A constructional analysis of English un-participle constructions

Doris Schönefeld

doi:10.1515/cog-2014-0017

Article

A constructional analysis of English un-participle constructions

Published/Copyright: June 4, 2015

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Cognitive Linguistics Volume 26 Issue 3

Abstract

The present paper reports on an investigation into an English un-participle pattern that is called unpassive, or is described as an adjectival passive. The main characteristic of the pattern is an (adjectival) past participle prefixed by un-, which is used as a predicative complement to a verb. Besides the different terms used for the pattern, there is also some indeterminacy with respect to its particular form. All of the descriptions focus on the verb be, but mention is also made of go and remain. That is, the specifications of the pattern’s formal side differ to some extent. To provide information on this issue and to get hold of potential (verb-related) differences in the pattern’s function, we conducted an empirical analysis from a usage-based construction grammar perspective. Our focus is on the form-function interplay of the pattern in order to gain information about its constructional status and its exact formal and semantic make-up. The database selected for this study is the BNC, from which all occurrences of ‘verb plus un-participle’ were extracted. The data were submitted to collexeme and covarying collexeme analyses to identify the spectrum of meanings/functions associated with these forms, and distinctive collexeme analyses were carried out to see whether the un-participles found pattern differently with the individual verbs. The results indicate that, on closer examination, the un-participle construction does not represent a homogeneous category, but must be seen as a schematic template of related, though different, usage events that may have expanded analogously from a prototype construction. On the basis of our analyses and informed by findings from developmental studies, we suggest that the related constructions form a network.

Keywords: un-participle construction; unpassive; (adjectival) passive; collostruction analysis

Acknowledgements

This article originates in a talk given at ICLC 12. I wish to thank my anonymous reviewers and one of the journal’s associate editors for their very helpful pointers, suggestions and comments on an earlier draft. Also, I would like to thank Stefan Th. Gries for the generous provision of the software Coll.Analysis 3.2a in R, which I used for carrying out all collostruction analyses referred to. All remaining errors are my own.

References

Aarts, Bas.1995. Secondary predicates in English. In BasAarts & CharlesMeyer (eds.), The verb in contemporary English – theory and description, 75–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Abbot-Smith, Kirsten F. & HeikeBehrens. 2006. How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science30(6). 995–1026.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61Search in Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis & FlorianSchaefer (eds.). 2013. Non-canonical passives, 21–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.205Search in Google Scholar

Barlow, Michael & SuzanneKemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Bourdin, Philippe.2003. On two distinct uses of go as a conjoined marker of evaluative modality. In RobertaFacchinetti, ManfredKrug & FrankPalmer (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 103–127. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan.1978. A realistic transformational grammar. In MorrisHalle, JoanBresnan & George A.Miller (eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality, 1–59. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan.2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language82(4). 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan.2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In ThomasHoffmann & GraemeTrousdale (eds.), Handbook of construction grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan & PaulHopper (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.01bybSearch in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam.1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard.1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell & Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger.2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology25. 108–127.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger.2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In EwaDabrowska & DagmarDivjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 296–322. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110292022-015Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick & DianeLarsen-Freeman. 2009. Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning59(1). 90–125.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00537.xSearch in Google Scholar

Embick, David.2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry35(3). 355–392.10.1162/0024389041402634Search in Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph.2000. Lexicon and grammar: The English syntacticon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. sils.shoin.ac.jp/~jeemonds/3WEB_OK_Passives_and_Perfects_(POST).doc (a condensed version of chapter 5).10.1515/9783110872996Search in Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph.2006. Adjectival passives: The construction in the iron mask. In MartinEveraert, Henkvan Riemsdijk, RobGoedemans & BartHollebrandse (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 16–60. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996591.ch2Search in Google Scholar

Emonds, Joseph.2013. Indirect passives and the selection of English participles. Lingua125. 58–75.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.004Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele.1995. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele.1998. Patterns of experience in patterns of language. In MichaelTomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language, 203–219. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.10.4324/9781315085678-8Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele.2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science7(5). 219–224.10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele.2006. Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2007. Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x.Search in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th & AnatolStefanowitsch. 2004. Covarying collexemes in the Into-causative. In MichelAchard & SuzanneKemmer (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 225–246. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael A.K.1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 1. Journal of Linguistics3. 37–81.Search in Google Scholar

