This paper is concerned with the use of the internet in linguistic research. The phenomenon under investigation is the get-passive. In a first step, I will outline reasons for and problems with using the web as a linguistic corpus. After this, I will explain the linguistic phenomenon “get-passive”, taking into account the debate on the term itself, typical characteristics of the get-passive and its diachronic development. The next step will be the description and analysis of the WebCorp study on get-passives as opposed to be-passives. In this way, I hope to be able to show whether the constraints traditionally attributed to get-passives, in particular animacy of the subject, are still in force, or in how far they are lessening, possibly making the get-passive an equivalent contestant to the be-passive. Differences between British and American English will be examined in order to find out whether either variant is more advanced.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Using the World Wide Web as a linguistic corpus
3. The linguistic phenomenon under investigation: the get-passive
3.1. Is the get-passive a true passive?
3.2. Typical characteristics of get-passives
3.3. The diachronic development of get-passives
4. WebCorp Study on the get-passive as opposed to the be-passive
4.1. Research questions
4.2. Methodology
4.2.1. Reasons for choosing WebCorp
4.2.2. The participles under investigation
4.2.3. WebCorp adjustments for the present study
4.2.4. Treatment of the WebCorp output
4.3. Analysis and results
4.3.1. Collocations with shot
4.3.2. Collocations with rejected
4.3.3. Collocations with asked
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography
Objectives and Research Themes
This paper examines the usage and constraints of the get-passive in contemporary English, specifically investigating whether traditional limitations regarding subject animacy are shifting. The study utilizes web-based corpus data to compare get-passive constructions against the be-passive across British and American English varieties to determine if the get-passive is becoming a serious grammatical rival.
- The role of the World Wide Web as a modern linguistic corpus.
- Theoretical debate surrounding the categorization and characteristics of the get-passive.
- Empirical analysis of get-passive vs. be-passive collocations (shot, rejected, asked).
- The impact of subject animacy and register on grammatical constructions.
- Comparative analysis of British and American English usage patterns.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2. Typical characteristics of get-passives
Colloquial style
According to most grammars of English, one of the main characteristics of the get-passive is its colloquial nature. Quirk et al. (1985:161) as well as Huddleston et al. (2003:1442) state that it is “avoided in formal style”, and Biber et al. (1999:481) maintain that get-passives are normally limited to conversation. The be-passive, in contrast, is said to be the more neutral variant.
Subject responsibility
There is also consent about the fact that get-passives focus more than be-passives on the subject of an action. Quirk et al. (1985:161) state that the get-passive “puts the emphasis on the subject rather than the agent, and on what happens to the subject as a result of the event”. Vanrespaille (1991:97) claims that the subject of the get-passive is often not a real patient but rather assigned a certain degree of agentivity or responsibility for what happens to him. That is also the reason why she and others maintain that inanimate subjects are rare with get-passives, namely because inanimate subjects are usually not compatible with the notion of responsibility. Hübler (1991:92-93) argues that the lexical meaning of get, namely to receive, already implies this focus on the subject: the subject receives an action coming to him.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the study, focusing on the get-passive phenomenon and the methodological approach using the World Wide Web.
2. Using the World Wide Web as a linguistic corpus: Discusses the advantages and disadvantages of using web data for linguistic research, including issues of replicability and lack of metadata.
3. The linguistic phenomenon under investigation: the get-passive: Explores the theoretical debate on whether the get-passive is a true passive, while defining key features like colloquial style, subject responsibility, and the emotive aspect.
4. WebCorp Study on the get-passive as opposed to the be-passive: Presents the methodology and empirical findings from analyzing specific participle collocations (shot, rejected, asked) in British and American newspapers.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the study's findings, confirming a slight lessening of constraints on the get-passive while noting its continued reliance on informal contexts.
6. Bibliography: Provides a list of cited linguistic sources and references used throughout the research.
Keywords
Get-passive, Be-passive, Corpus Linguistics, WebCorp, Inanimate Subjects, Linguistic Change, Subject Responsibility, Colloquial Language, British English, American English, Collocations, Emotive Aspect, Grammatical Innovation, Linguistic Research, Animacy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The paper focuses on the usage of the get-passive construction in modern English, specifically investigating whether the traditional constraints on inanimate subjects are becoming less rigid.
What are the central thematic areas?
The core themes include the grammatical nature of the get-passive, the utility of the World Wide Web as a linguistic resource, and the stylistic differences between get-passive and be-passive constructions.
What is the research question?
The study asks whether the constraints traditionally associated with the get-passive, particularly subject animacy, are lessening, and whether the get-passive is becoming a viable competitor to the be-passive.
Which methodology is employed?
The study uses the WebCorp tool to conduct a qualitative analysis of concordance lines, comparing the frequency of inanimate subjects in get-passive and be-passive collocations across two national varieties of English.
What does the main body cover?
The main body details the theoretical background of the get-passive, the setup of the WebCorp study, the systematic analysis of specific verbs like 'shot', 'rejected', and 'asked', and an interpretation of the collected results.
Which keywords define this work?
Essential keywords include get-passive, corpus linguistics, inanimate subjects, grammatical change, and language variation.
Is the get-passive considered a true passive auxiliary?
The paper highlights that there is scholarly debate on this topic, as the get-passive lacks some of the syntactic properties of traditional auxiliaries like 'be', such as not allowing for standard negation or inversion.
Why are inanimate subjects traditionally rare with the get-passive?
Inanimate subjects are considered rare because the get-passive often emphasizes subject responsibility or agentivity, and inanimate objects are generally viewed as incapable of bearing such responsibility.
Did the study find significant differences between British and American English?
The results show some indications that American English might be slightly more advanced in the usage of get-passives with inanimate subjects, though the findings varied depending on the specific collocation analyzed.
What role does the 'emotive aspect' play in this construction?
The emotive aspect, which includes connotations of adversity or remarkability, remains a defining characteristic of the get-passive, often requiring the subject to be in a situation that is viewed as significant or problematic by the speaker.
- Citation du texte
- Caroline Steinhoff (Auteur), 2008, The use of inanimate subjects with the get-passive: A WebCorp study, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/92647
