A number of claims and counter‐claims which have been made concerning get‐passives in English are tested via interrogation of a set of written and spoken corpora. Get‐passives are shown to form a fuzzy set, with about one‐third of corpus tokens belonging to a ‘core’ whose members have an explicit or at least accessible agent‐phrase, a lexical verb with typically dynamic meaning, and which alternate with an active clause. Beyond the core there are a number of subclasses displaying progressively fewer features in common with core members. On the borderline of the set are copular constructions, with get a ‘resulting copula’ and the participle fully adjectivalized. The data suggest that get‐passives are very often associated with two types of pragmatic implicature: one, that the subject‐referent is responsible for initiating the process (very evident in the semantically‐related complex reflexive construction); the other, that the process is (usually) unfavourable or (less often) favourable for the subject‐referent. Finally, the corpus provides evidence of at least three types of variation with get‐passives: regional (their frequency is comparable in American English and British English, higher in Australian English than in both of these, and higher in Indian English than in Australian English); stylistic (they tend to be avoided in more formal styles); and diachronic (they are increasing in popularity over time in Australian English, and probably in the other varieties).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peter Collins (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: