1887
image of “Don’t go getting into trouble again!”

Abstract

Abstract

Building on Goldberg’s ( : 52) observation regarding the existence of “a family of related constructions in English” centred around the verb , this article explores the history of the construction exemplified in the title (“Don’t go getting into trouble again!”) and its relation to other members of the network of constructions. The analysis, conducted using three large corpora, shows that the VP construction emerges from two source constructions (one with an – participle following the verb and the other with an infinitive) which exhibit overlap in terms of certain aspects of their form and meaning. From its earliest attestations in the eighteenth century, the VP construction has grown increasingly more interpersonal, and has become conventionalized as a marker of admonitive mood ( : 321) which serves to dissuade or limit the performance of an activity that is apprehended as undesirable and counter-normative.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.20006.fan
2021-04-15
2021-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/jhp.20006.fan/jhp.20006.fan.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.20006.fan&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Andrews, J. Richard
    2003Introduction to Classical Nahuatl. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, Harald and Rochelle Lieber
    1991 “Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus-Based Study”. Linguistics29 (5): 801–843. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Helen and Tony McEnery
    2014Language Surrounding Poverty in Early Modern England: Constructing Seventeenth-Century Beggars and Vagrants. Lancaster: Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Sciences, Lancaster University.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barðdal, Jóhanna and Spike Gildea
    2015 “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications”. InJóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea (eds), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 1–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas
    1988Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blake, Norman F.
    1981Non-standard Language in English Literature. London: André Deutsch.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blánquez Fraile, Agustín
    1954Diccionario Latino-Español. [‘Latin–Spanish Dictionary.’] Barcelona: Editorial Ramón Sopena S. A.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. BNC BYU = Davies, Mark
    2004–British National Corpus (fromOxford University Press). URL: https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bolinger, Dwight
    1983 “The Go-Progressive and Auxiliary-Formation”. InFrederick B. Agard, Gerald Kelley, Adam Makkai and Valerie Becker Makkai (eds), Essays in Honour of Charles F. Hockett, 153–167. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bourdin, Philippe
    2003 “On Two Distinct Uses of Go as a Conjoined Marker of Evaluative Modality”. InRoberta Facchinetti, Manfred Krug and Frank Palmer (eds), Modality in Contemporary English, 103–127. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110895339.103
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895339.103 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, Joan
    2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca
    1994The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bybee, Joan and Rena Torres Cacoullos
    2009 “The Role of Prefabs in Grammaticization: How the Particular and the General Interact in Language Change”. InRoberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali and Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), Formulaic Language, 187–219. (Volume 1: Distribution and Historical Change.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.82.09the
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.82.09the [Google Scholar]
  15. Carracedo Doval, Juan José
    2018 Los paradigmas de imperativo de las lenguas indoeruropeas antiguas. [‘Imperative Paradigms in Ancient Indo-European Languages.’] (PhD thesis.) Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. CLMET3.0 = De Smet, Hendrik, Hans-Jürgen Diller and Jukka Tyrkkö
    2013The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts. (Version 3.0.) Leuven: K.U. Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Coupe, Alexander R.
