Article published in:
Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar
Edited by Jiyoung Yoon and Stefan Th. Gries
[Constructional Approaches to Language 19] 2016
► pp. 201–240

A multifactorial analysis of that/zero alternation

The diachronic development of the zero complementizer with think, guess and understand

| Bangor University
| University College Ghent
| Ghent University
This corpus-based study uses a stepwise logistic regression analysis to examine the diachronic development of that/zero alternation with three verbs of cognition, viz. think, guess and understand in both spoken and written corpora from 1560–2012. Eleven structural features which have been claimed in the literature to predict the presence of the zero complementizer form are tested to see if (1) there is indeed a diachronic trend towards more zero use, (2) whether the conditioning factors proposed in the literature indeed predict the zero form, (3) to what extent these factors interact and (4) whether the predictive power of the conditioning factors becomes stronger or weaker over time. The analysis disproves the hypothesis that there has been an overall diachronic development towards more zero use and that the interactions with verb type brings to light differences between verbs in terms of the predictive power of the individual structural features.
Published online: 08 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.19.08sha
References
Agresti, Alan
(2013) Categorical data analysis. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin
(1997)  I think – an English modal particle. In T. Swan & O.J. Westwik (Eds.), Modality in germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 1–47). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
(1972) That’s that. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter
(2007) Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language, 31(3), 569–606. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J
(1996) Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L
(2003) Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–734. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole, & Wichmann, Anne
(2010) Sentence-initial I think (that) and I believe (that): Prosodic evidence for uses as main clause, comment clause and discourse marker. Studies in Language, 34(1), 36–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger, & Tomasello, Michael
(2001) The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 97–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dor, Daniel
(2005) Toward a semantic account of that-deletion in English. Linguistics, 43(2), 345–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elsness, J
(1984)  That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies, 65, 519–533. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward, & Biber, Douglas
(1985)  That and zero complementizers in late modern English: Exploring ARCHER from 1650–1990. In B. Aarts & C.F. Meyer (Eds.), The verb in contemporary English (pp. 241–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga
(2007) The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalization? In S.D. Smit, J. Hüttner, G. Kaltenböck, & U. Lutzky (Eds.), Tracing english through time. Explorations in language variation (pp. 99–114). Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
(1980) The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language, 4(3), 333–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Isomorphism in the grammatical code. In R. Simone (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 47–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gorrell, J.H
(1895) Indirect discourse in Anglo-Saxon. PMLA, 10, 342–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K
(2002) The cambridge grammar of the english language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Florian T., & Snider, Neal
(2008) Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: surprisal and cumulativity. In B.C. Love, K. McRae, & V.N. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the cognitive science society conference (pp. 1061–1066). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther
(2006) ‘… That is the question’: Complementizer omission in extraposed that-clauses. English Language and Linguistics, 10(2), 371–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Position, prosody and scope: The case of English comment clauses. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(1), 3–38.Google Scholar
Kearns, Kate
(2007a) Epistemic verbs and zero complementizer. English Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 475–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007b) Regional variation in the syntactic distribution of null finite complementizer. Language Variation and Change, 19, 295–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol II: Descriptive application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce
(1985) Old english syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael
(1985) Complementation. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II: Complex constructions (pp. 42–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna
(1999) Grammaticalization and social embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan
([1985] 1997) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti
(1991) On the history of that zero in object clause links in English. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik (pp. 272–289). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter
(1996) Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7(2), 149–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, & Smith, Jennifer
(2005)  No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in english dialects. English Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 289–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A
(2002) “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26(1), 125–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., & Mulac, Anthony
(1991a) The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 237–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991b) A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 313–339). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, & Walker, James A
(2009) On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that . Linguistics, 47(1), 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie
(2010) A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 399–427. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011)  I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics, 49(2), 295–332.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R
(1982) Complementation in middle English and the methodology of historical syntax. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Yaguchi, Michiko
(2001) The function of the non-deictic that in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(7), 1125–1155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Hilpert, Martin
2017.  In Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics [Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 7], ► pp. 217 ff. Crossref logo
Kaatari, Henrik & Tove Larsson
2019. Using the BNC and the Spoken BNC2014 to Study the Syntactic Development of I Think and I’m Sure. English Studies 100:6 ► pp. 710 ff. Crossref logo
PIJPOPS, DIRK, DIRK SPEELMAN, STEFAN GRONDELAERS & FREEK VAN DE VELDE
2018. Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle: evidence from argument realization. Language and Cognition 10:3 ► pp. 514 ff. Crossref logo
Steuck, Jonathan & Rena Torres Cacoullos
2019.  In Language Variation - European Perspectives VII [Studies in Language Variation, 22], ► pp. 218 ff. Crossref logo
Torres Cacoullos, Rena
2020. Code-Switching Strategies: Prosody and Syntax. Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 may 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.