Variability in Clausal Verb Complementation: the Case of Admit

  • Hubert Cuyckens
  • Frauke D’hoedt
Chapter

Abstract

Descriptive surveys of clausal verb complementation in English (see, for instance, Quirk et al. 1985: 1170–220, Declerck 1991: 468–87, 501–13) show that different complement-taking predicates (CTPs) (or, matrix verbs) may combine with different complement types; in other words, that ‘the different complement types in a language distribute differently over the inventory of complement-taking predicates’ (De Smet 2013: 19). As such, the matrix verb ask takes the to-infinitive, while the verb anticipate combines with a gerundial -ing-clause.

Keywords

Matrix Clause Complement Clause Matrix Subject Complement Type Chicago Linguistic Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achard, M. (1998) Representation of Cognitive Structures: Syntax and Semantics of French Sentential Complements (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernaisch, T., S.T. Gries and J. Mukherjee (2014) ‘The Dative Alternation in South Asian Englishes: Modelling Predictors and Predicting Prototypes’. English World-Wide, 35: 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bresnan, J. (1970) ‘On Complementizers: Toward a Syntactic Theory of Complement Types’. Foundations of Language, VI (3): 297–321.Google Scholar
  4. Bresnan, J. (1979) Theory of Complementation in English Syntax (New York: Garland).Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  7. Croft, W. (2000) Explaining Language Change (London: Longman).Google Scholar
  8. Culpeper, J. and M. Kytö (2010) Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press).Google Scholar
  9. Cuyckens, H., F. D’hoedt and B. Szmrecsanyi (2014) ‘Variability in Verb Complementation in Late Modern English: Finite vs. Non-Finite Patterns’ in M. Hundt (ed.) Late Modern English Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 182–203.Google Scholar
  10. Declerck, R. (1991) A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English Resolution: Global (Kaitakusha).Google Scholar
  11. Denison, D. (1998). ‘Syntax’ in S. Romaine (ed.) Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 92–329.Google Scholar
  12. De Smet, H. (2008) ‘Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation’. Resolution: Global PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
  13. De Smet, H. (2012) ‘Review of Yoko Iyeiri. Verbs of Implicit Negation and Their Complements in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 223p. ISBN 978–90-272-1170-5.’ ICAME-Journal, 35: 138–43.Google Scholar
  14. De Smet, H. (2013) Spreading Patterns: Diffusional Change in the English System of Complemenation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  15. Dixon, R.W. (1991) A New Approach to English Grammar on Semantic Principles (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  16. Duffley, P. (1992) The English Infinitive (London: Longman).Google Scholar
  17. Duffley, P. (1999) ‘The Use of the Infinitive and the -Ing after Verbs Denoting the Beginning, Middle and End of an Event’. Folia Linguistica, XXXIII: 295–331.Google Scholar
  18. Fanego, T. (1996) ‘The Development of Gerunds as Objects of Subject-Control Verbs in English (1400–1700)’. Diachronica, XIII: 29–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fanego, T. (1998) ‘Developments in Argument Linking in Early Modern English Gerund Phrases’. English Language and Linguistics, 2: 87–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Felser, C. (1999) Verbal Complement Clauses (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer, O. (1995) ‘The Distinction between to and Bare Infinitival Complements in Late Middle English’. Diachronica, 12: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Givón, T. (1980) ‘The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements’. Studies in Language, 4: 333–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gries, S.T. (2012) ’statistische Modellierung’. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, 40: 38–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huber, M., P. Maiwald, M. Nissel and B. Widlitzki (2012) The Old Bailey Corpus. Spoken English in the 18th and 19th Centuries (http://www.uni-giessen.de/oldbaileycorpus, date accessed 15 June 2012).
  25. Langacker, R.W. (1991) Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2 (Stanford: Stanford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Langacker, R.W. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: a Basic Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Los, B. (2005) The Rise of the To-Infinitive (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mair, C. (2002) ‘Three Changing Patterns of Verb Complementation in Late Modern English’. English Language and Linguistics, 6: 105–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mair, C. (2003) ‘Gerundial Complements after begin and start: Grammatical and Sociolinguistic Factors, and how they work against each other’ in G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf (eds) Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 329–45.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, D.G. (2001) Nonfinite Structures in Theory and Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  31. Mindt, D. (2000) An Empirical Grammar of the English Verb (Berlin: Cornelsen).Google Scholar
