Cover not available

Article published In: The Linguistic Expression of Mirativity
Edited by Agnès Celle and Anastasios Tsangalidis
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:2] 2017
► pp. 411–437

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Raising turn out in Late Modern English

The rise of a mirative predicate

 | University of Santiago de Compostela
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.2.05ser
Abstract
Present-day English turn out is used in several constructions with mirative and evidential overtones. Among these, the raised subject construction and the impersonal construction stand out. The current paper provides a diachronic account of the changes that led to the emergence of these constructions. It examines the semantic and syntactic configuration of turn out and the mechanisms whereby this verb developed evidential and mirative readings during the Late Modern English period. The record shows that turn out developed abruptly from a full lexical (predominantly resultative and change-of-state) control verb into a raising verb in the course of the eighteenth century. This change was triggered by a process of semantic generalization and subjectification whereby the verb acquired evidential and, most notably, mirative nuances. Analogy seems to have played an important role as well, since the evidence suggests that other constructions somewhat similar in form (syntactic structural usage) and meaning facilitated this process. The bulk of the data examined in this study were drawn from the Oxford English Dictionary and the Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evidentiality and mirativity
  • 3.A synchronic overview of mirative turn out constructions
    • 3.1Raised subject construction
    • 3.2Impersonal construction
  • 4.Diachronic development of mirative turn out
    • 4.1An abridged (early) history of turn out
    • 4.2On the path towards mirative turn out: Focus on Late Modern English
      • 4.2.1Sense I
      • 4.2.2Sense II
      • 4.2.3Sense III
    • 4.3Mirative turn out in CLMET3.0
      • 4.3.1Raised subject construction
      • 4.3.2Impersonal construction
  • 5.Summary and discussion
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Data sources
  • References
References (54)
Data sources
H. De Smet, H. J. Diller & J. TyrkköCLMET3.0 = The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0. H. De Smet, H. J. Diller & J. Tyrkkö. (2013). Available at: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
M. DaviesCOCA = The Corpus of Contemporary American English. M. Davies. (2008-). Available at: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
P. PetréEEBOCorp1.0 = Early English Books Online Corpus 1.0. P. Petré. (2013). Available at: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
M. Rissanen, M. Kytö, L. Kahlas-Tarkka, M. Kilpiö, S. Nevanlinna, I. Taavitsainen, T. Nevalainen, & H. Raumolin-BrunbergHC = The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. M. Rissanen, M. Kytö, L. Kahlas-Tarkka, M. Kilpiö, S. Nevanlinna, I. Taavitsainen, T. Nevalainen, & H. Raumolin-Brunberg. (1991).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
M. Huber, M. Nissel, P. Maiwald, & B. WidlitzkiOBC = The Old Bailey Corpus: Spoken English in the 18th and 19th centuries. M. Huber, M. Nissel, P. Maiwald, & B. Widlitzki. (2012). Available at: [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Available online at: [URL].
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 435–85. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boye, K. (2010). Raising verbs and auxiliaries in a functional theory of grammatical status. In K. Boye & E. Engberg-Pedersen (Eds.), Language usage and language structure (pp. 73–104). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P. (2007). Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language, 31(3), 569–606. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. (2008). The comment clause in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 261–272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornillie, B. (2007). Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (semi)auxiliaries: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cornillie, B. (2008). On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi)auxiliaries in Spanish. In E. Seoane & M. J. López-Couso (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization (pp. 55–76). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, H. (2009). Analyzing reanalysis. Lingua, 119(11), 1728–1755. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, H. (2010). Grammatical interference: Subject marker for and the phrasal verb particles out and forth . In E. C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (pp. 75–104). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1(1), 33–52. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369–382. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (2012). Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 529–564.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. (Eds). (2010a). Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, G., & Smirnova, E. (Eds). (2010b). Evidentiality in German: linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Standford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentens, C., Kimps, D., Davidse, K., Jacobs, G., Van Linden, A., & Brems, L. (2016). Mirativity and rhetorical structure. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents (pp. 125–56). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gipper, S. (2014). From inferential to mirative: An interaction-based account of an emerging semantic extension. In E. Coussé & F. von Mengden (Eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change (pp. 83–116). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gisborne, N., & Holmes, J. (2007). A history of English evidential verbs of appearance. English Language and Linguistics, 11(1), 1–29. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
González, M. J., & Maldonado, R. (1998). La perfectividad como fuente de contraexpectativas: Resulta que ‘x’ finalmente ‘y’ . In Memorias del IV encuentro de internacional de lingüística en el Noroeste (Vol. 21) (pp. 61–82). Hermosillo: Universidad Autónoma de Sonora.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Miyashita, H. (2008). Accounting for a functional category: German drohen ‘to threaten’. Language Sciences, 30(1), 53–101. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Olbertz, H. (2012). Didn’t you know? Mirativity does exist! Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 487–503. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, N. (2012). “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 389–433. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howe, C., & Heller, B. (2010). Turns out they weren’t much of a stretch: Variable patterns of structural persistence. Paper presented at 39th New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV 39), University of Texas at San Antonio, 4–6 November.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. (2013). The development of comment clauses. In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, & S. Wallis (Eds.), The verb phrase in English (pp. 286–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. (2015). Processibility. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics (pp. 117–142). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauwers, P., & Duée, C. (2011). From aspect to evidentiality: The subjectification path of the French semi-copula se faire and its Spanish cognate hacerse . Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 1042–1060. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazard, G. (1999). Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology, 3(1), 91–109. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López-Couso, M. J., & Méndez-Naya, B. (2014). Epistemic parentheticals with seem: Late Modern English in focus. In M. Hundt (Ed.), The syntax of Late Modern English (pp. 291–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López-Couso, M. J., & Méndez-Naya, B. (2015). Evidential/epistemic markers of the type verb + complementizer: Some parallels from English and Romance. In A. D. M. Smith, G. Trousdale, & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research (pp. 93–120). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olbertz, H. (2009). Mirativity and exclamatives in functional discourse grammar: Evidence from Spanish. In E. Keizer & G. Wanders (Eds.), The London papers I [Special issue]. Web Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar, 821, 66–82. [URL] (January 30, 2016)
Olbertz, H. (2012). The place of exclamatives and miratives in grammar: A functional discourse grammar view. Linguística, 8(1), 76–98.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petré, P. (2012). General productivity: How become waxed and wax became a copula. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 27–65. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rivero, M. L. (2014). Spanish inferential and mirative futures and conditionals: An evidential gradable modal proposal. Lingua, 151(B), 197–215. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Serrano-Losada, M. (2017). On English turn out and Spanish resultar mirative constructions: A case of ongoing grammaticalization? Journal of Historical Linguistics, 7(1/2).160–189.
Squartini, M. (2001). The internal structure of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 25(2), 297–334. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Squartini, M. (2004). Disentangling evidentiality and epistemic modality in Romance. Lingua, 114(7), 873–895. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1989). On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65(1), 31–55. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1997). Subjectification and the development of epistemic meaning: The case of promise and threaten . In T. Swan & O. J. Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 185–210). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 124–139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, J. (2011). I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics, 49(2), 295–332. doi:  Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963). An historical syntax of the English language: Syntactical units with one verb (Vol. 11). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Choi, Soonja, Florian Goller, Ulrich Ansorge, Upyong Hong & Hongoak Yun
2022. Lexical expressions and grammatical markers for source of information: A contrast between German and Korean. Language Sciences 92 ► pp. 101475 ff. DOI logo
Gentens, Caroline
2022. Parenthetical clauses and speech reporting: the case of shriek. Language Sciences 90 ► pp. 101460 ff. DOI logo
Serrano-Losada, Mario
2017. On Englishturn outand Spanishresultarmirative constructions. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7:1-2 ► pp. 160 ff. DOI logo
SERRANO-LOSADA, MARIO
2020. Analogy-driven change: the emergence and development of mirativeend upconstructions in American English. English Language and Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue