Home Real-life pseudo-passives: The usage and discourse functions of adjunct-based passive constructions
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Real-life pseudo-passives: The usage and discourse functions of adjunct-based passive constructions

  • Joanna Podhorodecka EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: April 30, 2021

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the usage of adjunct-based prepositional passives of intransitive verbs. The occurrence of this highly atypical construction, referred to as the pseudo-passive, is motivated by a variety of factors related to its individual components as well as the discourse context. The pseudo-passive is first characterized in terms of its most characteristic verbs and prepositions. Then three main types of the construction are distinguished on the basis of their subject semantics and discourse function, which correlate with specific syntactic and semantic features observed in the data. The study relies on statistical tools for the analysis of the corpus data: collostructional analysis, multiple correspondence analysis and logistic regression.

References

Albrespit, J. 2007. “Atypical passives”. Études anglaises 4(60). 466–482.10.3917/etan.604.0466Search in Google Scholar

Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar

Brinton, L.J. and E.C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615962Search in Google Scholar

Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 1999. “The English get-passive in spoken discourse: description and implication for an interpersonal grammar”. English Language and Literature 3(1). 41–58.10.1017/S136067439900012XSearch in Google Scholar

Castillo, C. 2010. “The class of prepositional passivizable verbs in English”. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(2). 143–174.10.1080/03740463.2010.521444Search in Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, E. 1979. The Prepositional Passive in English. A semantic-syntactic analysis, with a lexicon of prepositional verbs. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.10.1515/9783111630724Search in Google Scholar

Davies, M. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 410+ million words, 1990-presenthttp://www.americancorpus.orgSearch in Google Scholar

Findlay, J. 2016. “The prepositional passive in Lexical Functional Grammar”. In Arnold, D., M. Butt, B. Crysmann, T.H. King and S. Müller (eds.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 255–275.10.21248/hpsg.2016.14Search in Google Scholar

Fischer, K. 2010. “Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Introduction to the volume”. In Glynn, D. and K. Fischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gryuter. 43–61.10.1515/9783110226423.43Search in Google Scholar

Glynn, D. 2010. “Corpus-driven cognitive semantics. Introduction to the field”. In Glynn, D. and K. Fischer (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gryuter. 1–41.10.1515/9783110226423Search in Google Scholar

Glynn, D. 2014a. “Correspondence analysis: exploring data and identifying patterns”. In Glynn, D. and J. A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 443–486.10.1075/hcp.43.17glySearch in Google Scholar

Glynn, D. 2014b. “Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics”. In Glynn D. and J. A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 307–342.10.1075/hcp.43.12glySearch in Google Scholar

Gries, S.T. 2014. Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute collostructional analyses.Search in Google Scholar

Hilpert, M. 2014. “Collostructional analysis. Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements”. In Glynn D. and J.A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 391–404.10.1075/hcp.43.15hilSearch in Google Scholar

Hoffmann, T. 2007. “Complements versus adjuncts: A Construction Grammar account of English prepositional passives”. Occasional Papers in Language and Linguistics 3. 92–119.Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, P. and S. Thompson. 1980. “Transitivity in grammar and discourse”. Language 56: 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. and G.K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar

Kuno, S. and K. Takami. 2004. Functional constraints in grammar. On the unergative-unaccusative distinction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.1Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. 1987. “Grammatical ramifications of the setting/participant distinction”. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 383–394.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1806Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. 1990. “Settings, participants and grammatical relations”. In Tsohatzidis, S.L. (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization. London: Routledge. 213–238.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Levshina, N. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.195Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, R. et al. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.orgSearch in Google Scholar

Rice, S. 1987. “Towards the transitive prototype: Evidence from some atypical English passives”. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 422–434.10.3765/bls.v13i0.1830Search in Google Scholar

Rice, S. 1993. “The so-called pseudo-passive revisited (by a cognitive linguist)”. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica ed Applicata 3. 569–601.Search in Google Scholar

Speelman, D. 2014. “Logistic regression. A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics”. In Glynn, D. and J.A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 487–533.10.1075/hcp.43.18speSearch in Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, A. and S. Gries. 2003. “Collostructions: investigating the interation between words and constructions”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steSearch in Google Scholar

Takami, K. 1992. Preposition stranding: From syntactic to functional analyses. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110870398Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, J. 2009. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tseng, J. 2006. “English prepositional passives in HPSG”. In Jäger G., P. Monachesi, G. Penn and S. Wintner (eds.), FG-2006: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Formal Grammar. Malaga, ES: CSLI Publications. 147–159.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-04-30
Published in Print: 2021-04-27

© 2021 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Downloaded on 28.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/psicl-2021-0002/html
Scroll to top button