University:
Boston University
Course:
CAS LX 110 | Say What? Accents, Dialects, and Society
Academic year:

2023
Views:

323

Pages:

20
Author:

StellarSymphony

Structure I. State of the art II. Status of dummy it III. Imperatives and dummy it IV. Does dummy it enhance the verbal territory of a V? V. The role of pseudo-objects in (de)transitivization VI. Conclusion 24 Theoretical Prerequisites: Transitivity Hopper/Thompson’s theory of transitivity: moves beyond the single criterion of the presence or absence of a Od 10 criteria: measure the extent to which a clause is transitive Transitivity1 = “the effectiveness with which an action takes place (...)” [Hopper/Thompson 1980: 251] Transitivity2 = effectiveness with which an action is transferred to a patient 25 10 Criteria for measuring transitivity [Hopper/Thompson 1980] High Transitivity Low Transitivity A Participant 2 or more participants 1 participant B Kinesis action non-action C Aspect D Punctuality telic (completed) atelic (in progress) punctual non-punctual E Volitionality volitional non-volitional F Affirmation affirmative negative G Mode realis irrealis H Agency agent high in potency agent low in potency I Affectedness of the object object totally affected object not affected J Individuation of the object object highly individuated object non-individuated 26 Criterion A: Participants A high degree of transitivity implies 2 or more participants: (1) A moved B. highly transitive Verbal action move is ‘effectively transferred to a patient’ Reflexives, however, are co-referential with the subject 1 participant: (2) A moved himself. A moved it. semi-transitive Why can we argue that “effectiveness with which an action takes place” is lower with reflexives? After all A is also moved. • patient is semantically the agent, can stop the movement (control). • With dummy it, there is no semantic patient. (3) A moved Ø. intransitive No patient. ‘Effectiveness with which an action is transferred to a patient’ cannot even be assessed. 27 Criterion B: Kinesis • Actions are more strongly associated with transitivity than non-actions. • A high degree of kinesis also seems to be required if Vs take the pseudo-object it: bike it, bus it, floor it, frog it, hike it, hoove it, leg it, move it, shift it, shove it, walk it, wing it … are highly dynamic But: *stay it, *wait it dummy it occurs with dynamic Vs. 28 Transitivity and pseudo-objects Pseudo-objects are semantically light, i.e. they do not carry a significant semantic load. The effect the V can have on the object is thus restricted. she legged it/snuffed it/moved it S is affected, not the Od Semantically this is a reflexive structure Hopper/Thompson [1980: 277]: “reflexives in many languages have properties which can be explained by appealing to their intermediate status between one-argument and two-argument clauses”. The same goes for other pseudo-objects, such as dummy it. 29 Typological considerations: ambitransitivity in English and German Ambitransitive = V that can be used transitively or intransitively without having to undergo a formal change. (43) John walks Ø home. intransitive (44) John walks Mary home. transitive Contrastive data (45) John geht Ø nach Hause. (46) *John geht Mary nach Hause. no transitive counterpart German: herrschen (intr.) ‘rule over’ – beherrschen (trans.) ‘master sth.’ wachen (intr.) ‘be awake’ – bewachen (trans.) ‘guard sth.’ 30 German and English Vs according to valency for a randomly selected sample of 84 V [based on Schiefke 2009: 16] 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% transitive intransitive English Engl: remarkably few intr. Vs Engl: few reflexive Vs Engl: many ambitransitive Vs reflexive ambitransitive German 31 More ambitransitive Vs in English than in German Kilby [1984: 37]: categorization between trans. and intr. Vs is less clear-cut in English. Dixon/Aikhenvald [2000: 4]: languages that have many ambitransitive V also have few valency changing morphemes. with