대한언어학회 전자저널

Shin, Sungkyun. (2024). On the differences between American and British English with reference to get passive. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 32(3), 105-119. In the case of the diachronic change of the get passive, the history of the English language shows functional cyclicity of the language. The functional roles of Old English passives are divided into the two auxiliary verbs weorðan and beon/wesan, these being dynamic (unintentional and informal), and stative (intentional and formal), respectively. In Middle English, the usage of be with a past participle encompasses both formal (stative, intentional) and informal (dynamic, unintentional) functions. This stems from the loss of the auxiliary verb weorðan and the merging of the functional roles of beon/wesan and weorðan into be(on). In Early Modern English and Present-day English, the Bible versions representing British English, including the Revised English Bible (1989, 2010), show fewer examples of get constructions and get passives than the Bible versions representing American English, such as GNT (1976), NIV (2011) and NASB (1971, 1977, 1995, 2020). It might be concluded that the trend evident in get constructions and get passives spread from American English, characterized by informality and colloquiality, to British English, characterized by being formal and conservative.

# functional # cyclicity # diachronic study # get passive

• Bosworth, J. (1907). The Gospels. Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Wycliffe and Tyndale Versions. London: Gibbings and Company.
• Chomsky, N. (2012). Minimal recursion: Exploring the prospects. In T. Roeper and M. Speas. Recursion (Proceedings of the UMass conference on recursion). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua. 130, 33-49.
• Chomsky, N. (2015). Problems of projection: Extensions. In: Structures, Strategies, and Beyond, ed. Elisa Di Domenico et al, 3-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Chomsky, N. (2020). The UCLA Lectures. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005485.
• Chomsky, N. (2021). Minimalism: Where are we now, and where can we hope to go. Gengo Kenkyu, 160, 1-41.
• Chomsky, N. (2022). Genuine explanation and the strong minimalist thesis. Cognitive Semantics 8, 347-365.
• Chomsky, N. (2023). Noam Chomsky: The false promise of ChatGPT. The New York Times, March 8, 2023.
• Chomsky, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2002). On Nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chomsky, N., Gallego, Á. J., & Ott, D. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. CJL.lingbuzz/003507.
• Chomsky, N., Seely, T. D., Berwick, R. C., Fong, S., Huybregts, M. A. C., Kitahara, H., McInnerney, A., & Sugimoto, Y. (2023). Merge and the strong minimalist thesis. Published online by Cambridge University Press.
• Denison, D. (1993). English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. New York: Longman.
• Gabelentz, G. von der (2016)[1891; 1901]. Die Sprachwissenschaft: ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Herausgegeben von Manfred Ringmacher and James McElvenny. Berlin: Language Science Press. http://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/97
• Gelderen, E. van. (2022). Third factors in language variation and change. Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Gelderen, E. van. (2024). The linguistic cycle: Economy and renewal in historical linguistics. New York and London: Routledge.
• Grammar-Quizzes. https://www.grammar-quizzes.com.
• Granger, S. (1983). The 'be + past participle' construction in spoken English: with Special emphasis on the passive. (North-Holland Linguistics Series, 49.). Amsterdam/New York/Oxford: North-Holland.
• Jespersen, O. (1909-49). A modern English grammar on historical principles, 7 vols.(Repr. London, 1961.) Heidelberg/Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen: Carl WintersUniversitattsbuchhandlung,
• Mair, C., and G. Leech. (2006). Current change in English syntax. The handbook of English linguistics. ed. Bas Aarts and A. MacMahon. Oxford: Blackwell, 318-342
• Mitchell, B., & Robinson, F. C. (1992). A guide to Old English. Fifth Edition. Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell.
• New English Bible. (1970). Oxford and Cambridge: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press.
• New American Standard Bible. (1995) and (2020). The Lockman Foundation
• Petré, P., & Cuyckens, H. (2009). Constructional change in Old English and Middle English copular constructions and its impact on the lexicon. Folia Linguistica Historica, 30(2009), 311-366.
• Revised English Bible. (1989). Oxford and Cambridge: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press.
• Shin, S. (2017). A diachronic study of the English get passive. The Jungang Journal of English Language and Literature, 59(2), 239-259.
• Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• The American Bible Society. (1976). The good news translation. Philadelphia, PA: GNTD.
• The Committee on Bible Translation. (1978). New international version (Revised 1983). Traugott, E. C. (1972). A history of English syntax: A transformational approach to the history of English sentence structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
• Visser, F. Th. (1963-73). An historical syntax of the English language, 4 Volumes Leiden: E. J. Brill.