Cover not available
Article published In:
Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions
Edited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 13–40

You don’t get to see that every day

On the development of permissive get

| Université de Neuchâtel
| University of Birmingham

This paper contributes to the study of grammaticalization phenomena from the perspective of Construction Grammar (Coussé et al. 2018). It is concerned with modal uses of the English verb get that express a permitted action, as in The prisoners always get to make one phone call. Different views exist on the contexts in which permissive get emerged. Gronemeyer (1999: 30) suggests that the permissive meaning derives from causative uses (I got him to confess). An alternative is proposed by van der Auwera et al. (2009: 283), who view permissive get as an extension of its acquisitive meaning (I got a present). We revisit these claims in the light of recent historical data from American English. Specifically, we searched the COHA (Davies 2010) for forms of get followed by to and a verb in the infinitive. Besides examples of permissive get, we retrieved examples of obligative got to (I got to leave), causative get (Who did you get to confess?), possessive got (What have I got to be ashamed of?), and a category that we label inchoative get (You’re getting to be a big girl now). Drawing on distributional semantic techniques (Perek 2016, 2018), we analyse how permissive get and inchoative get developed semantically over time. Our results are consistent with an account that represents an alternative to both Gronemeyer (1999) and van der Auwera et al. (2009), namely the idea that permissive get evolved out of inchoative uses that invited the idea of a permission.

Keywords: grammaticalization, construction grammar, modal, permissive, inchoative, distributional semantics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous work on permissive get, and a new proposal
    • 2.1The causative-to-permissive pathway
    • 2.2The acquisitive-to-permissive pathway
    • 2.3The inchoative-to-permissive pathway
  • 3.Data and methods
    • 3.1Corpus data
    • 3.2Distributional semantics
  • 4.Results and discussion
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • References
Published online: 9 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00056.hil
References
Austin, F.
(1998) Points of Modern English usage LXXIV. English Studies, 79 1, 73–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L. & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, M.
(2008) Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4 (2), 119–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman.Google Scholar
Breban, T.
(2014) What is secondary grammaticalization? Trying to see the wood for the trees in a confusion of interpretations. Folia Linguistica 48 (2), 469–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruckmaier, E.
(2017) Getting at GET in World Englishes. A corpus-based semasiological-syntactic analysis. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coussé, E., Andersson, P. & Olofsson, J.
(Eds.) (2018) Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2010) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. [URL]
De Smet, H., Ghesquière, L. & Van de Velde, F.
(Eds.) (2015) On multiple source constructions in language change. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
(2005) A semantic approach to English grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gronemeyer, C.
(1999) On deriving complex polysemy: The grammaticalization of get . English Language and Linguistics, 3 1, 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B.
(2002) On the role of context in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Corpus-based approaches to constructional change. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (p. 458–477). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2021) Ten lectures on Diachronic Construction Grammar. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P.
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its components and its fringes (pp. 21–42). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1991) On some principles of grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization: Volume I. Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 17–36). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S. & Oksefjell, S.
(1996) Towards a unified account of the syntax and semantics of GET. In J. Thomas & M. Short (Eds.), Using corpora for language research: Studies in the honour of Geoffrey Leech (pp. 57–75). Longman.Google Scholar
Kimball, J. P.
(1973) GET. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 2 (pp. 205–215). Seminar Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, M. G.
(2000) Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong, B., Long, H., Narrog, H. & Rhee, S.
(2019) World lexicon of grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwok, B.-C., Chin, A. C. & Tsou, B. K.
(2011) Poly-functionality of the preverbal “acquire” in the Nanning Yue dialect of Chinese: An areal perspective. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 74 (1), 119–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, D.
(2013) Semi-modal contractions in English: The emancipating effect of frequency. Rombach.Google Scholar
Miller, G. & Charles, W.
(1991) Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6 (1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R.
(1990) Modality and the English modals. 2nd ed. Longman.Google Scholar
Perek, F.
(2014) Vector spaces for historical linguistics: Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, Maryland USA, June 23–25, 2014, 309–314. Conference paper. [URL]
(2016) Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54 (1), 149–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistic and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 65–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E.
(Eds.) (2020) Nodes and links in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thepkanjana, K. & Ruangmanee, S.
(2015) Grammaticalization of the verb ‘to acquire’ into modality: A case study in Vietnamese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 13 (2), 117–150.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2012) The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes. In M. Kytö (Ed.), English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths (pp. 221–255). Rodopi.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turney, P. D. & Pantel, P.
(2010) From frequency to meaning: Vector Space Models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37 1, 141–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Usoniene, A. & Jasionyte, E.
(2010) Towards grammaticalization: Lithuanian acquisitive verbs gauti (‘get’) and tekti (‘be gotten’). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 42 (2), 199–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V.
(1998) Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology, 2 1, 79–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, J., Kehayov, P. & Vittrant, A.
(2009) Acquisitive modals. In L. Hogeweg & H. de Hoop & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Cross-linguistic semantics of tense, aspect and modality (pp. 271–302). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Maaten, L. & Hinton, G.
(2008) Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9 1, 2579–2605.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Chen, Li, Linlin Wang & Gagan Mostafa
2023. Construction of English Teaching Resource Database Based on Big Data Technology. In Cyber Security Intelligence and Analytics [Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, 173], ► pp. 545 ff. DOI logo
HARTMANN, STEFAN & TOBIAS UNGERER
2023. Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2023. The semiotics of motion encoding in Early English: a cognitive semiotic analysis of phrasal verbs in Old and Middle English. Semiotica 2023:251 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network [Constructional Approaches to Language, 35], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 2024. 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.