Cover not available
Article published In:
English World-Wide
Vol. 38:3 (2017) ► pp.305–335

“Like getting nibbled to death by a duck”

Grammaticalization of the get-passive in the TIME Magazine Corpus

| Uppsala University
This large-scale corpus study explores new parameters which might indicate grammaticalization of the get-passive in recent American English, where the construction has increased in frequency. To this end, large samples of both be- and get-passives from the TIME Magazine Corpus were analyzed with regard to tense, aspect, and situation type (Aktionsart). While tense and aspect preferences of the passives were diachronically stable, the results of the situation-type analysis were of interest for two reasons. First, they showed clear differences in the way get- and be-passives are used which reflect the get-passive’s inchoative origins. And second, the diachronic analysis of situation-type preferences for get-passives provides a first indication that they may be further grammaticalizing as they begin to behave more like canonical be-passives in the most recent data. This finding is tentatively supported by supplementary data from COHA.
Keywords: get-passive, be-passive, grammaticalization, situation type, American English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Material and method
    • 2.1The corpora
    • 2.2Retrieval
    • 2.3Finding central passives
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Frequency of central passives based on proportions in collected data
    • 3.2Tense
    • 3.3Aspect
    • 3.4Situation type
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Frequency
    • 4.2Tense and aspect
    • 4.3Situation type
    • 4.4Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 1 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.38.3.03sch
References (27)
Sources
Davies, Mark. 2007. TIME Magazine Corpus: 100 million words, 1920s–2000s. Available online at [URL].
. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009. Available online at [URL].
References
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy. 1999. “The English Get-Passive in Spoken Discourse: Description and Implication for an Interpersonal Grammar”. English Language and Literature 31: 41–58.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary. 1980. “Is the Get-Passive Adversative”? Papers in Linguistics 131: 411–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Farrelly, Michael, and Elena Seoane. 2012. “Democratization”. In Terttu Nevalainen, and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 392–401.Google Scholar
Fleisher, Nicholas. 2006. “The Origin of Passive Get ”. English Language and Linguistics 101: 225–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garey, Howard B. 1957. “Verbal Aspect in French”. Language 331: 91–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Wolcott. 1936. “Backward Ran Sentences until Reeled the Mind”. The New Yorker, Nov. 28, 1936.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1985. “The Get-Passive and Burzio’s Generalization”. Lingua 661: 53–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization (7th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, and Christian Mair. 1999. “‘Agile’ and ‘Uptight’ Genres: The Corpus-based Approach to Language Change in Progress”. The International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 41: 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. “Recent Grammatical Change in English: Data, Description, Theory”. In Karin Aijmer, and Bengt Altenberg, eds. Advances in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 61–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair, and Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in Contemporary English. A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1997. “Parallel Corpora: A Real-Time Approach to the Study of Language Change in Progress”. In Magnus Ljung, ed. Corpus-based Studies in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 195–209.Google Scholar
. 2006. Twentieth-Century English. History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian, and Marianne Hundt. 1995. “Why Is the Progressive Becoming more Frequent in English? A Corpus-based Investigation of Language Change in Progress”. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 431: 111–122.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2014. “Fear and Loathing of the English Passive”. Language and Communication 371: 60–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Sarah. 2015. “Passive Voice in American Soap Opera Dialogue”. Studia Neophilologica 871: 152–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Rainer. 1995. “‘For Who the Bell Tolls’: Or Why Corpus Linguistics Should Carry the Bell in the Study of Language Change in Present-Day English”. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 201: 351–376.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas, and Paul Rayson. 2007. “Recent Change and Variation in the British English Use of the Progressive Passive”. ICAME Journal 311: 129–159.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik. 2008. “ The Progressive and Phrasal Verbs: Evidence of Colloquialization in Nineteenth-century English? ”. In Terttu Nevalainen, Irma Taavitsainen, Päivi Pahta, and Minna Korhonen, eds. The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 269–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strunk Jr., William, and Elwyn B. White. 1979. The Elements of Style (3th ed.). Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. “Verbs and Times”. The Philosophical Review 661: 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Hundt, Marianne, Bethany Dallas & Shimon Nakanishi
2024. The be‐ versus get‐passive alternation in world Englishes. World Englishes 43:1 ► pp. 86 ff. DOI logo
Kytö, Merja & Erik Smitterberg
2023. Clausal and phrasal coordination in recent American English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Malá, Markéta & Zuzana Ježková
2023. The Passive across Two Registers of Present-Day British English: A Corpus-Based Lexico-Grammatical Perspective. Prague Journal of English Studies 12:1 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Fehringer, Carol
2022. Theget-passive in Tyneside English. English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English 43:3 ► pp. 330 ff. DOI logo
Schwarz, Sarah
2019. “This Must Be Looked Into”: A Corpus Study of the Prepositional Passive. Journal of English Linguistics 47:3 ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
Schwarz, Sarah
2019. Signs of grammaticalization. In Developments in English Historical Morpho-Syntax [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 346], ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 august 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.