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
© 2021 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Articles in the same Issue
- Introduction
- A grammatical construction in the service of interpersonal distance regulation. The case of the Polish directive infinitive construction
- Real-life pseudo-passives: The usage and discourse functions of adjunct-based passive constructions
- The network of reflexive dative constructions in South Slavic
- On motivation and incoordination in grammar – The case of two Polish exclamative constructions
- When three is company: The relation between aspect and metaphor in Russian aspectual triplets
- Between spatial domain and grammatical meaning: The semantic content of English telic particles
- An aspectual contour of phrasal verb constructions with English think
Articles in the same Issue
- Introduction
- A grammatical construction in the service of interpersonal distance regulation. The case of the Polish directive infinitive construction
- Real-life pseudo-passives: The usage and discourse functions of adjunct-based passive constructions
- The network of reflexive dative constructions in South Slavic
- On motivation and incoordination in grammar – The case of two Polish exclamative constructions
- When three is company: The relation between aspect and metaphor in Russian aspectual triplets
- Between spatial domain and grammatical meaning: The semantic content of English telic particles
- An aspectual contour of phrasal verb constructions with English think