Hallman, Peter & DalinaKallulli.2013. Introduction to special issue. Lingua125. 1–6.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.011Search in Google Scholar

Hampe, Beate & DorisSchönefeld. 2006. Syntactic leaps or lexical variation? More on “Creative Syntax”. In StefanGries & AnatolStefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 127–157. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Zellig.1946. From morpheme to utterance. Language22(3). 161–183.10.2307/410205Search in Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus & EvaSchulze-Berndt. 2005. Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: An introduction. In NikolausHimmelmann & EvaSchulze-Berndt (eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification, 1–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272266.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J.1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society13. 139–157.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney D. & Geoffrey K.Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar

Hust, Joel R.1977. The syntax of the unpassive construction in English. Linguistic Analysis3(1). 31–63.Search in Google Scholar

Israel, Michael, ChristopherJohnson & Patricia J.Brooks.2000. From states to events: The acquisition of English passive participles. Cognitive Linguistics11(1/2). 103–129.10.1515/cogl.2001.005Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul.2013. Towards a null theory of the passive. Lingua125. 7–33.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.09.003Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W.1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W.2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In MichaelBarlow & SuzanneKemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W.2008. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lee, David Y. W.2001. Genres, registers, text types, domains and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning and Technology5(3). 37–72. http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/lee/default.html (accessed 5 October 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth.1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Levin, Beth & MalkaRappaport.1988. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry17(4). 623–661.Search in Google Scholar

Maienborn, Claudia.2007. Das Zustandspassiv. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik35(1–2). 83–114.10.1515/ZGL.2007.005Search in Google Scholar

McArthur, Tom. 1998. Agentless passive. Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Encyclopedia.com. http://www.encyclopedia.com (accessed 15 June 2013).Search in Google Scholar

McIntyre, Andrew. 2013. Adjectival passives and adjectival participles in English. In ArtemisAlexiadou & FlorianSchaefer (eds.), Non-canonical passives, 21–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.205.02mciSearch in Google Scholar

Meltzer-Asscher, Aya. 2010. Present participles: Categorial classification and derivation. Lingua120, 2211–2239.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.002Search in Google Scholar

Petré, Peter. 2014. Constructions and environments. Copular, passive and related constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199373390.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, SidneyGreenbaum, GeoffreyLeech & JanSvartvik.1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Edinburgh: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Rapoport, T. R.1990. Secondary predication and the lexical representation of verbs. Machine Translation5. 31–55.10.1007/BF00310041Search in Google Scholar

Rapoport, T. R.1999. Structure, aspect and the predicate. Language75(4). 653–677.Search in Google Scholar

Robins, Robert H.1992. The development of the word class system of the European grammatical tradition. In BurkhardSchaeder & ClemensKnobloch (eds.), Wortarten, 315–332. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan.2003. Secondary predication and aspectual structure. In EwaldLang, ClaudiaMaienborn & CatherineFabricius-Hansen (eds.), Modifying adjuncts, 553–590. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894646.553Search in Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan.2006. Secondary predication. In MartinEveraert, Henkvan Riemsdijk, RobGoedemans & BartHollebrandse (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, 209–233. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996591.ch58Search in Google Scholar

Saeed, John I.2008 [1997]. Semantics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Schönefeld, Doris. 2012. Things going unnoticed – A usage-based analysis of go-constructions. In Stefan Th.Gries & DagmarDivjak (eds.), Frequency effects in language representations, 11–49. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110274073.11Search in Google Scholar

Schönefeld, Doris. 2013. Go mad – come true – run dry: Metaphorical motion, semantic preference(s) and deixis. In AnatolStefanowitsch (ed.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association1, 215–135. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/gcla-2013-0012Search in Google Scholar

Schultze-Berndt, Eva & NikolausHimmelmann. 2004. Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology8. 59–131.10.1515/lity.2004.004Search in Google Scholar

