You don’t get to see that every day

IF 0.8 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Constructions and Frames Pub Date : 2022-08-09 DOI:10.1075/cf.00056.hil
M. Hilpert, Florent Perek
{"title":"You don’t get to see that every day","authors":"M. Hilpert, Florent Perek","doi":"10.1075/cf.00056.hil","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper contributes to the study of grammaticalization phenomena from the perspective of Construction Grammar\n (Coussé et al. 2018). It is concerned with modal uses of the English verb\n get that express a permitted action, as in The prisoners always get to make one phone call.\n 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\n confess). An alternative is proposed by van der Auwera et al. (2009: 283),\n who view permissive get as an extension of its acquisitive meaning (I got a present). We revisit\n 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\n in the infinitive. Besides examples of permissive get, we retrieved examples of obligative got\n to (I got to leave), causative get (Who did you get to confess?),\n possessive got (What have I got to be ashamed of?), and a category that we label inchoative\n get (You’re getting to be a big girl now). Drawing on distributional semantic techniques\n (Perek 2016, 2018), we analyse how\n permissive get and inchoative get developed semantically over time. Our results are consistent\n with an account that represents an alternative to both Gronemeyer (1999) and van der Auwera et al. (2009), namely the idea that permissive get\n evolved out of inchoative uses that invited the idea of a permission.","PeriodicalId":42321,"journal":{"name":"Constructions and Frames","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constructions and Frames","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00056.hil","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
这可不是每天都能看到的
本文从构式语法的角度对语法化现象进行了研究(coussise et al. 2018)。它与英语动词get表达允许的动作的情态用法有关,如囚犯总是可以打一个电话。关于permissive出现的语境,存在着不同的观点。Gronemeyer(1999: 30)认为允许的含义来源于使然用法(我让他承认了)。van der Auwera等人(2009: 283)提出了另一种选择,他们认为permissive get是其获取意义(I got a present)的延伸。我们根据美国英语最近的历史数据来重新审视这些说法。具体来说,我们搜索了COHA (Davies 2010)中get后跟to和动词不定式的形式。除了宽容型get的例子,我们还检索了义务型get(我要离开)、使使型get(你要向谁忏悔?)、所有格型get(我有什么可羞愧的?)和我们称之为“早熟型get”的类别(你现在要成为一个大女孩了)。利用分布式语义技术(Perek 2016, 2018),我们分析了随着时间的推移,允许获取和创新获取在语义上是如何发展的。我们的研究结果与Gronemeyer(1999)和van der Auwera et al.(2009)的另一种说法是一致的,即permissive是从邀请许可概念的初始使用演变而来的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Constructions and Frames
Constructions and Frames LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
From data to theory Constructional change and frameelement selection A multilingual approach to the interaction between frames and constructions Frame integration and head-switching Old English V-initial and þa-VS main clauses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1