Abstract
While dummy it in subject position (It is raining) has received much scholarly attention, its use in object position has rarely been investigated. When considering examples such as to leg it, to snuff it, we are faced with the question of what motivates the occurrence of dummy it. Using corpus-based techniques that permit context-sensitive retrieval in historical data the present paper traces the development and distribution of dummy it with the aim of shedding new light on the role of transitivity in language change. The occurrence of non-referential it can be related to a series of (de-)transitivization processes that have recently been observed for weakly entrenched verbs or verb senses. Defining transitivity with Hopper and Thompson (1980: 251) as the effectiveness with which an action takes place, it is argued that one function of it is to enhance a verb’s transitivity by equipping it with a pseudo-object. Such moderately transitive uses have also been observed for other verbs that do not normally take direct objects, e.g. verbs occurring with cognate objects, way-constructions or reflexive structures. This article presents corpus-based findings showing that dummy it modulates transitivity in accordance with the changing entrenchment of the verb it is used with.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank the editors, Hubert Cuyckens and Martin Hilpert, as well as Günter Rohdenburg, Gunther Kaltenböck, Matthias Eitelmann, and Ulrike Schneider for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
References
Boas, Hans C. 2002. On the role of semantic constraints in resultative constructions. In Reinhard Rapp (ed.), Linguistics on the way into the third millennium: Proceedings of the 34th Linguistics Colloquium, Germersheim 1999. Part I, Text, meaning, and communication, 35–43. Frankfurt: Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Boyd, Adriane, Whitney Gegg-Harrison & Donna Byron. 2005. Identifying non-referential It: A machine learning approach incorporating linguistically motivated patterns. Traitement Automatique des Langues 46(1). 71–90.10.3115/1610230.1610238Search in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel & Elizabeth Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. (Research surveys in linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University.10.1017/CBO9780511615962Search in Google Scholar
Brown Corpus. 1961. ICAME collection of English language corpora. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. 2000. Valency change: Case studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511627750Search in Google Scholar
Eitelmann, Matthias & Britta Mondorf. forthc. The role of cognate objects in language variation and change. In: Finkbeiner, Rita and Ulrike Freywald (eds.) Exact repetition in grammar and discourse. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs). Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Gardelle, Laure 2011. Whoop her up, hit it, go it alone: The role of the personal pronoun in the fossilization process. In Koenraad Kuiper (ed.), Yearbook of phraseology, 163–178. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110236200.163Search in Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15(1). 85–114.10.1075/cilt.110.07givSearch in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. Introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–299.10.1353/lan.1980.0017Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1961. A modern English grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Search in Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2002. That’s It? On the unanticipated ‘controversy’ over anticipatory It: A reply to Aimo Seppänen. English Studies 83. 541–550.10.1076/enst.83.6.541.13560Search in Google Scholar
Kellner, Leon. 1913. Historical outlines of English syntax. London: Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Kilby, David A. 1984. Descriptive syntax and the English verb. London: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar
Kirchner, Gustav. 1951. A special case of the object of result. English Studies 32. 153–159.Search in Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2000. The development of complex reflexives and intensifiers in English. Diachronica 17(1). 39–84.10.1075/dia.17.1.04konSearch in Google Scholar
Kozinskij, Isaak Š. 1979. Nekotorye grammatičeskie universalii v podsitemax vyraženija subjektno-objektnyx otnošenij (Some grammatical universals in the subsystems of expression of subject and object relations). Dissertacija na soiskanie učenoj stepeni kandidata filologičeskix nauk. Moskva: MGU.Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1992. The way-construction and the semantics of direct arguments in English: A reply to Jackendoff. In Tim Stockwell & Eric Wehrli (eds.), Syntax and the lexicon, 179–188. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373181_011Search in Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2010a. Genre-effects in the replacement of reflexives by particles. In Heidrun Dorgeloh & Anja Wanner (eds.), Approaches to syntactic variation and genre, 219–245. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110226485.2.219Search in Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2010b. Causative verbs in British and American English. Paper Presented at the ICAME Conference, Giessen University, 26–30 May.Search in Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2011. Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change 22(3). 397–421.10.1017/S0954394510000165Search in Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2014. (Apparently) competing motivations in morpho-syntactic variation. In Edith A. Moravcsik, Andrej Malchukov & Brian MacWhinney (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 211–228. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta & Ulrike Schneider. forthc. The detransitivization of causative BRING. English Language and Linguistics. Special Issue on Support Strategies in Language Variation and Change.Search in Google Scholar
Ostrowski, Isabel. 2013. Leg it, floor it, move it: The distribution of dummy it – An empirical study. Mainz: Johannes-Gutenberg University Mainz, exam thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Peitsara, Kirsti. 1997. The development of reflexive strategies in English. In Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö & Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.), Grammaticalization at work: Studies of long-term developments in English, 277–370. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Persson, Jakob. 1975. Das System der kausativen Funktionsverbgefüge: Eine semantisch-syntaktische Analyse einiger verwandter Konstruktionen. Lund: LiberLäromedel.Search in Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Roger Lass (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language III, 187–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CHOL9780521264761.005Search in Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Zur Einführung und Behauptung lexikalischer Einheiten durch syntaktische Struktursignale im Englischen. In Edda Weigand & Franz Hundsnurscher (eds.), Lexical structures and language use, 105–117. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 205–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110900019.205Search in Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2009. Reflexive structures. In Günter Rohdenburg & Julia Schlüter (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 166–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511551970.009Search in Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1980. Ikonismus in Der Phraseologie. Zeitschrift für Semiotik 2. 39–56.Search in Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2001. Case studies in linguistic pragmatics: Essays on speech acts in Shakespeare, on the Bill of Rights, and Matthew Lyon, and on collocations and null objects. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Search in Google Scholar
Salkoff, Morris. 1988. Analysis by fusion. Linguisticae Investigationes 12(1). 49–84.10.1075/li.12.1.03salSearch in Google Scholar
Schiefke, Maren. 2009. Ambitransitivity in English and German: A corpus-based study in contrastive linguistics. Hamburg: Hamburg University, unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. In Lori Levin, Malka Rappaport & Annie Zaenen (eds.), Papers in lexical-functional grammar, 143–157. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Search in Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A history of English. London: Methuen.Search in Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-1150-8Search in Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S. 1986. Basic word order: Functional principles. London: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Th. 1963–73. An historical syntax of the English Language. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Corpora used
British National Corpus (BNC) 1995 BNC Consortium/Oxford University Computing ServicesSearch in Google Scholar
Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): (2008–) 450 million words, 1990-present. Compiled by Mark Davies (2008-). Available online athttp://corpus.byu.edu/coca/Search in Google Scholar
Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. Compiled by Mark Davies (20010-). Available online athttp://corpus.byu.edu/coha/Search in Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary copyright © 2012 by Merriam-Webster (www.Merriam-Webster.com) Springfield, MA: Merriam-WebsterSearch in Google Scholar
The Detroit Free Press on CD-ROM 1992–1995 [1992-1993: Dialog OnDisc. Dialog Information Services, Inc.; 1994–1995: Knight-Ridder Information, Inc.]Search in Google Scholar
The Guardian (including The Observer 1994–1997) on CD-ROM 1990–1997 Chadwyck-Healey, CambridgeSearch in Google Scholar
The Los Angeles Times on CD-ROM 1992–1995 [1992–1993: Dialog OnDisc. Dialog Information Services, Inc.; 1994–1995: Knight-Ridder Information, Inc.]Search in Google Scholar
The Oxford English Dictionary Online (22009). Oxford: Oxford University PressSearch in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
