1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper contributes to the study of grammaticalization phenomena from the perspective of Construction Grammar (Coussé et al. 2018). It is concerned with modal uses of the English verb that express a permitted action, as in . Different views exist on the contexts in which permissive emerged. Gronemeyer (1999: 30) suggests that the permissive meaning derives from causative uses (). An alternative is proposed by van der Auwera et al. (2009: 283), who view permissive as an extension of its acquisitive meaning (). We revisit these claims in the light of recent historical data from American English. Specifically, we searched the COHA (Davies 2010) for forms of followed by and a verb in the infinitive. Besides examples of permissive , we retrieved examples of obligative (), causative (), possessive (), and a category that we label inchoative (). Drawing on distributional semantic techniques (Perek 20162018), we analyse how permissive and inchoative developed semantically over time. Our results are consistent with an account that represents an alternative to both Gronemeyer (1999) and van der Auwera et al. (2009), namely the idea that permissive evolved out of inchoative uses that invited the idea of a permission.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00056.hil
2022-08-09
2023-01-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, F.
    (1998) Points of Modern English usage LXXIV. English Studies, 79, 73–85. 10.1080/00138389808599114
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00138389808599114 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L. & Gildea, S.
    (Eds.) (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bednarek, M.
    (2008) Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(2), 119–139. 10.1515/CLLT.2008.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2008.006 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Breban, T.
    (2014) What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica48(2), 469–502. 10.1515/flin.2014.016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2014.016 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bruckmaier, E.
    (2017) Getting at GET in World Englishes. A corpus-based semasiological-syntactic analysis. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110497311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110497311 [Google Scholar]
  7. Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J.
    (Eds.) (2018) Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21 [Google Scholar]
  8. Davies, M.
    (2010) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. corpus.byu.edu/coha
    [Google Scholar]
  9. De Smet, H., Ghesquière, L. & Van de Velde, F.
    (Eds.) (2015) On multiple source constructions in language change. John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.79
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (2005) A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gronemeyer, C.
    (1999) On deriving complex polysemy: The grammaticalization of get. English Language and Linguistics, 3, 1–39. 10.1017/S1360674399000118
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674399000118 [Google Scholar]
  14. Heine, B.
    (2002) On the role of context in grammaticalization. InI. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp.83–101). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  15. Hilpert, M.
    (2008) Germanic future constructions. A usage-based approach to language change. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2013) Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. InG. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (p.458–477). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2021) Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Brill. 10.1163/9789004446793
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446793 [Google Scholar]
  18. Himmelmann, N. P.
    (2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?InW. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its components and its fringes (pp.21–42). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hopper, P. J.
    (1991) On some principles of grammaticization. InE. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Volume I. Theoretical and methodological issues (pp.17–36). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  20. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  21. Johansson, S. & Oksefjell, S.
    (1996) Towards a unified account of the syntax and semantics of GET. InJ. Thomas & M. Short (Eds.), Using corpora for language research: Studies in the honour of Geoffrey Leech (pp.57–75). Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kimball, J. P.
    (1973) GET. InJ. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 2 (pp.205–215). Seminar Press. 10.1163/9789004368804_008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368804_008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Krug, M. G.
    (2000) Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110820980
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110820980 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H. & Rhee, S.
    (2019) World lexicon of grammaticalization. 2nd ed.Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316479704
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316479704 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kwok, B.-C., Chin, A. C. & Tsou, B. K.
    (2011) Poly-functionality of the preverbal “acquire” in the Nanning Yue dialect of Chinese: An areal perspective. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 74(1), 119–137. 10.1017/S0041977X10000431
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X10000431 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.195
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lorenz, D.
    (2013) Semi-modal contractions in English: The emancipating effect of frequency. Rombach.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Miller, G. & Charles, W.
    (1991) Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(1), 1–28. 10.1080/01690969108406936
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969108406936 [Google Scholar]
  29. Palmer, F. R.
    (1990) Modality and the English modals. 2nd ed.Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Perek, F.
    (2014) Vector spaces for historical linguistics: Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony. InProceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland USA, June 23–25, 2014, 309–314. Conference paper. https://aclanthology.org/P14-2051
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54(1), 149–188. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0043 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2018) Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 65–97. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  33. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E.
    (Eds.) (2020) Nodes and links in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  35. Thepkanjana, K. & Ruangmanee, S.
    (2015) Grammaticalization of the verb ‘to acquire’ into modality: A case study in Vietnamese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 13(2), 117–150.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Traugott, E. C.
    (2012) The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. InM. Kytö (Ed.), English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths (pp.221–255). Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Turney, P. D. & Pantel, P.
    (2010) From frequency to meaning: Vector Space Models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 141–188. 10.1613/jair.2934
    https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2934 [Google Scholar]
  39. Usoniene, A. & Jasionyte, E.
    (2010) Towards grammaticalization: Lithuanian acquisitive verbs gauti (‘get’) and tekti (‘be gotten’). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 42(2), 199–220. 10.1080/03740463.2010.527232
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2010.527232 [Google Scholar]
  40. van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V.
    (1998) Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2, 79–124. 10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1998.2.1.79 [Google Scholar]
  41. van der Auwera, J., Kehayov, P. & Vittrant, A.
    (2009) Acquisitive modals. InL. Hogeweg & H. de Hoop & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality (pp.271–302). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.148.11auw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.148.11auw [Google Scholar]
  42. van der Maaten, L. & Hinton, G.
    (2008) Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 2579–2605.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00056.hil
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00056.hil
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error