Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Present-day English is used in several constructions with mirative and evidential overtones. Among these, the raised subject construction and the impersonal construction stand out. The current paper provides a diachronic account of the changes that led to the emergence of these constructions. It examines the semantic and syntactic configuration of and the mechanisms whereby this verb developed evidential and mirative readings during the Late Modern English period. The record shows that developed abruptly from a full lexical (predominantly resultative and change-of-state) control verb into a raising verb in the course of the eighteenth century. This change was triggered by a process of semantic generalization and subjectification whereby the verb acquired evidential and, most notably, mirative nuances. Analogy seems to have played an important role as well, since the evidence suggests that other constructions somewhat similar in form (syntactic structural usage) and meaning facilitated this process. The bulk of the data examined in this study were drawn from the and the , version 3.0.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. CLMET3.0 = The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0. H. De Smet , H. J. Diller & J. Tyrkkö (2013) Available at: https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet3_0.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. COCA = The Corpus of Contemporary American English. M. Davies (2008-) Available at: corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. EEBOCorp1.0 = Early English Books Online Corpus1.0. P. Petré (2013) Available at: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/416330.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HC = The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. M. Rissanen , M. Kytö , L. Kahlas-Tarkka , M. Kilpiö , S. Nevanlinna , I. Taavitsainen , T. Nevalainen , & H. Raumolin-Brunberg (1991).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. OBC = The Old Bailey Corpus: Spoken English in the 18th and 19th centuries. M. Huber , M. Nissel , P. Maiwald , & B. Widlitzki (2012) Available at: www.uni-giessen.de/oldbaileycorpus.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Available online at: www.oed.com/.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (2012) The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 435–85. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boye, K.
    (2010) Raising verbs and auxiliaries in a functional theory of grammatical status. In K. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp.73–104). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219180.1.73
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219180.1.73 [Google Scholar]
  10. Boye, K. , & Harder, P.
    (2007) Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language, 31(3), 569–606. doi: 10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy [Google Scholar]
  11. Brinton, L.
    (2008) The comment clause in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chafe, W.
    (1986) Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp.261–272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chafe, W. , & Nichols, J.
    (Eds.) (1986) Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cornillie, B.
    (2007) Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi)auxiliaries: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2008) On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi)auxiliaries in Spanish. In E. Seoane & M. J. López-Couso (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization (pp.55–76). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.77.05cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.77.05cor [Google Scholar]
  16. De Smet, H.
    (2009) Analyzing reanalysis. Lingua, 119(11), 1728–1755. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2010) Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and the phrasal verb particles out and forth . In E. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp.75–104). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.90.06des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.06des [Google Scholar]
  18. DeLancey, S.
    (1997) Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1(1), 33–52. doi: 10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2001) The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369–382. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2012) Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 529–564.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Diewald, G. , & Smirnova, E.
    (Eds) (2010a) Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110223972
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223972 [Google Scholar]
  22. (Eds) (2010b) Evidentiality in German: linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110241037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110241037 [Google Scholar]
  23. Faller, M.
    (2002) Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Standford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gentens, C. , Kimps, D. , Davidse, K. , Jacobs, G. , Van Linden, A. , & Brems, L.
    (2016) Mirativity and rhetorical structure. In G. Kaltenböck , E. Keizer , & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents (pp.125–56). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.178.05gen
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.05gen [Google Scholar]
  25. Gipper, S.
    (2014) From inferential to mirative: An interaction-based account of an emerging semantic extension. In E. Coussé & F. von Mengden (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change (pp.83–116). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gisborne, N. , & Holmes, J.
    (2007) A history of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language and Linguistics, 11(1), 1–29. doi: 10.1017/S1360674306002097
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306002097 [Google Scholar]
  27. González, M. J. , & Maldonado, R.
    (1998) La perfectividad como fuente de contraexpectativas: Resulta que ‘x’ finalmente ‘y’ . InMemorias del IV encuentro de internacional de lingüística en el Noroeste (Vol.2) (pp.61–82). Hermosillo: Universidad Autónoma de Sonora.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Heine, B. , & Kuteva, T.
    (2002) World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  29. Heine, B. , & Miyashita, H.
    (2008) Accounting for a functional category: German drohen ‘to threaten’. Language Sciences, 30(1), 53–101. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hengeveld, K. , & Olbertz, H.
    (2012) Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist!Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 487–503. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hill, N.
    (2012) “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 389–433. doi: 10.1515/lity‑2012‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016 [Google Scholar]
  32. Howe, C. , & Heller, B.
    (2010)  Turns out they weren’t much of a stretch: Variable patterns of structural persistence. Paper presented at39th New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV 39), University of Texas at San Antonio, 4–6 November.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Huddleston, R. , & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kaltenböck, G.
    (2013) The development of comment clauses. In B. Aarts , J. Close , G. Leech , & S. Wallis (Eds.), The verb phrase in English (pp.286–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139060998.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139060998.013 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2015) Processibility. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics (pp.117–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.007
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.007 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lauwers, P. , & Duée, C.
    (2011) From aspect to evidentiality: The subjectification path of the French semi-copula se faire and its Spanish cognate hacerse . Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 1042–1060. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lazard, G.
    (1999) Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other?Linguistic Typology, 3(1), 91–109. doi: 10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91 [Google Scholar]
  38. López-Couso, M. J. , & Méndez-Naya, B.
    (2014) Epistemic parentheticals with seem: Late Modern English in focus. In M. Hundt (Ed.), The syntax of Late Modern English (pp.291–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139507226.021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139507226.021 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2015) Evidential/epistemic markers of the type verb + complementizer: Some parallels from English and Romance. In A. D. M. Smith , G. Trousdale , & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research (pp.93–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sfsl.69.04gip
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.69.04gip [Google Scholar]
  40. Olbertz, H.
    (2009) Mirativity and exclamatives in functional discourse grammar: Evidence from Spanish. In E. Keizer & G. Wanders (Eds.), The London papers I [Special issue]. Web Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar, 82, 66–82. home.hum.uva.nl/fdg/working_papers/WP-FDG-82_Olbertz.pdf (January30 2016)
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2012) The place of exclamatives and miratives in grammar: A functional discourse grammar view. Linguística, 8(1), 76–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Petré, P.
    (2012) General productivity: How become waxed and wax became a copula. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 27–65. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0002 [Google Scholar]
  43. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Rivero, M. L.
    (2014) Spanish inferential and mirative futures and conditionals: An evidential gradable modal proposal. Lingua, 151(B), 197–215. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  45. Serrano-Losada, M.
    (2017). On English turn out and Spanish resultar mirative constructions: A case of ongoing grammaticalization?Journal of Historical Linguistics, 7(1/2).160–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Squartini, M.
    (2001) The internal structure of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 25(2), 297–334. doi: 10.1075/sl.25.2.05squ
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.25.2.05squ [Google Scholar]
  47. (2004) Disentangling evidentiality and epistemic modality in Romance. Lingua, 114(7), 873–895. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00064‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00064-0 [Google Scholar]
  48. Traugott, E. C.
    (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31–55. doi: 10.2307/414841
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  49. (1997) Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten . In T. Swan & O. J. Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp.185–210). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110889932.185
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.185 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2003) From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp.124–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  51. Tyler, A. , & Evans, V.
    (2003) The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486517
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486517 [Google Scholar]
  52. Van Bogaert, J.
    (2011) I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics, 49(2), 295–332. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  53. Visser, F. T.
    (1963) An historical syntax of the English language: Syntactical units with one verb (Vol.1). Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Willett, T.
    (1988) A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1), 51–97. doi: 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): evidentiality; Late Modern English; mirativity; subjectification; turn out
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