Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:19:18.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking it up a level: Copy-raising and cascaded tiers of morphosyntactic change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2018

Marisa Brook
Marisa Brook*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper uncovers evidence for two linked levels of morphosyntactic change occurring in Canadian English. The more ordinary is a lexical replacement: with finite subordination after seem, the complementizer like has been overtaking all the alternatives (as if, as though, that, and Ø). On top of this, there is a broader syntactic change whereby the entire finite structure (now represented primarily by like) is beginning to catch on at the expense of infinitival subordination after seem. Drawing on complementary evidence from British English and several partial precedents in the historical linguistics literature, I take this correlation to mean that like has reached sufficient rates among the finite strategy to have instigated the second level of change, to the point that it has ramifications for epistemic and evidential marking with the verb seem. I propose that the best model of these trajectories is a set of increasingly large envelopes of variation, one inside the next, and argue that the envelope might itself be an entity susceptible to change over time.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , July 2018 , pp. 231 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am indebted to Sali A. Tagliamonte, Diane Massam, J. K. Chambers, Naomi Nagy, Aaron Dinkin, Belén Méndez-Naya, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Ailís Cournane, Alexandra D'Arcy, Laurence Horn, Heather Burnett, Derek Denis, Bridget L. Jankowski, the LVC Research Group at the University of Toronto, and four anonymous reviewers for their extensive input and guidance. I also thank my audiences at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (Portland, Oregon, January 8–11, 2015), Michigan State University (October 6, 2016), New Ways of Analyzing Variation 45 (Vancouver, British Columbia, November 3–6, 2016), and the University of Victoria (September 28, 2017). Finally, I would like to thank the many research assistants who have collected, transcribed, and managed the data employed here. Any remaining errors are mine alone. Portions of this work have appeared as Brook (2016, 2017).

References

REFERENCES

Aaron, Jessi Elana. (2010). Pushing the envelope: Looking beyond the variable context. Language Variation and Change 22:1–36.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. (2009). Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language 16:63–88.Google Scholar
Algeo, John. (1988). British and American grammatical differences. International Journal of Lexicography 1:1–31.Google Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. (2014). AntConc (version 3.3.5). Tokyo: Waseda University. Available at: http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/. Accessed March 23, 2014.Google Scholar
Ari-Gur, Ran. (2016). Comment on Liberman, M.: “Feel that” has been disappearing. Posted May 3. Language Log. Available at: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=25513#comment-1512956. Accessed March 25, 2017.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash. (2002). Richard III. In Andronis, M., Debenport, E., Pycha, A., & Yoshimura, K. (eds.), CLS 38: The main session. Vol. 1. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 31–46.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash (2012). The logic of pronominal resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, & Toivonen, Ida. (2007). Copy-raising and its consequences for perception reports. In Zaenen, A., Simpson, J., King, T. Holloway, Grimshaw, J., Maling, J., & Manning, C. (eds.), Architectures, rules, and preferences: Variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 49–67.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, & Toivonen, Ida. (2012). Copy raising and perception. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30:321–380.Google Scholar
Bácskai-Atkári, Júlia, & Dekány, Éva. (2014). From non-finite to finite subordination. In Kiss, K. É. (ed.), The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 148–223.Google Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James N. (1973). Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Banfi, Emanuele. (1990). The infinitive in south-east European languages. In Bechert, J., Bernini, G., & Buridant, C. (eds.), Toward a typology of European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 165–184.Google Scholar
Bender, Emily, & Flickinger, Dan. (1999). Diachronic evidence for extended argument structure. In Bouma, G., Hinrichs, E., Kruijff, G.-J., & Oehrle, R. (eds.), Constraints and resources in natural language syntax and semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 3–19.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Brook, Marisa. (2011). Looks as if there's something interesting going on here: Comparative complementizers following perception verbs in Canadian English. MA thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Brook, Marisa. (2014). Comparative complementizers in Canadian English: Insights from early fiction. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20(2):article 2. Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss2/. Accessed October 8, 2014.Google Scholar
Brook, Marisa. (2016). Syntactic categories informing variationist analysis: The case of English copy-raising. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Brook, Marisa. (2017). A two-tiered change in Canadian English: The emergence of a streamlined evidential system. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 23(2):article 7.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, B. & Janda, R. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 602–623.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82:711–733.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle. (2004). Historical linguistics: An introduction. 2nd ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra. (2012). The diachrony of quotation: Evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 24:343–369.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra. (2015). At the crossroads of change: Possessions, periphrasis, and prescriptivism in Victoria English. In Collins, P. (ed.), Grammatical change in English world-wide. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 43–64.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alexandra. (2017). Discourse-pragmatic variation in context: Eight hundred years of LIKE. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008–). The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990 to present. Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Accessed November 2, 2014.Google Scholar
