry.

force/pressure. abuse, batter, beat, blackjack, blackmail, blow, bludgeon, bomb, bounce, brainwash, bulldoze, captivate, chase, coerce, compel, corner, corral, corrupt, cross-ruff, crowd, crush, cudgel, discipline, dope, dose, draft, drag, dragoon, draw, drug, elbow, flog, force, hammer, haul, henpeck, herd, high-pressure, hook, horsewhip, hurry, hustle, impact, impel, incite, intoxicate, jog, jostle, kick, kick-start, lasso, lock, maneuver, massage, maul, muscle, paralyze, peck, pinprick, poke, press, pressure, prick, prod, propel, pull, push, rope, rush, sandbag, scourge, shake, shred, shunt, slash, slave-drive, smash, snooker, squeeze, steam-roll, steel, stiffen, strangle, strike, strong-arm, subdue, suck, sucker, suppress, sweep, thrash, thumbscrew, torment, torture, transfix, trap, trip, whip, whipsaw.

trickery/deception.allure, attract, bait, bamboozle, befool, befuddle, beguile, bejuggle, betray, bluff, buffalo, cheat, con, confuse, cozen, deceive, decoy, delude, discombobulate, doctor, dupe, ensnare, entice, entrap, euchred, fake, fascinate, finagle, finess, flimflam, fool, fox, gammon, gull, hoax, hocuss, hoodwink, hornswoggled, humbug, hypnotize, inveigle, jockey, juggle, kid, lure, mesmerize, misconstrue, misguide, mislead, mystify, outwit, rook, screw, seduce, self-deceive, shanghai, sidetrack, spoof, swindle, tempt, trick, wangle, will.

miscellaneous. act, address, anesthetize, anglicize, back, bestir, blind, boink, brainstorm, buy, calm, careful, carry, catalyze, catapult, co-opt, coach, comfort, condition, construe, contrive, convert, cue, dare, deny, direct, drive, ease, enchant, entertain, excite, fan, fashion, fashionate, fatigue, form, freeze, galvanize, get, goose, groom, guide, huckster, induce, initiate, interest, jade, jolt, kiss, lead, lecture, legislate, lick, midwived, missionary, mistake, mobilize, mold, motivate, nurture, pat, peckay, pervert, plow, precipitate, program, project, rasp, rassle, rationalize, re-educate, regiment, scene, socialize, soften, sophisticate, sphroxify, spirit, spoon, steer, stimulate, subsidize, swing, systematize, tick, tickle, tinker, train, transmute, trigger, vamp, vote, wheel, work.

References

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Börjars, Kersti, Nigel Vincent & George Walkden. 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3). 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968x.12068.Search in Google Scholar

Breban, Tine. 2014. What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica 48(2). 469–502. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.016.Search in Google Scholar

Brunner, Thomas. 2019. Into-causatives in world Englishes. Paper presented at ICAME40, Université de Neuchâtel, June 2, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

Colleman, Timothy. 2011. Ditransitive verbs and the ditransitive construction: A diachronic perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59(4). 387–410. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0408.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. (2015 offline version). Available at: .Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2010. The corpus of historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. Available at: .Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2012. The 400 million word corpus of historical American English (1810–2009). In Irén Hegedűs & Alexandra Fodor (eds.), English historical linguistics 2010: Selected papers from the sixteenth international conference on english historical linguistics (ICEHL 16), 231–262. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark & Jong-Bok Kim. 2019. Historical shifts with the into-causative construction in American English. Linguistics 57(1). 29–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0030.Search in Google Scholar

De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015. A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC+DAT double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11(2). 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0011.Search in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik, Susanne Flach, Jukka Tyrkkö & Hans-Jürgen Diller. 2015. The corpus of Late Modern English (CLMET), version 3.1: Improved tokenization and linguistic annotation. FU Berlin, U Tampere, RU Bochum: KU Leuven.Search in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik. 2016. How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(1). 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394515000186.Search in Google Scholar

D’hoedt, Frauke, Hendrik De Smet & Hubert Cuyckens. 2019. Constructions waxing and waning: A brief history of the zero-secondary predicate construction. Journal of English Linguistics 47(1). 3–28.Search in Google Scholar