    2007A Grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198522
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198522 [Google Scholar]
  18. Coussé, Evie, Peter Andersson and Joel Olofsson
    (eds) 2018Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21 [Google Scholar]
  19. de Groot, Casper
    2007 “The king is on huntunge: On the Relation between Progressive and Absentive in Old and Early Modern English”. InMike Hannay and Gerard J. Steen (eds), Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar: In Honour of Lachlan Mackenzie, 175–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.83.10gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.83.10gro [Google Scholar]
  20. De Smet, Hendrik
    2013Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2014 “Constrained Confusion: The Gerund/Participle Distinction in Late Modern English”. InMarianne Hundt (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax, 224–238. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139507226.017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507226.017 [Google Scholar]
  22. DOE = Cameron, Angus, Ashley Crandell Amos, Antonette di Paolo Healey
    (eds) 2018Dictionary of Old English: A to I online. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project. Available online at: https://tapor.library.utoronto.ca/doe/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. EEBO BYU = Davies, Mark
    2017Early English Books Online. Part of the SAMUELS project. Available online at: https://www.english-corpora.org/eebo/
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Erman, Britt and Beatrice Warren
    2000 “The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle”. Text20 (1): 29–62. 10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fanego, Teresa
    1996 “The Development of Gerunds as Objects of Subject-Control Verbs in English (1400–1760)”. Diachronica13 (1): 29–62. 10.1075/dia.13.1.03fan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.13.1.03fan [Google Scholar]
  26. 2007 “Drift and the Development of Sentential Complements in British and American English from 1700 to the Present Day”. InJavier Pérez-Guerra, Dolores González-Álvarez, Jorge L. Bueno-Alonso and Esperanza Rama-Martínez (eds), “Of Varying Language and Opposing Creed”: New Insights into Late Modern English, 161–235. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2015 “Multiple Sources in Language Change: The Role of Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in the Formation of English ACC-ing Gerundives.”. InMikko Höglund, Paul Rickman, Juhani Rudanko and Jukka Havu (eds), Perspectives on Complementation: Structure, Variation and Boundaries, 179–205. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2016 “The Great Complement Shift Revisited: The Constructionalization of ACC-ing Gerundives”. Functions of Language23 (1): 84–119. 10.1075/fol.23.1.05fan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23.1.05fan [Google Scholar]
  29. 2020 “On the History of the English Progressive Construction Jane Came Whistling down the Street”. Journal of English Linguistics48 (4): 319–354. 10.1177/0075424220945008
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424220945008 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1971 “Coming and Going”. InCharles J. Fillmore, Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis, 50–69. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Flach, Susanne
    2015 “Let’s Go Look at Usage: A Constructional Approach to Formal Constraints on Go-verb”. InPeter Uhrig and Thomas Herbst (eds), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 231–252. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Flick, Jane
    1975 Smollett’s Manipulation of Language in the Tabitha Bramble and Winifred Jenkins Letters in Humphrey Clinker. (PhD thesis.) Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Garrett, Andrew
    2012 “The Historical Syntax Problem: Reanalysis and Directionality”. InDianne Jonas, John Whitman and Andrew Garrett (eds), Grammatical Change. Origins, Nature, Outcomes, 52–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Givón, Talmy
    1979On Understanding Grammar. New York, San Francisco and London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2006Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2019Explain Me This. Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hilpert, Martin
    2013Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2018 “Three Open Questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar”. InEvie Coussé, Peter Andersson and Joel Olofsson (eds), Grammaticalization Meets Construction Grammar, 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c2 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2019Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. (Second edition.) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    2004 “Lexicalization and Grammaticization: Opposite or Orthogonal?” InWalter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Bjorn Wiemer (eds), What Makes Grammaticalization: A Look from Its Components and Its Fringes, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2018 “Review of Barðdal, Jóhanna, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer and Spike Gildea eds. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar”. Constructions and Frames10 (1): 106–114. 10.1075/cf.00013.hof
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00013.hof [Google Scholar]
  43. Höglund, Mikko and Kaj Syrjänen
    2016 “Corpus of Early American Literature”. ICAME Journal40: 17–38. 10.1515/icame‑2016‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2016-0003 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2003Grammaticalization. (Second edition.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  45. Huber, Judith
    2017Motion and the English Verb: A Diachronic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190657802.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190657802.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hyland, Ken
    2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse”. Discourse Studies7 (2): 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  48. Jones, Peter
    2017 “Medieval Homelessness and Moral Judgment”. London: Institute of Historical Research, School of Advanced Study, University of London. Available online at: https://strayvoices.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2017/12/14/medieval-homelessness-and-moral-judgment/
