1887
Volume 43, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0172-8865
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper provides a quantitative variationist analysis of the distribution of - versus -passives in spoken Tyneside English. Taking data from the (1960s to 2010), the paper uses mixed-effects modelling to examine a wide range of possible constraints on the distribution of versus , some of which have been discussed at length in the literature on the -passive (e.g. subject animacy, adversative semantics) and some of which have received less attention (e.g. grammatical person, tense, aspectuality). It demonstrates that the use of the -passive is determined by a complex combination of semantic and syntactic factors (subject animacy, telicity, non-neutral semantics, tense and grammatical person). Moreover, it argues that, despite the dramatic rise in frequency of -passives over time (with younger speakers using them even more frequently than -passives), most of the constraints remain in place and the variant is pragmatically marked. This stands in sharp contrast to the findings of recent investigations into the grammaticalization of -passives in standard British and American English, which found that increased frequency in those varieties was also accompanied by semantic bleaching and generalization.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/eww.21039.feh
2022-05-16
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Corrigan, Karen P., Isabelle Buchstaller, Adam J. Mearns, and Hermann L. Moisl
    2012The Diachronic Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English. research.ncl.ac.uk/decte/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderwald, Lieselotte
    2017 “GET, GET-Constructions and the GET-Passive in 19th-Century English: Corpus Analysis and Prescriptive Comments”. InSebastian Hoffmann, Andrea Sand, and Sabine Arndt-Lappe, eds. Exploring Recent Diachrony: Corpus Studies of Lexicogrammar and Language Practices in Late Modern English. Helsinki: Helsinki University.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biggs, Alison, and David Embick
    2021 “On the Event Structural Properties of the English Get-Passive”. Linguistic Inquiry. 10.1162/ling_a_00405
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00405 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruckmaier, Elisabeth
    2016 “Dialect Contact Influences on the Use of GET and the GET-Passive”. InOlga Timofeeva, Anne-Christine Gardner, Alpo Honkapohja, and Sarah Chevalier, eds.New Approaches to English Linguistics. Building Bridges. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 117–140. 10.1075/slcs.177.05bru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.177.05bru [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, Joan L.
    2003 “Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticalization: The Role of Frequency”. InBrian D. Joseph, and Richard D. Janda, eds.The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 602–623. 10.1002/9780470756393.ch19
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756393.ch19 [Google Scholar]
  7. Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy
    1999 “The English Get-Passive in Spoken Discourse: Description and Implications for an Interpersonal Grammar”. English Language and Linguistics3: 41–58. 10.1017/S136067439900012X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067439900012X [Google Scholar]
  8. Chappell, Hilary
    1980 “Is the Get-Passive Adversative?” Language and Social Interaction13: 411–452. 10.1080/08351818009370504
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818009370504 [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins, Peter C.
    1996 “Get-Passives in English”. World Englishes15: 43–56. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1996.tb00091.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1996.tb00091.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Coto Villalibre, Eduardo
    2015 “Is the Get-Passive Really That Adversative?” Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies51: 13–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Downing, Angela
    1996 “The Semantics of Get-Passives”. InRuqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran, and David G. Butt, eds.Functional Descriptions: Theory in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–205. 10.1075/cilt.121.07dow
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.121.07dow [Google Scholar]
  12. Fleisher, Nicholas
    2006 “The Origin of Passive GET”. English Language and Linguistics10: 225–252. 10.1017/S1360674306001912
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306001912 [Google Scholar]
  13. Givón, T.
    1993English Grammar. A Function-Based Introduction. Vol.2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.syn.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syn.2 [Google Scholar]
  14. Givón, T., and Lynne Yang
    1994 “The Rise of the English GET-Passive”. InBarbara A. Fox, and Paul J. Hopper, eds.Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 119–149. 10.1075/tsl.27.07giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.27.07giv [Google Scholar]
  15. Haegeman, Liliane
    1985 “The Get-Passive and Burzio’s Generalization”. Lingua66: 53–77. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(85)90256‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(85)90256-6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hatcher, Anna G.
    1949 “To Get/Be Invited”. Modern Language Notes64: 433–446. 10.2307/2910009
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2910009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey Pullum
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hundt, Marianne
    2001 “What Corpora Tell Us about the Grammaticalization of Voice in Get-Constructions”. Studies in Language25: 49–87. 10.1075/sl.25.1.03hun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.1.03hun [Google Scholar]
  19. 2007English Mediopassive Constructions. A Cognitive, Corpus-based Study of their Origin, Spread, and Current Status. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401203784
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203784 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hundt, Marianne, and Christoph Mair
    1999 “‘Agile’ and ‘Uptight’ Genres: The Corpus-Based Approach to Language-Change in Progress”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics4: 221–242. 10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.4.2.02hun [Google Scholar]
  21. Labov, William
    1972Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2001Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 2: Social Factors. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair, and Nicholas Smith
    2009Change in Contemporary English. A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511642210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642210 [Google Scholar]
  24. Macaulay, Ronald K. S.
    1991Locating Dialect in Discourse: The Language of Honest Men and Bonnie Lassies in Ayr. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mair, Christian, and Geoffrey Leech
    2006 “Current Changes in English Syntax”. InBas Aarts, and April M. S. McMahon, eds.The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 318–342. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch14
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  26. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2014R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Rühlemann, Christoph
    2007 “Lexical Grammar: The GET-Passive as a Case in Point”. ICAME Journal31: 111–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sasaki, Kazutaka
    1999 “The Semantics of Get-Passives”. Journal of the Faculty of International Studies, Utsunomiya University8: 117–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Sawasaki, Koichi
    2000 “On Adversity in English Get-Passives”. J. Hokkaido Linguist1: 15–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Schwarz, Sarah
    2017 “ʻLike Getting Nibbled to Death by a Duckʼ: Grammaticalization of the Get-Passive in the TIME Magazine Corpus”. English World-Wide38: 305–335. 10.1075/eww.38.3.03sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.38.3.03sch [Google Scholar]
  31. 2019 “Signs of Grammaticalization: Tracking the Get-Passive through COHA”. InClaudia Claridge, and Birte Bös, eds.Developments in English Historical Morpho-Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 199–221. 10.1075/cilt.346.10sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.346.10sch [Google Scholar]
  32. Tagliamonte, Sali, and Harald C. Baayen
    2012 “Models, Forests and Trees of York English: Was/Were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice”. Language Variation and Change24: 135–178. 10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  33. Thompson, Dominic, S. P. Ling, Andriy Myachykov, Fernanda Ferreira, and Christoph Scheepers
    2013 “Patient-Related Constraints on Get- and Be-Passive Uses in English: Evidence from Paraphrasing”. Frontiers in Psychology4: 848. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00848
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00848 [Google Scholar]
  34. Thompson, Dominic, Fernanda Ferreira, and Christoph Scheepers
    2018 “One Step at a Time: Representational Overlap Between Active Voice, Be-Passive, and Get-Passive Forms in English”. Journal of Cognition1: 35. 10.5334/joc.36
    https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.36 [Google Scholar]
  35. Toyota, Junichi
    2008Diachronic Change in the English Passive. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230594654
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594654 [Google Scholar]
  36. Xiao, Richard, Tony McEnery, and Yufang Qian
    2006 “Passive Constructions in English and Chinese: A Corpus-Based Contrastive Study”. Languages in Contrast6: 109–149. 10.1075/lic.6.1.05xia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.6.1.05xia [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/eww.21039.feh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/eww.21039.feh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus; frequency; grammaticalization; passive; pragmatics; Tyneside; variation
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