Duffley, Patrick J. 2018. Talk into vs convince to: Talking as a cause leading to containment, convincing as a cause leading to a result. In Mark Kaunisto, Mikko Höglund & Paul Rickman (eds.), Changing structures: Studies in constructions and complementation, 15–30. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Flach, Susanne. 2018. “What’s that passive doing in my argument structure construction?” A note on constructional interaction, verb classes and related issues. Paper presented at the workshop Verb Classes, Frames, and Constructions, April 26–27, 2018. Mannheim: IDS.Search in Google Scholar

Flach, Susanne. 2020. Constructionalization and the Sorites Paradox: The emergence of the into-causative. In Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Fonteyn, Lauren. 2017. The aggregate and the individual: Thoughts on what non-alternating authors reveal about linguistic alternations – a response to Petré. English Language and Linguistics 21(2). 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674317000119.Search in Google Scholar

Fonteyn, Lauren. 2019. Categoriality in language change: The case of the English gerund. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Friendly, Michael. 1992. Graphical methods for categorical data. In SAS User Group International Conference Proceedings, Vol. 17, 190–200.Search in Google Scholar

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

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2012. Variability-based neighbour clustering: A bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook on the history of English, 134–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Covarying collexemes in the into-causative. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 225–236. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2015. From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26(1). 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2018a. Wie viele Konstruktionen stecken in einem Wortbildungsmuster? Eine Problematisierung des Produktivitätsbegriffs aus konstruktionsgrammatischer Sicht. In Stefan Engelberg, Henning Lobin, Kathrin Steyer & Sascha Wolfer (eds.), Wortschätze: Dynamik, Muster, Komplexität, 91–106. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2018b. Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In Evie Coussé, Peter Andersson & Joel Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar, 21–39. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin & Holger Diessel. 2016. Entrenchment in Construction Grammar. In Hans-Joerg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 57–74. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin & Stefan Th. Gries. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4). 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqn012.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139–157. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 2000. Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Jong-Bok & Mark A. Davies. 2016. The into-causative construction in English: A construction-based perspective. English Language and Linguistics 20(1). 55–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674315000271.Search in Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond. In Hans Lindquist & Christian Mair (eds.), Studies in corpus linguistics, 121–150. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Perek, Florent. 2018. Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(1). 65–97. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014.Search in Google Scholar

Petré, Peter & Freek Van de Velde. 2018. The real-time dynamics of the individual and the community in grammaticalization. Language 94(4). 867–901. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0056.Search in Google Scholar

Rickman, Paul & Mark Kaunisto. 2018. Aspects of the use of the transitive into -ing pattern in New Zealand English. In Mark Kaunisto, Mikko Höglund & Rickman Paul (eds.), Changing structures: Studies in constructions and complementation, 71–87. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 2000. Corpora and complementation: Tracing sentential complementation patterns of nouns, adjectives, and verbs over the last three centuries. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Search in Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 2005. Lexico‐grammatical innovation in current British and American English: A case study on the transitive into ‐ing pattern with evidence from the Bank of English Corpus. Studia Neophilologica 77(2). 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393270500384791.Search in Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 2006. Emergent alternation in complement selection: The spread of the transitive into -ing construction in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34(4). 312–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424206293600.Search in Google Scholar

Rudanko, Juhani. 2011. Changes in complementation in British and American English: Corpus-based studies on non-finite complements in recent English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.). 2016. A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In: Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 9–35. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Smirnova, Elena, Robert Mailhammer & Susanne Flach. 2019. The role of atypical constellations in the grammaticalization of German and English passives. Diachronica 36(3). 384–416. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.16033.smi.Search in Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova (eds.). 2020 Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

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

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2014. Collostructional analysis: A case study of the English into-causative. In Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions collocations patterns, 217–238. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.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

Torrent, Tiago Timponi. 2015. The constructional convergence and the construction network reconfiguration hypotheses. In Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer & Spike Gildea (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 173–211. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1998. The semantics of English causative constructions in a universal-typological perspective. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 1, 113–153. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3). 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol.Search in Google Scholar

Wulff, Stefanie, Anatol Stefanowitsch & Stefan Th. Gries. 2007. Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In Günter Radden, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg & Siemund Peter (eds.), Aspects of meaning construction in lexicon and grammar, 265–281. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Zehentner, Eva. 2018. Ditransitives in middle English: On semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics 22(1). 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674316000447.Search in Google Scholar

Zeileis, Achim, David Meyer & Kurt Hornik. 2007. Residual-based shadings for visualizing (conditional) independence. Journal of Computational & Graphical Statistics 16(3). 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1198/106186007x237856.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-12-15
Accepted: 2020-12-15
Published Online: 2021-01-13
Published in Print: 2021-01-27

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston