Chapter published in:
Reorganising Grammatical Variation: Diachronic studies in the retention, redistribution and refunctionalisation of linguistic variants
Edited by Antje Dammel, Matthias Eitelmann and Mirjam Schmuck
[Studies in Language Companion Series 203] 2018
► pp. 269–296

Active and passive tough-infinitives

A case of long-term grammatical variation

| University of Bergen
This paper probes into the determinants of the long-term grammatical variation of active and passive tough-infinitives, as well as into the factors that ultimately led to the decline of passive tough-infinitives. It is argued that, throughout their coexistence, the active and the passive tough-infinitive are functionally equivalent and that the demise of the passive tough-infinitive is a concomitant of the extensive and rapid spread of the passive infinitive governed by be expressing deontic modality. It is further argued that, due to the surface similarity of the passive infinitive governed by be and the passive tough-infinitive, deontic modality percolates into the passive tough-infinitive, which expresses dispositional modality. Thus, the obsolescence of the passive tough-infinitive is driven by a clash in modality.
Keywords: competition, functional equivalence, morphosyntactic marking, voice transparency
Published online: 24 October 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.203.10hau
References

Data sources

[BNC]
Davies, Mark (2004–) BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from OUP). http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/bnc/Google Scholar
[COCA]
Davies, Mark (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–present. http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/Google Scholar
[DOE]
Dictionary of Old English Corpus 2000 Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
[ECF]
Eighteenth-Century Fiction 1996 Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
[EEPF]
Early English Prose Fiction 1997 Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar
[MED]
Middle English Dictionary 2001 2001. The Regents of the University of Michigan. http://​quod​.lib​.umich​.edu​/m​/med/Google Scholar
[NCF]
Nineteenth-Century Fiction 1999–2000 Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, Deborah L.
2002 Structural ambiguity in early English tough constructions: Are child grammars deficient or simply different from adult grammars? Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 8: 1–24.Google Scholar
2005 The Acquisition of tough-Movement in English. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge. http://​www​.ling​.cam​.ac​.uk​/psych​/Acq​_of​_TM​.html (15 April 2018).Google Scholar
Becker, Misha, Estigarribia, Bruno & Gylfadottir, Duna
2012 Tough-adjectives are easy to learn. Supplemental Proceedings of BUCLD 36, http://​www​.bu​.edu​/bucld​/files​/2012​/07​/becker​-36​.pdf (15 April 2018).
Bongaerts, Theo
1983 The comprehension of three complex English structures by Dutch learners. Language Learning 33: 159–182.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1986 Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, Morgan
1913 The Infinitive in Anglo-Saxon. Washington DC: Carnegie Institution.Google Scholar
Callies, Marcus
2008 Easy to understand but difficult to use? Raising constructions and information packaging in the advanced learner variety. In Linking Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, Gaëtanelle Gilqui, María Belén Diez-Bedmar & Szilvia Papp (eds), 201–226. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alistair
1959 Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Carol
1969 The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian
1973 The comparison of language development in native children and foreign adults. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 11: 13–28.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cromer, Richard
1970 Children are nice to understand: Surface structure clues for the recovery of a deep structure. British Journal of Psychology 61: 397–408.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
d’Anglejan, Alison & Tucker, G. Richard
1975 The acquisition of complex English structures by adult learners. Language Learning 25: 281–296.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demske-Neumann, Ulrike
1994 Modales Passiv und Tough Movement. Zur strukturellen Kausalität eines syntaktischen Wandels im Deutschen und Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem & van der Wurff, Wim
2000 The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga
1991 The rise of the passive infinitive in English. In Historical English Syntax, Dieter Kastovsky (ed.), 141–188. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 Syntax. In The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. 2: 1066–1476, Norman Blake (ed.), 207–408. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, Kazuhiko
2004 Conspiracy of form and function for optimization of language change. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13: 181–196.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Gaaf, Willem
1928a The post-adjectival passive infinitive. English Studies 10: 129–138.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1928b The predicative passive infinitive. English Studies 10: 107–114.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
1998 For to in the history of English. American Journal of Germanic Language and Literature 10: 45–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haumann. Dagmar
2014 On the ascent and decline of the passive tough-infinitive. In ‘Ye Whom the Charms of Grammar Please’: Studies in English Historical Linguistics in Honour of Leiv Egil Breivik, Kari E. Haugland, Kevin McCafferty & Kristian A. Rusten (eds), 167–196. Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo
1986 Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 587–622.Google Scholar
Killie, Kristin
2014 Secondary grammaticalization and the English adverbial -ly suffix. Language Sciences 47: 199–214.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klingvall, Eva
2011 On non-copula tough constructions in Swedish. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 88: 131–167. http://​project​.sol​.lu​.se​/uploads​/media​/klingvall​._WPSS​_88​._Slutversion​_02​.pdf (15 November 2015).Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony
1989 Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Journal of Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Modeling Language Change and Language Acquisition. Ms. University of Pennsylvania. ftp://​babel​.ling​.upenn​.edu​/facpapers​/tony​_kroch​/papers​/lsa​-forum​.pdf (15 April 2018).Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David
1999 The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006 How New Languages Emerge. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou
1999 Infinitival Complementation in Old and Middle English. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar
2005 The Rise of the to-Infinitive. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. Gary
2001 Subject and object in Old English and Latin copular deontics. In Grammatical Relations in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 56], Jan Terje Faarlund (ed.), 224–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Nonfinite Structures in Theory and Change. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2012 Modality, Subjectivity, and Semantic Change. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Fredrick J.
2002 Optimality and functionality: A critique of functionally based Optimality-theoretic syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 43–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pounder, Amanda
2001 Adverb-marking in English and German: System and standardization. Diachronica 18: 301–358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Lebeaux, David & Frost, Loren
1987 Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition 26: 195–267.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti
1999 Syntax. In The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol. 3: 1476–1776, Roger Lass (ed.), 187–331. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna
1982 The acquisition of some complex syntactic structures in L1 and L2 learners (Easy to see, promise, ask/tell). Paper presented at the Conference on First and Second Language Learning: Similarities and Differences (Milan, Italy, November 1–3, 1982). Microfiche. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.
1983 The acquisition of some complex syntactic structures in L1 and L2 learners. Rassegna Italiana da Linguistica Applicata 2: 261–283.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus
. 31984 An Historical Syntax of the English Language. Part III. First half. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wexler, Ken
2013 Tough-movement developmental delay: Another effect of phrasal computation. In Rich Languages from Poor Inputs, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini & Robert C. Berwick (eds), 146–167. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
van der Wurff, Wim
1990 The easy to please construction in Old and Middle English. In Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 65], Sylvia M. Adamson, Vivien A. Law, Nigel Vincent & Susan Wright (eds), 519–536. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yip, Virginia
1995 Interlanguage and Learnability: From Chinese to English [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 11]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar