Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:31:42.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

At the interface of grammaticalisation and lexicalisation: the case of take prisoner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2012

EVA BERLAGE
EVA BERLAGE*
Affiliation:
Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 6, 20146 Hamburg, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Brinton & Traugott (2005) and Brinton (2008) have suggested that light verb constructions of the type take a look (at) are instances of grammaticalisation. This article shows that this is because the emphasis has been on the verb take. Exploring the light verb construction take prisoner, we see that one and the same construction involves both lexicalisation and grammaticalisation processes. For grammaticalisation, the focus will be on the semantic bleaching of take and the productivity of the pattern take + NP. For the lexicalisation of the construction, we will focus on the increasing fixedness of the collocation take prisoner, evident from the decreasing acceptability of the pattern make prisoner, and on the decategorialisation of the original NP prisoner, which is manifested in the loss of plural -s inflection in prisoner. The article further investigates the decategorialisation of prisoner, revealing that the word order of prisoner(s) relative to its complement NP (e.g. take the men prisoner(s) vs take prisoner(s) the men) has a considerable effect on the speed of plural s-deletion.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 35 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Gregory. 2006. Auxiliary verb constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2001. Past participle agreement, 30 pp. www.ciscl.unisi.it/doc/doc_pub/partagr.doc (accessed 10 March 2006).Google Scholar
Berlage, Eva. 2010. The lexicalisation of predicative complements in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 108 (1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlage, Eva. Forthcoming. Complex noun phrases in English (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2008. The diachrony of complex predicates. Diachronica 25 (2), 161–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1994. The differentiation of statives and perfects in Early Modern English: The development of the conclusive perfect. In Stein, Dieter & Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (eds.), Towards a standard English 1600–1800, 135–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. Where grammar and lexis meet: Composite predicates in English. In Seoane, Elena & López-Couso, María José (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization, 33–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Akimoto, Minoji (eds.). 1999. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1910. Adverbia aus dem maskulinischen Nominativus Singularis prädikativer Adjektive. Indogermanische Forschungen 27, 233–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2003. The light verb jungle. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 1–49.Google Scholar
Butt, Miriam & Lahiri, Aditi. 2002. Historical stability vs. historical change. University of Konstanz. 58pp. http://ling.sprachwiss.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/butt/main/papers/stability.pdf (accessed 8 February 2011).Google Scholar
Caro, George. 1896. Zur Lehre vom altenglischen Perfectum. Anglia 18, 389–449.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2000. Multi-word verbs in Early Modern English: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15, 203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dardano, Maurizio & Trifone, Pietro. 1997. La nuova grammatica della lingua italiana. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susann. 2002. The Catalan clitic system: A diachronic perspective on its syntax and phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 1992. Arabic. In Bright, William (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, 91–7. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1984. Syntactic variation and dialect divergence. Journal of Linguistics 20, 303–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, James A. 1887. The Anglo-Saxon perfect participle with habban. Modern Language Notes 2, 134–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22 (2), 315–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data – and the importance of intuition. In Lindquist, Hans & Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English, 171–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard. 2002. An introduction to Old English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1999. Subject–verb agreement in English. English Language and Linguistics 3 (2), 173–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1999. Collocational and idiomatic aspects of verbs in Early Modern English: A corpus-based study of make, have, give, take, and do. In Brinton, Laurel J. & Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, 167–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2002 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd rev. edn. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Hans & Levin, Magnus. 2009. The grammatical properties of recurrent phrases with body-part nouns: The N1 to N1 pattern. In Römer, Ute & Schulze, Rainer (eds.), Exploring the lexis–grammar interface, 171–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, variation and standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax, vol. 1: Concord, the parts of speech, and the sentence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Agreement. In Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A. & Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.), Universals of human language, vol. 4: Syntax, 331–74. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Naro, Anthony J. 1981. The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change. Language 57, 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7, 149–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic grammar: The influence of rhythm on grammatical variation and change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. A historical overview of complex predicate types. In Brinton, Laurel J. & Akimoto, Minoji (eds.), Collocational and idiomatic aspects of composite predicates in the history of English, 239–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VisserFrederick, Th. Frederick, Th. 1973. An historical syntax of the English language, part III, second half: Syntactical units with two and with more verbs. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wilmanns, Wilhelm. 1909. Deutsche Grammatik. Gotisch, Alt-, Mittel- und Neuhochdeutsch, 3. Abteilung: Flexion. 2. Hälfte: Nomen und Pronomen. Straßburg: Trübner.Google Scholar