Cover not available
Part of
Changing Structures: Studies in constructions and complementation
Edited by Mark Kaunisto, Mikko Höglund and Paul Rickman
[Studies in Language Companion Series 195] 2018
► pp. 31–54

Passive permissives

Being let and allowed

| Hedmark University of Applied Sciences
The ‘let NP bare infinitive’ construction differs from other common permissive constructions, such as ‘allow NP to-infinitive’ and ‘permit NP to-infinitive’ in being exceedingly rare in the passive. That is, while somebody may well be ‘allowed to do’ something, they are very seldom ‘let do’ something. Even more seldom are they ‘let to do’ something. This chapter explores possible reasons for the rarity of both of these passive let constructions, which are contrasted with passive allow constructions. It is argued that the difference in distribution between the constructions with the two matrix verbs is related to two factors. The first is a difference in the sorts of force dynamic relations which they typically encode. The second is related to the difference in semantics between the two infinitive forms. The argument is supported by corpus data from both British and American English.
Keywords: permissives, causatives, force dynamics, enablement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constructions with active matrix verbs
  • 3.Constructions with passive matrix verbs
  • 4.Passive let in COCA
  • 5.Passive let in COHA
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.195.03ega
References (15)
References
Primary sources
The British National Corpus. 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.Google Scholar
The Corpus of Contemporary American English. < [URL]> (June 2016).Google Scholar
The Corpus of Historical American English. < [URL]> (June 2016).Google Scholar
Secondary sources
Carter, Ronald & McCarthy, Michael. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide: Spoken and Written English Grammar and Use. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Egan, Thomas. 2003. Distance and Direction: A Usage-based Study of Infinitive and -ing Complement Clauses in English [Acta Humaniora nr. 170]. Oslo: Unipub Forlag.Google Scholar
. 2008. Non-finite Complementation: A Usage-based Study of Infinitive and -ing Clauses in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Why are there so few let passives? In The Passive in Germanic Languages, Marc Fryd (ed.). Special issue of GAGL: Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik. < [URL]>Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Verhagen, Arie. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5(1): 115–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, 2009, 2nd edn [CD-Rom]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani. 2014. A new angle on infinitival and of -ing complements of afraid, with evidence from the TIME Corpus. In Corpus Interrogation and Grammatical Patterns [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 63], Kristin Davidse, Caroline Gentens, Lobke Ghesquière & Lieven Vandelanotte (eds), 223–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1986. Force dynamics as a generalization over ‘causative’. In Languages and Linguistics: The Interdependence of Theory, Data, and Application, Deborah Tannen & James E. Alatis (eds), 68–75. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, Audrey Jean & Martinet, Agnes V. 1986. A Practical English Grammar, 4th edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar