Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:02:29.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation and change in English resultative constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

Britta Mondorf
Britta Mondorf
Affiliation:
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The system of English resultative constructions is in a state of flux characterized by variation between two of its most prominent competitors, way-constructions as in She worked herwayto the top and reflexive structures as in She worked herselfto the top. Although this competition has occasionally been addressed in the literature (cf. Jackendoff, 1990:213; Kirchner, 1951:158; Salkoff, 1988:54ff.), the present findings reveal that the long-standing rivalry between these structures has resulted in an increased use of the way-construction at the expense of reflexive structures. In addition, the coexistence of way-constructions with semantically overlapping reflexive structures eventually culminated in a reorganization of the system of English resultatives involving a diversification of the functions performed by each variant resulting in a semantically motivated division of labour. The way-construction turns out to be particularly successful in conveying concrete meanings, whereas reflexive structures can still to some extent stand their ground with abstract uses. The present paper relates the proliferation of the way-construction to grammaticalization theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , October 2010 , pp. 397 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

REFERENCES

Berlage, Eva. (2006). And then we took them prisoner(s): The loss of number marking with object predicatives. Paper presented at the International Conference on English Historical Linguistics ICEHL 14, Bergamo, Italy, August 21–25, 2006.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. (2002). On the role of semantic constraints in resultative constructions. In Rapp, R. (ed.), Linguistics on the way into the third millenium. Proceedings of the 34th Linguistics Colloquium, Germersheim 1999. Part I: Text, meaning, and communication. Frankfurt: Lang. 35–43.Google Scholar
British National Corpus (BNC) (1995). BNC Consortium/Oxford University Computing Services.Google Scholar
Brown Corpus (1961). ICAME collection of English Language Corpora. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/coha.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 410+ million words, 1990–present. Available at: http://www.americancorpus.org.Google Scholar
Early English Prose Fiction (1997). Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
Eighteenth-Century Fiction (1996). Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
F-LOB 1990s match of the Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus. University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Frown 1990s match of the Brown Corpus. University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Gilhooly, Ken J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 12:395–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (1997). Making One's Way Through the Data. In Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan & Sells, Peter (eds.), Complex predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 151–173.Google Scholar
Guardian, The (including the Observer [1994–2003]) on CD-ROM 1990–2003. Chadwyck-Healey/Guardian Newspapers Ltd.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., & Traugott, Elizabeth C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. (1996). The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, A. E. (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 217–230.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1992). Babe Ruth homered his way into the hearts of America. In Stowell, T. & Wehrli, E. (eds.), Syntax and the lexicon. Syntax and Semantics 26. New York: Academic Press. 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Gustav. (1951). A special case of the object of result. English Studies 32:153–159.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. (1995). Unaccusativity. At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Los Angeles Times, The. (1992–1999). Copyright: Times Mirror Company. Software copyright: Dialog Information Services, Inc./Knight-Ridder Information, Inc.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. (1992). The way-construction and the semantics of direct arguments in English: A reply to Jackendoff. In Stowell, T. & Wehrli, E. (eds.), Syntax and the lexicon. Syntax and Semantics 26. New York: Academic Press. 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. (2005). Pseudo-objects as transitivizing strategies. Vortrag im Rahmen der Paderborner Antrittsvorlesungen, Universität Paderborn, Germany, July 13, 2005. Unpublished manuscript, Paderborn University.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. (2006). Competing constructions. Paper presented at the Third Meeting of the German Construction Grammar Network “Language Variation and Change in Construction Grammar,” Düsseldorf, Germany. March 31–April 2, 2006.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. (2007). Recalcitrant problems of comparative alternation and new insights emerging from Internet data. In Hundt, M., Nesselhauf, N., & Biewer, C. (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the Web. Language and Computers 59. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. (2010). Genre-effects in the replacement of reflexives by particles. In Dorgeloh, H. & Wanner, A. (eds.), Approaches to syntactic variation and genre. Topics in English Linguistics 70. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nineteenth-Century Fiction. (1999–2000). Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
Oxford English DictionaryOnline, The (2009). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. (1996). Zur Einführung und Behauptung lexikalischer Einheiten durch syntaktische Struktursignale im Englischen. In Weigand, E. & Hundsnurscher, F. (eds.), Lexical structures and language use. Beiträge zur Dialogforschung 10. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 105–117.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. (2009). Reflexive structures. In Rohdenburg, G. & Schlüter, J. (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English. Studies in Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salkoff, Morris. (1988). Analysis by fusion. Linguisticae Investigationes 12(1):49–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SecondsOut. www.secondsout.com/USA/leadingusa.cfm?ccs=368&cs=14560 (Accessed November 18, 2010).Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter. (2003). Varieties of English from a cross-linguistic perspective: intensifiers and reflexives. In Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B. (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Topics in English Linguistics 43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 479–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Peter. (2004). Analytische und synthetische Tendenzen in der Entwicklung des Englischen. In Hinrichs, U. (ed.), Die europäischen Sprachen auf dem Wege zum analytischen Sprachtyp. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz. 169–196.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. (1983). Resultatives. In Levin, L., Rappaport, M. & Zaenen, A.. (eds.), Papers in lexical-functional grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 143–157.Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. (1970). A history of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 57–149.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. (1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, Elly. (1999). The “grammaticalization” of self. Paper presented at the International Symposium New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Potsdam, June 16–19, 1999.Google Scholar
Walker, Ian, & Hulme, Charles. (1999). Concrete words are easier to recall than abstract words: Evidence for a semantic contribution to short-term serial recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 25(5):1256–1271.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, & Arnold, Jennifer. (2003). Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Rohdenburg, G. and Mondorf, B. (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Topics in English Linguistics 43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 119–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, G. (1911). Syntax des heutigen Englisch. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar