1887
Volume 30, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper explores diachronic shifts in the literal and intensifying uses of ‘dead’ in the Dutch fake reflexive resultative construction. Without sufficient context, a clause like (lit. ‘He worked himself dead’) is ambiguous in that it is unclear whether expresses an actual result of the activity denoted by the verb or whether it intensifies that verbal activity. We will investigate shifts in the (relative) type and token frequencies of both subtypes over the last two centuries and show that the intensifying use has become predominant. Particular attention is paid to the notion of productivity, which may help us to elucidate the possible pathways along which – in its function as an intensifier – is moving. By taking into account the variety of verbs that has occurred with since the early 19th Century, we aim to assess whether the dramatic increase in relative frequency of intensifying is paralleled by a concomitant extension of its collocational range or, conversely, whether this increase in frequency is mainly due to the rise of some highly frequent collocations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.04gys
2016-12-19
2018-09-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Delpher = The online database of digitized Dutch newspapers from 1618–1995. Available atwww.delpher.nl/kranten
  2. SoNaR = 500 million word Dutch reference corpus; see opensonar.inl.nl and Oostdijk et al. (2013)
  3. Van Dale = Boon, Ton den , and Dirk Geeraerts 2005Van Dale: Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal: 3 Dl. (14e dr.). Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. WNT = Online version of Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal , made available atwnt.inl.nlby theInstitute for Dutch Lexicology. Most recent version: 10th December 2015
  5. Aronoff, Mark
    1976Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baayen, Harald R.
    1990 “Corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar morfologische produktiviteit [Corpus-based research into morphological productivity].” Spektator19: 213–233.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1992 “Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity.” InYearbook of Morphology 1991, ed. by Geert Booij , and Jaap van Marle , 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑2516‑1_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2516-1_8 [Google Scholar]
  8. 1993 “On Frequency, Transparency and Productivity.” InYearbook of Morphology 1992, ed. by Geert Booij , and Jaap van Marle , 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3710‑4_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3710-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2009 “Corpus Linguistics in Morphology: Morphological Productivity.” InCorpus Linguistics. An International Handbook., ed. by Anke Lüdeling , and Merja Kytö , 900–919. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110213881.2.899
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.899 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baayen, Harald R. , and Rochelle Lieber
    1991 “Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus-based Study.” Linguistics29 (5): 801–844. doi: 10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  11. Barðdal, Jóhanna , and Spike Gildea
    2015 “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications.” InDiachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea , 1–49. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.18.01bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.01bar [Google Scholar]
  12. Barðdal, Jóhanna , Kristian Emil Kristoffersen , and Andreas Sveen
    2011 “West Scandinavian Ditransitives as a Family of Constructions: With a Special Attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP Construction.” Linguistics49 (1): 53–104. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Barðdal, Jóhanna
    2008Productivity Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  14. Boas, Hans C.
    2003A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bolinger, Dwight L.
    1972Degree words. Den Haag: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110877786
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877786 [Google Scholar]
  16. Booij, Geert
    1977Dutch Morphology. A Study of Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Broekhuis, Hans , Norbert Corver , and Riet Vos
    2015Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases Vol 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. doi: 10.5117/9789089647313
    https://doi.org/10.5117/9789089647313 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bybee, Joan
    1985Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1988 “Morphology as Lexical Organization.” InTheoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, ed. by Michael Hammond , and Michael Noonan , 119–141. London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cappelle, Bert
    2014 “Conventional Combinations in Pockets of Productivity: English Resultatives and Dutch Ditransitives Expressing Excess.” InExtending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart , Timothy Colleman , and Gijsbert Rutten , 251–282. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Colleman, Timothy , and Bernard De Clerck
    2011 “Constructional Semantics on the Move: On Semantic Specialization in the English Double Object Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics22: 183–209. doi: 10.1515/cogl.2011.008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.008 [Google Scholar]
  22. Colleman, Timothy
    2015 “Constructionalization and Post-constructionalization: The Constructional Semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive from a Diachronic Perspective.” InDiachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea , 213–255. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.18.07col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.07col [Google Scholar]
  23. Croft, William
    2003 “Lexical rules vs. constructions: A False Dichotomy.” InMotivation in Language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens , Thomas Berg , René Dirven , and Klaus-Uwe Panther , 49–68. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  24. De Clerck, Bernard , and Timothy Colleman
    2013 “From Noun to Intensifier: massa and massa’s in Flemish Varieties of Dutch.” Language Sciences36: 147–160. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  25. Diewald, Gabriele
    2002 “A Model for Relevant Types of Contexts in Grammaticalization.” InNew Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald , 103–120. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.49.09die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.09die [Google Scholar]
  26. Espinal, Teresa M. , and Jaume Mateu
    2010 “On Classes of Idioms and Their Interpretation.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (5): 1397–1411. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.016 [Google Scholar]
  27. Everaert, Martin , and Alexis Dimitriadis
    2013On Reflexive Resultatives. Lecture given at the Workshop Secondary Predication in Formal Frameworks at Utrecht University on 27 May 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2013 “Constructionist Approaches.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldberg, Adele E. , and Ray Jackendoff
    2004 “The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions.” Language80 (3): 532–568. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  31. Goodman, Leo A. , and William H. Kruskal
    1954 “Measure of Association for Cross Classifications.” Journal of the American Statistical Association49 (268): 732–764.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gould, Madelyn S.
