New Research in Linguistics and English Language
Argument structure
To appear in Günter Rohdenburg & Julia Schlüter (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 149-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (in press, 2008).
Abstract
This paper explores the recent reversal in the subcategorisation of the verb substitute, such that where older standard speakers might say (1), many young people would now express the same meaning with (2):
(1) We must substitute renewable energy sources for fossil fuels.
(2) We must substitute fossil fuels for renewable energy sources.
How could this reversal have come about? The paper briefly examines dictionary evidence and the strictures of prescriptive grammarians, who have so far complained – for over 80 years! – only about the replace-like usage seen in (3):
(3) We must substitute fossil fuels with renewable energy sources.
Then the historical relationships among (1)-(3) are examined. Other verbs with alternating usage (e.g. present a prize to the winner vs. present the winner with a prize) are discussed. A detailed survey is made of data on substitute in the British National Corpus, and the register of sport is shown to behave rather differently from other registers. The reversal is speculatively but plausibly linked to the introduction of technical substitution in soccer in 1966/7 as well as to iconicity. Usage in the American National Corpus is compared, and the much lower incidence of the reversal in America is evaluated and explained.
Date Published
15 November, 2007
Author(s)
David Denison
- Argument structure (, 77 KB)