  49. Kranich, Svenja
    2010The Progressive in Modern English: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization and Related Changes. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789042031449
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042031449 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lakoff, George
    1974 “Syntactic Amalgams”. Chicago Linguistics Society10: 321–344.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. (Volume 1: Theoretical Prerequisites). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lehmann, Christian
    1995Thoughts on Grammaticalization. München and Newcastle: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Los, Bettelou
    2005The Rise of the To-Infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274765.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274765.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics. (Volume2.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. McColm, Dan and Graeme Trousdale
    2019 “Whatever Happened to Whatever?” InNuria Yáñez-Bouza, Emma Moore, Linda Van Bergen and Willem B. Hollmann (eds), Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax, 81–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108303576.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108303576.004 [Google Scholar]
  56. Mair, Christian
    2002 “Three Changing Patterns of Verb Complementation in Late Modern English: A Real-Time Study Based on Matching Text Corpora”. English Language and Linguistics6 (1): 105–131. 10.1017/S1360674302001065
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674302001065 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2003 “Gerundial Complements after Begin and Start: Grammatical and Sociolinguistic Factors, and How They Work against Each Other”. InGünther Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 329–345. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Matsumoto, Noriko
    2016 Multi-Verb Sequences in English: Their Classification and Functions. PhD thesis. Kobe: Kobe University.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. MED = Kurath, Hans, Sherman M. Kuhn and Robert E. Lewis
    (eds) 1952–2001Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Available online at: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Mustanoja, Tauno F.
    1960A Middle English Syntax: Part I. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online
    OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. Available online at: www.oed.com/
  62. Ogura, Michiko
    2002Verbs of Motion in Medieval English. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Petré, Peter
    2016 “Grammaticalization by Changing Co-Text Frequencies, or Why [BE-Ving] Became the ‘Progressive’”. English Language and Linguistics20 (1): 31–54. 10.1017/S1360674315000210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674315000210 [Google Scholar]
  64. Petré, Peter and Freek Van de Velde
    2018 “The Real-Time Dynamics of the Individual and the Community in Grammaticalization”. Language94 (4): 867–901. 10.1353/lan.2018.0056
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0056 [Google Scholar]
  65. Pijpops, Dirk, Isabeau De Smet and Freek Van de Velde
    2018 “Constructional Contamination in Morphology and Syntax: Four Case Studies”. Constructions and Frames10 (2): 269–305. 10.1075/cf.00021.pij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00021.pij [Google Scholar]
  66. PPCME2 = Kroch, Anthony, Ann Taylor and Beatrice Santorini
    2000–The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English. (Second edition, release 4.) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española 2009Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Sintaxis II. [‘A New Grammar of the Spanish Language. Syntax II.’] Madrid: Espasa Libros, S. L. U.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Ringe, Donald and Ann Taylor
    2014The Development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207848.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207848.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  70. Salkie, Raphael
    2010 “On Going”. InBert Cappelle and Naoaki Wada (eds), Distinctions in English Grammar: Offered to Renaat Declerck, 169–190. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Sinclair, John
    2004Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203594070
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203594070 [Google Scholar]
  72. Spears, Arthur K.
    1982 “The Black English Semi-Auxiliary Come”. Language58 (4): 850–872. 10.2307/413960
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413960 [Google Scholar]
  73. Torres Cacoullos, Rena
    2000Grammaticization, Synchronic Variation, and Language Contact. A Study of Spanish Progressive -ndo Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.52 [Google Scholar]
  74. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  75. Van de Velde, Freek
    2014 “Degeneracy: The Maintenance of Constructional Networks”. InRonny Boogaert, Timothy Colleman and Gijsbert Rutten (eds), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110366273.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110366273.141 [Google Scholar]
  76. Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet and Lobke Ghesquière
    2013 “Introduction: On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change”. Special issue of Studies in Language37 (3): 473–489.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Vendler, Zeno
    1957 “Verbs and Times”. The Philosophical Review66: 143–160. 10.2307/2182371
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182371 [Google Scholar]
  78. Visser, Frederikus Theodorus
    1963–1973An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Wright, Susan
    1994 “The Mystery of the Modal Progressive”. InDieter Kastovsky (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 467–485. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110879599.467
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110879599.467 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.20006.fan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.20006.fan
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