    2001 “Suicide and the Media.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences932 (1): 200–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.2001.tb05807.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05807.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Gyselinck, Emmeline , and Timothy Colleman
    . In press. “ Je dood vervelen of je te pletter amuseren? Het intensiverende gebruik van de pseudo-reflexieve resultatiefconstructie in hedendaags Belgisch en Nederlands Nederlands [ Je dood vervelen or je te pletter amuseren? The intensifying use of the pseudo-reflexive resultative construction in present-day Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch].” Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en GeschiedenisLXX.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Heine, Bernd
    2002 “On the Role of Context in Grammaticalization.” InNew Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald , 83–101. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  35. Hilpert, Martin
    2013Constructional Change in English : Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  36. Himmelmann, Nikolaus
    2004 “Lexicalization and Grammaticization: Opposite or Orthogonal?” InWhat Makes Grammaticalization – A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components, ed. by Walter Bisang , Nikolaus Himmelmann , and Björn Wiener , 19–40. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hiramatsu, Keijiro
    2003 “Fake Reflexive Objects and Run Verbs.” Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics8: 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hoeksema, Jack
    2012 “Elative Compounds in Dutch: Properties and Developments.” InIntensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverbien im Sprachvergleich [Cross-linguistic comparison of intensified adjectives and adverbs], ed. by Guido Oebel , 97–142. Hamburg: Verlag dr. Kovač.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Huang, James
    2006 “Resultatives and Unaccusatives: a Parametric View.” Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan2006: 1–43. doi: 10.7131/chuugokugogaku.2006.1
    https://doi.org/10.7131/chuugokugogaku.2006.1 [Google Scholar]
  40. Iwata, Seizi
    2006 “Argument Resultatives and Adjunct Resultatives in a Lexical Constructional Account: The Case of Resultatives with Adjectival Result Phrases.” Language Sciences28 (5): 449–496. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2005.04.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2005.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Jackendoff, Ray
    1997 “Twisting the Night Away.” Language73: 534–559. doi: 10.2307/415883
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415883 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kiss, Katalin É.