Shintani, M.1979. ThefrequencyandusageoftheEnglishpassive. Los Angeles, unpublished University of California dissertation. (quoted from http://www.rit.edu/ntid/rate/sea/processes/passive/grammatical/agents, accessed 25 September 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John McH. 1991. Corpus, concordances, collocations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th.Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8(2). 209–243.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steSearch in Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th.Gries. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1(1). 1–43.10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1Search in Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th.Gries. 2009. Corpora and grammar. In AnkeLüdeling & MerjaKytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, 933–952. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Toyota, Junichi.2008. Diachronic change in the English passive. Basingstoke: Macmillan.10.1057/9780230594654Search in Google Scholar

Wasow, Thomas.1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Peter W.Culicover, ThomasWasow & AdrianAkmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, 327–360. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zimmer, Ben.2009. The un-believable un-verb, In Word Routes. Exploring the pathways of our lexicon. http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/the-un-believable-un-verb/ (accessed 20 August 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Appendix A: Verbs in the UPC (raw frequencies, top 30 ranks)

rank	verb	frequency	rank	Verb	frequency	rank	verb	frequency
1	be	6,966	11	lie	68	21	work	24
2	remain	1,500	12	escape	68	22	arrive	23
3	go	599	13	appear	62	23	emerge	21
4	seem	142	14	stand	54	24	grow	21
5	become	122	15	stay	35	25	walk	19
6	continue	115	16	get	34	26	sound	17
7	come	109	17	survive	31	27	flow	15
8	pass	87	18	run	30	28	sit	14
9	feel	85	19	prove	30	29	rise	10
10	look	83	20	die	27	30	fall	9

Appendix B: Simple collexeme analysis of be, remain, go, come, run, seem, continue + un-participle

rank	be	Coll.str^a	remain	Coll.str.	go	Coll.str.	come	Coll.str.
1	unaffected	Inf	unchanged	Inf	unnoticed	Inf	unstuck	Inf
2	unchanged	Inf	unanswered	134,52	unchallenged	149,04	unglued	16,10
3	uncovered	Inf	unresolved	106,41	unpunished	112,50	unprepared	6,75
4	unemployed	Inf	untouched	102,54	unheeded	110,69	unplugged	6,052
5	unknown	Inf	unconvinced	95,39	unrecognized	79,67	unscathed	4,42
6	unshaved	Inf	unaltered	91,39	unreported	68,96	undiddled	4,31
7	unveiled	Inf	unknown	78,87	unremarked	53,12	undrilled	3,84
8	unloaded	215,97	unaffected	61,12	unrecorded	43,44	untucked	3,84
9	unrelated	192,35	unmoved	40,08	unanswered	43,02	unfastened	3,47
10	unmarried	192,04	undetected	38,05	undetected	42,79	unalloyed	2,93
11	unprepared	185,79	unsolved	35,50	unchecked	25,70	unclouded	2,93
12	undone	171,91	undisturbed	31,85	unrewarded	25,69	unheralded	2,90
13	unjustified	147,52	unproven	31,00	unheard	21,72	unbound	2,84
14	unheard	143,29	unexplained	29,94	unmentioned	17,36	undiluted	2,51
15	unexpected	140,09	undecided	29,60	unstated	10,73	unhindered	2,42
16	unlocked	137,30	unfulfilled	29,47	unobserved	10,26	uninvited	2,39
17	unimpressed	135,25	unchallenged	29,27	undiagnosed	10,19	unannounced	2,35
18	undecided	131,17	undiscovered	27,78	unquestioned	10,12	unopened	2,30
19	unfounded	119,39	unsold	27,03	unseen	9,99	unchecked	2,14
20	unearthed	116,40	undeveloped	24,04	unsatisfied	7,86	undone	1,89
rank	run		seem		continue
1	unchanged	35,07	unconcerned	48,93	unabated	210,63
2	unmodified	13,73	unperturbed	37,98	unchecked	34,50
3	unchecked	12,28	unaffected	32,11	unchanged	19,33
4	unrecompiled	4,57	unmoved	26,45	undisturbed	11,49
5	unmuzzled	4,09	unimpressed	24,06	unhindered	11,01
6	unplaced	3,57	uninterested	15,30	unbroken	8,76
7	uninvestigated	3,14	untouched	12,07	uninterrupted	6,89
8	unheeded	3,06	undecided	11,57	unimpeded	5,40
9	unbridled	3,00	unconvinced	9,68	undiminished	5,27
10	undetected	2,76	unwarranted	6,74	unilluminated	4,29
11	unopposed	2,73	unjustified	6,46	unchallenged	4,23
12	unchallenged	2,54	unprepared	6,40	uncurbed	3,99
13			unconnected	6,38	unresolved	3,84
14			unsurprised	5,82	unamended	3,11
15			unimpaired	5,37	unrelieved	2,57
16			undaunted	4,66	untainted	2,54
17			unattracted	4,20	unfilled	2,50
18			unhaunted	4,20	unabashed	2,50
19			unoffended	4,20	unobserved	2,34
20			unknown	3,76	undeterred	2,33

^[1]

Appendix C: Covarying collexemes of go, remain and come + un-participle (top 20 pairs)

words1 go	words2	coll.strength	words1	words2	coll.strength
untreated	tumour	7.42	unchallenged	statement	3.10
unheeded	warning	6.27	undetected	error	2.98
unanswered	plea	4.80	unaccompanied	staff	2.73
unmet	need	4.37	unactioned	complaint	2.73
unheeded	call	4.25	unbeaten	we	2.73
unreported	case	4.17	unchastened	impudence	2.73
unasked	question	4.16	unclaimed	pence	2.73
unanswered	letter	3.84	uncompensated	loser	2.73
unchecked	rising	3.61	unconfirmed	rumour	2.73
unheard	voice	3.42	unconsidered	objection	2.73
words1 remain	words2	coll.strength	words1	words2	coll.strength
unanswered	Questions	70.91	unconvinced	I	5.64
unresolved	Issues	18.56	unsolved	murder	5.64
unmarried	women	17.57	unexpired	years	5.44
unchanged	rates	8.97	unresolved	problems	5.39
unsolved	problems	8.89	unsold	shares	5.39
unstirred	water	8.55	unknown	whereabouts	5.25
unbeaten	team	7.56	undone	chores	5.14
untapped	Potential	6.20	unaccounted	bodies	4.92
unfilled	posts	6.01	unaccounted	prisoners	4.92
unpaired	males	5.92	unbroken	silence	4.92
words1 come	words2	coll.strength	words1	words2	coll.strength
unglued	She	2.90	unheralded	thoughts	1.99
unprepared	They	2.35	unhindered	light	1.99
unalloyed	Benefits	1.99	unnoticed	vapour	1.99
unannounced	member	1.99	untucked	towel	1.99
unbound	Hair	1.99	unmarked	anything	1.69
unchecked	phone_calls	1.99	unplugged	phone	1.69
undiluted	Traits	1.99	uninvited	proper	1.51
undone	Bandage	1.99	unclouded	it	1.39
unfastened	Buttons	1.99	undiddled	it	1.39
unfinished	Kit	1.99	unglued	design	1.39

Appendix D: Information on the multiple distinctive collexeme analysis carried out for this study

The computation in a multiple distinctive collexeme analysis is illustrated here for the collexeme unnoticed. The analysis starts out from the observed frequencies of the un-V-en collexemes in each verb-specific construction, which is (for unnoticed) as given below, making up a total of 163 occurrences. On the basis of the total frequencies of the verb-specific constructions (6,966, 122, 109, 115, 35, 599, 21, 1500, 30, 142), the programme calculates the expected frequency, that is, the frequency that would be expected if the 163 occurrences of unnoticed were distributed in proportions matching those of the different verb-specific constructions. Then, a binomial test is performed to establish the probability of a particular observed frequency given the expected frequency (e.g., the probability to find 5 occurrences of unnoticed with remain when you would have expected it 25.4 times). This probability is then log-transformed (=log10 pbinomial value) and is given as a positive number when the collexeme occurs more frequently than expected in the respective verb-specific construction, and as a negative number when it occurs less frequently than expected (Pbin).

verb	be	become	come	continue	get	go	grow	remain	run	seem
observed frequency	10	1	1	1	0	145	0	5	0	0
expected frequency	177.8	2.1	1.8	1.9	0.6	10.1	0.4	25.4	0.5	2.4
Pbin	−71.2	−0.4	−0.3	−0.4	−0.2	151.8	−0.1	−6.6	−0.2	−1.0

Published Online: 2015-6-4

Published in Print: 2015-8-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0017

Keywords for this article

un-participle construction; unpassive; (adjectival) passive; collostruction analysis