Investigating the impact of structural factors upon that/zero complementizer alternation patterns in verbs of cognition: a diachronic corpus-based multifactorial analysis
This corpus-based study examines the diachronic development of the that/zero alternation with nine verbs of cognition, viz. think, believe, feel, guess, imagine, know, realize, suppose and understand by means of a stepwise logistic regression analysis. The data comprised a total of (n=5,812) think, (n=3,056) believe, (n=1,273) feel, (n=1,885) guess, (n=2,225) imagine, (n=1,805) know, (n=1,244) realize, (n=2,836) suppose and (n=3,395) understand tokens from both spoken and written corpora from 1580–2012. Taking our cue from previous research suggesting that there has been a diachronic increase in the use of the zero complementizer form from Late Middle / Early Modern to Present-day English, we use a large set of parallel spoken and written diachronic data and a rigorous quantitative methodology to test this claim with the nine aforementioned verbs. In addition, we also investigate the impact of eleven structural features, which have been claimed to act as predictors for the use or presence of the zero complementizer form for ‘panchronic’ (i.e. effects are aggregated over all time periods) and diachronic effects. The objectives of this study are to examine the following: (i) whether there is indeed a diachronic trend towards more zero use; (ii) whether the conditioning factors proposed in the literature indeed predict the zero form; (iii) to what extent these factors interact; and (iv) whether the predictive power of the conditioning factors becomes stronger or weaker over time. The analysis shows that, contrary to the aforementioned belief that the zero form has been on the increase, there is in fact a steady decrease in zero use, but the extent of this decrease is not the same for all verbs. In addition, the analysis of interactions with verb type indicates differences between verbs in terms of the predictive power of the conditioning factors. Additional significant interactions emerged, notably with verb, mode (i.e. spoken or written data) and period. The interactions with period show that certain factors that are good predictors of the zero form overall lose predictive power over time.
Agresti, Alan. 2013. Categorical data analysis. Hoboken: Wiley.
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Toril Swan and Olaf Jansen Westwik eds. Modality in Germanic languages: historical and comparative perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1‒47.
Biber, Douglas and Jessie Egbert. 2016. Register variation on the searchable web: a multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 44: 95–137.
Biber, Douglas, Jesse Egbert and Mark Davies. 2015. Exploring the composition of the searchable web: a corpus-based taxonomy of web registers. Corpora 10/1: 11–45.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. That’s that. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: the role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda eds. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 602‒623.
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82/4: 711‒734.
Culpeper, Jonathan andMerja Kytö. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diessel, Holger and Michael Tomasello. 2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: a corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12: 97‒141.
Elsness, Johan. 1984. That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies 65: 519‒533.
Faraway, Julian. 2015. Linear models with R. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Finegan, Edward and Douglas Biber. 1985. That and zero complementisers in Late Modern English: exploring ARCHER from 1650‒1990. In Bas Aarts and Charles F. Meyer eds. The verb in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 241‒257.
Fischer, Olga. 2007. The development of English parentheticals: a case of grammaticalization? In Ute Smit, Stefan Dollinger, Julia Hüttner, Gunther Kaltenböck and Ursula Lutzky eds. Tracing English through time: explorations in language variation. Vienna: Braumüller, 99‒114.
Fox, John. 2003. Effect displays in R for generalized linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 32/1: 1–27.
Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4: 333‒377.
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Isomorphism in the grammatical code. In John Haiman ed. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 47–76.
Gorrell, Joseph Hendren. 1895. Indirect discourse in Anglo-Saxon. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 10: 342‒485.
Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen, Otto H. 1954. A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part III: Syntax. Vol. II. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2006. ‘... That is the question’: complementizer omission in extraposed that-clauses. English Language and Linguistics 10: 371–396.
Kearns, Kate. 2007a. Epistemic verbs and zero complementizer. English Language and Linguistics 11: 475‒505.
Kearns, Kate. 2007b. Regional variation in the syntactic distribution of null finite complementizer. Language Variation and Change 19: 295–336.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol II: Descriptive application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Noonan, Michael. 1985. Complementation. In Timothy Shopen ed. Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II: Complex constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42‒140.
Palander-Collin, Minna. 1999. Grammaticalization and social embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
R Core Team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rissanen, Matti. 1991. On the history of that/zero as object clause links in English. In Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg eds. English corpus linguistics: studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman, 272‒289.
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7: 149‒182.
Shank, Christopher, Koen Plevoets and Hubert Cuyckens. 2014. A diachronic corpus-based multivariate analysis of ‘I think that’ vs. ‘I think zero’. In Dylan Glynn and Justyna A. Robinson eds. Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 279–303.
Tagliamonte, Sali and Jennifer Smith. 2005. No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 9: 289‒309.
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26: 125‒164.
Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991a. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237‒251.
Thompson, Sandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991b. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine eds. Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 313‒329.
Torres Cacoullos, Rena and James A. Walker. 2009. On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: a variationist study of that. Linguistics 47: 1‒43.
Venables, William N. and Brian D. Ripley. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. New York: Springer.
Warner, Anthony R. 1982. Complementation in Middle English and the methodology of historical syntax. A study of the Wyclifite Sermons. London: Croom Helm.
Yaguchi, Michiko. 2001. The function of the non-deictic that in English. Journal of Pragmatics 33/7: 1125‒1155.
A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560‒1760. 2006. Kytö, Merja and Jonathan Culpeper comps.
American National Corpus Project. 2002–2015.
Corpus of Early Modern English Texts. 2005. De Smet, Hendrik comp.
Innsbruck Computer Archive of Machine-Readable English Texts. ICAME. CD-ROM version. 1999. Markus, Manfred comp.
London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English. 1990. Jan Svartvik comp.
Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Text version. 2006. Nevalainen, Terttu, Helena Raumolin- Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin and Ann Taylor comps.
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.
The Corpus of Contemporary American English. 1990‒present. Davies, Mark. (2008–).
The Corpus of Historical American English: 1810‒2009. 2010–. Davies, Mark. (2007–).
The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (extended version). 2006. De Smet, Hendrik comp.
The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts. 1999. Schmied, Josef, Claudia Claridge and Rainer Siemund comps.
The Old Bailey Corpus. Spoken English in the 18th and 19th centuries. 2012. Huber, Magnus, Magnus Nissel, Patrick Maiwald and Bianca Widlitzki comps.
TIME Magazine Corpus. 1920s-2000s. Davies, Mark. (2007–).
Submission of your paper to this journal implies that the paper is not under submission for publication elsewhere. Material which has been previously copyrighted, published, or accepted for publication will not be considered for publication in this journal. Submission of a manuscript is interpreted as a statement of certification that no part of the manuscript is copyrighted by any other publisher nor is under review by any other formal publication. By submitting your manuscript to us, you agree on these copyright guidelines. It is your responsibility to ensure that your manuscript does not cause any copyright infringements, defamation, and other problems.
Submitted papers are assumed to contain no proprietary material unprotected by patent or patent application; responsibility for technical content and for protection of proprietary material rests solely with the author(s) and their organizations and is not the responsibility of the journal or its editorial staff. The main author is responsible for ensuring that the article has been seen and approved by all the other authors. It is the responsibility of the author to obtain all necessary copyright release permissions for the use of any copyrighted materials in the manuscript prior to the submission.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the BY Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal
Article submission implies author agreement with this policy.