    2006 “The Function and the Syntax of the Verbal Particle.” InEvent Structure and the Left Periphery – Studies on Hungarian, ed. by Katalin É. Kiss , 17–55. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑4755‑8_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4755-8_2 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kudo, Shun
    2011 “A Comparative Study between Resultative Constructions and Body Part Off Constructions.” Tsubaka English Studies29: 169–185.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lorenz, Gunter
    2002 “ Really Worthwhile or Not Really Significant? A Corpus-based Approach to Delexicalization and Grammaticalization of Intensifiers in Modern English.” InNew Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer , and Gabriele Diewald , 143–161. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.49.11lor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.11lor [Google Scholar]
  45. Luzondo-Oyon, Alba
    2014 “Constraining Factors on the Family of Resultative Constructions.” Review of Cognitive Linguistics12: 30–63. doi: 10.1075/rcl.12.1.02luz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.12.1.02luz [Google Scholar]
  46. Margerie, Hélène
    2011 “Grammaticalising Constructions: To Death as a Peripheral Degree Modifier.” Folia Linguistica Historica32 (1): 115–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Méndez-Naya, Belén
    2003 “On Intensifiers and Grammaticalization: The Case of swithe .” English Studies84 (4): 372–391. doi: 10.1076/enst.84.4.372.17388
    https://doi.org/10.1076/enst.84.4.372.17388 [Google Scholar]
  48. Müller, Stefan
    2006 “Phrasal or Lexical Constructions?” Language82 (4): 850–883. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0213
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0213 [Google Scholar]
  49. Napoli, Donna J. , and Jack Hoeksema
    2009 “The Grammatical Versatility of Taboo Terms.” Studies in Language33 (3): 612–643. doi: 10.1075/sl.33.3.04nap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.3.04nap [Google Scholar]
  50. Oostdijk, Nelleke , Martin Reynaert , Veronique Hoste , and Ineke Schuurman
    2013 “The Construction of a 500 Million Word Reference Corpus of Contemporary Written Dutch.” InEssential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch: Results by the STEVIN-project, ed. by Peter Spijns , and Jan Odijk . 219–247. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑30910‑6_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30910-6_13 [Google Scholar]
  51. Partington, Alan
    1993 “Corpus Evidence of Language Change: The Case of the Intensifier.” InText and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker , Gill Francis , and Elena Tognini-Bonelli , 177–192. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.64.12par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.12par [Google Scholar]
  52. Phillips, David P.
    1974 “The Influence of Suggestion on Suicide: Substantive and Theoretical Implications of the Werther Effect.” American Sociological Review39: 340–354. doi: 10.2307/2094294
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2094294 [Google Scholar]
  53. Rappaport Hovav, M. , and Beth Levin
    2001 “An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives.” Language77: 766–797. doi: 10.1353/lan.2001.0221
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0221 [Google Scholar]
  54. Sawada, Shigeyasu
    2000 “The Semantics of the ‘Body Part Off’ Construction.” English Linguistics17 (2): 361–385. doi: 10.9793/elsj1984.17.361
    https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj1984.17.361 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schultink, Henk
    1961 “Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen [Productivity as a morphological phenomenon].” Forum der Letteren2: 100–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 1962De morfologische valentie van het ongelede adjectief in Modern Nederlands [The morphological valency of the simplex adjective in Modern Dutch]. Den Haag: Van Goor.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Simpson, Jane
    1983 “Resultatives.” InPapers in Lexical-functional Grammar, ed. by Lori Levin , Malka Rappaport , and Annie Zaenen , 143–157. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Stack, Steven
    1996 “The Effect of the Media on Suicide: Evidence From Japan, 1955–1985.” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior26 (2): 132–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Stoffel, Cornelis
    1901Intensives and Down-toners: a Study in English Adverbs. Heidelberg: C. Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Torrent, Tiago T.
    2015 “On the Relation between Inheritance and Change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses.” InDiachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal , Elena Smirnova , Lotte Sommerer , and Spike Gildea , 173–211. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.18.06tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.06tor [Google Scholar]
  61. Traugott, Elizabeth C. , and Graeme Trousdale
    2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  62. Van de Velde, Freek
    2011 “Left-peripheral Expansion of the English NP.” English Language and Linguistics15 (2): 387–415. doi: 10.1017/S1360674311000086
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000086 [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Marle, Jaap
    1985On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Washio, Ryuichi
    1997 “Resultatives, Compositionality and Language Variation.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics6: 1–49. doi: 10.1023/A:1008257704110
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008257704110 [Google Scholar]
  65. Wechsler, Stephen , and Bokyung Noh
    2001 “Predication and Anaphora: Parallels Between Korean and English Resultatives.” Language Sciences23: 391–423. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00031‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00031-0 [Google Scholar]
  66. Zeldes, Amir
    2012Productivity in Argument Selection: From Morphology to Syntax. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110303919
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110303919 [Google Scholar]
  67. Zeschel, Arne
    2012Incipient Productivity: a Construction-Based Approach to Linguistic Creativity. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110274844
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274844 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.04gys
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.30.04gys
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error