Davies, William D., & Dubinsky, Stanley. (2004). The grammar of raising and control. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
De Haan, Ferdinand. (2007). Raising as grammaticalization: The case of Germanic SEEM-verbs. Italian Journal of Linguistics 19:129–150.Google Scholar
Denis, Derek. (2015). The development of pragmatic markers in Canadian English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Denison, David. (1998). Syntax. In Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 4. 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 92–329.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele, & Smirnova, Elena. (2010). Evidentiality in German: Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron J. (2016). Variant-centered variation and the like conspiracy. Linguistic Variation 16:221–246.Google Scholar
Fujii, Tomohiro. (2007). Cyclic chain reduction. In Corver, N. & Nunes, J. (eds.), The copy theory of movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 291–326.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. (2010). The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott. (2010). An empirical view on raising to subject. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 25:83–110.Google Scholar
Hasty, J. Daniel. (2014). We might should be thinking this way: Theory and practice in the study of syntactic variation. In Zanuttini, R. & Horn, L. R. (eds.), Micro-syntactic variation in North American English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 269–293.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, & Tania, Kuteva (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. (1994). Layers of predication: The non-lexical syntax of clauses. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. (2003). Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. (1981). A pragmatic approach to certain ambiguities. Linguistics and Philosophy 4:321–358.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.) (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra. (2009). Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed–effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3:359–383.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. (1983). The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. (2014). English copy-raising constructions: Argument realization and characterization condition. Linguistics 52:167–203.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1:199–244.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1984). Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Baugh, J. & Sherzer, J. (eds.), Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. 22–66.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1. Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2001). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 2. Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. (2011). Prediction versus aboutness in copy-raising. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29:779–813.Google Scholar
Lappin, Shalom. (1983). Theta-roles and NP movement. In Sells, P. & Jones, C. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 13. Amherst: GLSA. 121–128.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. (1991). How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José, & Méndez-Naya, Belén. (2010). Looks like, seems like, sounds like: Emerging evidential markers? Paper presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the International Computer Archive for Modern English, Giessen, Germany, May 26–30.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José, & Méndez-Naya, Belén. (2012a). On comparative complementizers in English: Evidence from historical corpora. In Vázquez, N. (ed.), Creation and use of historical English corpora in Spain. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 311–333.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José, & Méndez-Naya, Belén. (2012b). On the use of as if, as though, and like in present-day English complementation structures. Journal of English Linguistics 40:172–195.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José, & Méndez-Naya, Belén. (2014). From clause to pragmatic marker: A study of the development of like-parentheticals in American English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15:36–61.Google Scholar
Los, Bettelou. (2005). The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mack, Jennifer Elaine. (2010). Information structure and the licensing of English subjects. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian, & Leech, Geoffrey. (2006). Current changes in English syntax. In Aarts, B. & McMahon, A. (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics. Malden: Blackwell. 318–342.Google Scholar
Maling, Joan. (1983). Transitive adjectives: A case of categorical reanalysis. In Heny, F. & Richards, B. (eds.), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles. Dordrecht: Foris. 253–289.Google Scholar
Martins, Ana Maria, & Nunes, Jairo. (2009). Syntactic change as chain reaction: The emergence of hyper-raising in Brazilian Portuguese. In Longobardi, G. & Crisma, P. (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 144–157.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. (1998). Convergent development, grammaticalization, and the problem of ‘mutual isomorphism’. In Boeder, W., Schroeder, C., Wagner, K. H., and Wildgen, W. (eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 89–103.Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. (2002). Tipping the scales: The syntax of scalarity in the complement of seem. Syntax 5:219–276.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. (1998). The syntactic phenomena of English. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. ([1912] 1948). L’évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12(26). Reprinted in Librairie Honoré (ed.), Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion. 76–102.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed. (2015). Look, v. P2.c.ii. Available at: http://www.oed.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/. Accessed May 9, 2016.Google Scholar
Park, Chongwon, & Turner, Daniel. (2017). When Richard met CG: Reference point and English copy-raising. Language and Cognition 9:473–500.Google Scholar
Poortvliet, Marjolein. (2016). Copy raising in English, German, and Dutch: Synchrony and diachrony. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28:370–402.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (1974). On raising: One rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric, & Runner, Jeffrey T. (2001). Richard returns: Copy-raising and its implications. In Andronis, M., Ball, C., Elston, H., & Neuvel, S. (eds.), CLS 37: The main session. Vol. 1. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 453–468.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica, & Hyams, Nina. (2014). The acquisition of syntactically encoded evidentiality. Language Acquisition 21:173–198.Google Scholar
Rett, Jessica, Hyams, Nina, & Winans, Lauren. (2013). The effects of syntax on the acquisition of evidentiality. In Baiz, S., Goldman, N., & Hawkes, R. (eds.), Proceedings from the 37th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. 345–357.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. (2007). Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Louro, Celeste, & Harris, Thomas. (2013). Evolution with an attitude: The grammaticalisation of epistemic/evidential verbs in Australian English. English Language and Linguistics 17:415–443.Google Scholar
Rogers, Andy. (1971). Three kinds of physical perception verbs. In Adams, D., Campbell, M. A., Cohen, V., Lovins, J., Maxwell, E., Nygren, C., & Reighard, J. (eds.), Papers from the seventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 206–222.Google Scholar
Rogers, Andy. (1974). Physical perception verbs in English: A study in lexical relatedness. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. (1995). On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 76:367–388.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. (2006). The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In Dalton-Puffer, C., Kastovsky, D., Ritt, N., & Schendl, H. (eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang. 143–166.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. (1984). On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory. Folia Linguistica 18:409–437.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. (2000). Configurations of sentential complementation: Perspectives from Romance languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, José, & Spooren, Wilbert. (1996). Subjectivity and certainty in epistemic modality: A study of Dutch epistemic modifiers. Cognitive Linguistics 7:241–264.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, & Thibault, Pierrette. (1981). Weak complementarity: Tense and aspect in Montreal French. In Johns, B. B. & Strong, D. R. (eds.), Syntactic change. Vol. 25. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 205–216.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (1996–1998). Roots of identity: Variation and grammaticization in contemporary British English. Research grant #R000221842, Economic and Social Sciences Research Council (ESRC) of Great Britain.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (1998). Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change 10:153–191.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2002). Comparative sociolinguistics. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2003–2006). Linguistic changes in Canada entering the 21st century. Research grant #410-2003-0005, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC),Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2006a). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2006b). “So cool, right?” Canadian English entering the 21st century. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51:309–331.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2007–2010). Directions of change in Canadian English. Research grant #410-070-048, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC).Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2010–2013). Transmission and diffusion in Canadian English. Research grant #410-101-129, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC).Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2012). Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. (2014). System and society in the evolution of change: The view from Canada. In Green, E. & Meyers, C. F. (eds.), The variability of current world Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 199–238.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., & Denis, Derek. (2014). Expanding the transmission/diffusion dichotomy: Evidence from Canada. Language 90:90–136.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., & Poplack, Shana. (1993). The zero-marked verb: Testing the creole hypothesis. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 8:171–206.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., & Smith, Jennifer. (2005). No momentary fancy! The zero “complementizer” in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 9:289–309.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R., & Pang, Kam-Yiu S. (2008). Seeing as though. English Language and Linguistics 12:103–139.Google Scholar
Terzi, Arhonto. (1992). Control in finite clauses: A study in the inflectional heads of the Balkan languages. Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Terzi, Arhonto. (1997). PRO and null case in finite clauses. Linguistic Review 14:335–360.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. (2002). “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26:125–164.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., & Mulac, Anthony. (1991a). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15:237–251.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., & Mulac, Anthony. (1991b). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. 2. Focus on types of grammatical markers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 313–329.Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. (1998). Checking, economy, and copy-raising in Igbo. Linguistic Analysis 28:67–88.Google Scholar
Van Egmond, Marie-Elaine. (2004). Copy raising in Dutch. Undergraduate honors thesis, University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Wallenberg, Joel C. (2016). Extraposition is disappearing. Language 92:e237–e256.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, & Herzog, Marvin. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. 95–188.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard J. (2015). On the grammaticalization of inferential evidential meaning: English seem and German scheinen. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 20:233–271.Google Scholar