the erosion of morphological marking (be-), markers of transitivity might have been lost 32 Reflexives are on the decline in English • Reflexives become obsolete in a wide range of environments [cf. Kirchner 1951:158; Jespersen 1961: 325-331; Strang 1970:153, Peitsara 1997: 321; Rissanen 1999: 256; König & Siemund 2000: 48; Rohdenburg 2009, Mondorf 2011: 406] OE I washed me ME > I washed myself I overslept myself LModE > > I washed I overslept Rohdenburg [2009]: shows that reflexive self is contracting its range of application in terms of V types and frequency. Spearheaded by AmE. Indicative of a more general decline of reflexive self in English 33 Contrastive Data German reflexive structures of the following type are still fairly common: (1) Er hat sich hochgearbeitet. ‘He has worked himself to the top’. English highly productive competitor in the form of the wayconstruction: (2) a. (...) he worked his way down the steep bank toward the stream [FROWN] b. Worked himself into a frenzy and gave himself indigestion. [BNC wridom1] 34 Fig. 1. Diachronic Development of One's Way vs. Oneself (N = 1146) [based on Mondorf 2011: 405] 100% 358 80% 48 71 284 60% way self 40% 57 20% 206 27 95 0% 1460-1699 1700-1799 1800-1869 1960-1993 10 Verbs: cut, drink, eat, fight, grope, hit, wind, work, worm, wriggle 35 Erosion of causative BRING Early Modern English: (1) She brought him to laugh. Present-day English: (3) ?She brought him to laugh. 36 Causative BRING +/- detransitivizing strategy (BrE) (N=1785) [Mondorf 2010b] without detransitivizing strategy no reflexive but other detransitivizing strategy reflexive 100% 80% 189 528 358 60% 197 40% 115 20% 93 197 43 14 39 0% 10 2 1460-1699 1700-1799 1800-1869 1960-1993 Causative BRING is generally on the decline. If used at all, it is almost exclusively used with the reflexive. 37 The decline is delayed when reflexives are present Revisiting the 7 pseudo-objects illustrated for the V MOVE POSS way Reflexive self dummy it Ø Cognate objects Particle Particle + Reflexive self 38 Another reason for the decline of the reflexive: The competition between reflexives vs. particles (1) Brace yourself for the impact. (2) (...) he said, in tones of mock-comfort, Brace up, Merrill. [BNC wridom1] Reflexive Particle 39 Diachronic Development of the Competition between Reflexives and Particles (out, up) (N = 3619) [based on Mondorf 2010: 229] 100% 229 562 1061 80% Particle 1026 60% 40% 20% 535 Reflexive 22 38 0% 1460-1700 1700-1800 146 1800-1900 1960-1993 27 Verbs: boost, bow, brace, burn, coil, curl, dress, ease, empty, fit, freshen, gear, heave, hire, jerk, launch, lock, open, prop, psyche, raise, rouse, smarten, straighten, The particle is replacing reflexive self 40 Let‘ speculate … 41 Thinking out aloud: The role of pseudo objects in (de)transitivization or “How does it fit into the larger picture“? before PDE: PDE: Future: snore (Vintr) snore one's way through a meeting Ø George W. Bush one's way to ... snuff (primary sense) New V senses: snuff it (secondary ‘die’) move it! (primary) move it! ‘hurry’ leg it ‘walk on foot’ leg it ‘run away’ (snake) Transitivization INTRANSITIVE SEMI-TRANSITIVE TRANSITIVE Detransitivization Future: brace up PDE: I brought myself to believe brace oneself for the impact Before PDE: I brought Pat to laugh Pseudo objects might be the incipient stages of (de-)transitivization processes. They seem to usher out Vtrans which decrease their verbal territory and usher in Vintr which enhance their verbal territory. Conclusion 1. Dummy it can be related to a series of (de-)transitivization processes 2. 7 pseudo-objects occur in semi-transitive environments with some degree of functional overlap • way-constructions • Reflexives • particles • dummy it 3. Is the function of dummy it to modulate transitivity in accordance with the changing entrenchment of the V (or V sense) with which it is used? 4. it-support to increase the transitivity of weakly established Vs or V senses? 50