  32. Noël, D. (2003) ‘Is There Semantics in All Syntax? The Case of Accusative and Infinitive Constructions vs. That-Clauses’ in G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf (eds) Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 347–77.Google Scholar
  33. Noonan, M. (2007) [1985] ‘Complementation’ in T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Vol. 2, Complex Constructions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 52–150.Google Scholar
  34. Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (London: Longman).Google Scholar
  35. Pinheiro, J.C. and D.M. Bates (2000) Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS (New York: Springer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing Resolution: Global (Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/).Google Scholar
  37. Radford, A. (1997) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  39. Rohdenburg, G. (1995) ‘On the Replacement of Finite Complement Clauses by Infinitives in English’. English Studies, 76: 367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rohdenburg, G. (1996) ‘Cognitive Complexity and Increased Grammatical Explicitness in English’. Cognitive Linguistics, 7: 149–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rohdenburg, G. (2006) ‘The Role of Functional Constraints in the Evolution of the English Complementation System’ in C. Dalton-Puffer, D. Kastovsky, N. Ritt and H. Schendl (eds) Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000 (Bern: Peter Lang), pp. 143–66.Google Scholar
  42. Rohdenburg, G. (2014) ‘On the Changing Status of That-Clause’ in M. Hundt (ed.) Late Modern English Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 155–81.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenbaum, P. (1967) The Grammar of English Predicate Complementation (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  44. Rudanko, J. (1998) Change and Continuity in the English Language: Studies on Complementation over the Past Three Hundred Years (Lanham, Md: University Press of America).Google Scholar
  45. Rudanko, J. (2000) Corpora and Complementation (Lanham, Md: University Press of America).Google Scholar
  46. Rudanko, J. (2006) ‘Watching English Grammar Change’. English Language and Linguistics, 10: 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rudanko, J. (2010) ‘Explaining Grammatical Variation and Change: a Case Study of Complementation in American English over Three Decades’. Journal of English Linguistics, 38: 4–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rudanko, J. (2012) ‘Exploring Aspects of the Great Complement Shift, with Evidence from the TIME Corpus and COCA’ in Terttu Nevalainen and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the History of English (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 222–32.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, M.B. (2002) ‘The Semantics of to-Infinitival vs.-ing Verb Complement Constructions in English’ (with J. Escobedo) in M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Helston, and S. Neuvel (eds) The Proceedings from the Main Session of the Chicago Linguistic Society’s Thirty-Seventh Meeting (Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society), pp. 549–65.Google Scholar
  50. Tagliamonte, S. and R.H. Baayen (2012) ‘Models, Forests, and Trees of York English: Was/Were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice’. Language Variation and Change, 24: 135–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Bogaert, J., C. Shank and K. Plevoets (forthcoming) ‘The Diachronic Development of Zero Complementation: a Multifactorial Analysis of the That/Zero Alternation with Think, Suppose, and Believe’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
  52. Vosberg, U. (2003) ‘The Role of Extractions and Horror Aequi in the Evolution of -ing Complements in Modern English’ in G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf (eds) Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 329–45.Google Scholar
  53. Warner, A. (1982) Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press).Google Scholar
  54. Wierzbicka, A. (1988) The Semantics of Grammar (Amsterdam: John Benjamins). CorporaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Old Bailey Corpus (OBC), pilot version, http://www.uni-giessen.de/oldbaileycorpus/ Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (CLMET 3.0), https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet3_0.htm

Copyright information

© Hubert Cuyckens and Frauke D’hoedt 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert Cuyckens
    • 1
  • Frauke D’hoedt
    • 2
  1. 1.KU LeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.KU Leuven/Research fund — FlandersBelgium

Personalised recommendations