1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 16, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Little attention has been paid to the English Superlative Object Construction (SOC), as in . The historical grammarians Jespersen (1909–1949) and Poutsma (1904–1929) are the only ones who do touch on the SOC, and they do so in passing relying on what seem to be the prototypical examples of the construction. This empirical evidence, though valuable for a first characterisation of the pattern, is insufficient to provide a detailed analysis of the form, function, frequency, and distribution of the SOC in Present Day English from the perspective of Construction Grammar. Based on usage-based data from COCA, this paper argues that the SOC qualifies as an intensifying comparative construction. Despite being low frequent and showing a set of highly entrenched, lexicalised units (e.g., [X] [X] ), the SOC is relatively productive, especially in informal registers where the construction can be easily accommodated to serve emotive, phatic, and conative functions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22020.bou
2024-02-06
2024-12-05

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.22020.bou
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cf.22020.bou.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22020.bou&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Allerton, D. J.
    (1982) Valency and the English verb. Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
    (Eds.) (2000) Usage-based models of language. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Beland, N.
    (2022) The superlative alternation in British vs. American English: Questionnaire-based insights. InM. Krug, O. Schützler, F. Vetter, & V. Werner (Eds.), Perspectives on contemporary English: Structure, variation, cognition. Bamberg studies in English linguistics. Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D., Johannson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999/2021) Grammar of spoken and written English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.232
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.232 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bouso, T.
    (2012) Presupposition, persuasion and mag food advertising: A preliminary study. Odisea. Revista de Estudios Ingleses, 131, 19–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (2014) On the nonprototypical status of reaction objects and other nonsubcategorized objects. InE. Álvarez López, E. M. Durán Almarza, & A. Menéndez Tarrazo (Eds.), Building interdisciplinary knowledge. Approaches to English and American studies in Spain (pp.307–314). AEDEAN & KRK Ediciones.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (2017) Muttering contempt and smiling appreciation: Disentangling the history of the reaction object construction in English. English Studies, 98(2), 194–215. 10.1080/0013838X.2016.1210358
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2016.1210358 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2020) The growth of the transitivising reaction object construction: Constructions and Frames, 12(2), 239–271. 10.1075/cf.00041.bou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00041.bou [Google Scholar]
  9. (2021) Changes in argument structure. The transitivizing reaction object construction. Peter Lang. 10.3726/b17960
     https://doi.org/10.3726/b17960 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2022a) The English reaction object construction: A case of syntactic constructional contamination. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 651, 13–36. 10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20226826
     https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20226826 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2022b) Where does lexical diversity come from? Horizontal interaction in the network of the Late Modern English reaction object construction. English Studies, 103(8), 1334–1360. 10.1080/0013838X.2022.2136873
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2022.2136873 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bouso, T., & Ruano San Segundo, P.
    (2021a) Another turn of the screw on the history of the reaction object construction. Functions of Language, 28(2), 208–231. 10.1075/fol.20026.bou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20026.bou [Google Scholar]
  13. (2021b) The British Sentimental Novel Corpus (BSNC) and the ROC-DDC alternation at the level of the individual. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 20(1), 215–257.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cappelle, B.
    (2022) Only collect? How construction grammarians also link it all up. Abralin AO VIVO talk. Available at: https://tinyurl.com/5y26vkd5
  16. Davies, M.
    (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca (accessed30 August 2022)
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2010) The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. https://www.english-corpora.org/coha/ (accessed30 August 2022)
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Diessel, H.
    (2019) The Grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  19. Duffley, P. J., & Tremblay, R.
    (1994) The infinitive and the -ing as complements of verbs of effort. English Studies, 75(6), 566–575. 10.1080/00138389408598945
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00138389408598945 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ebeling, O. S.
    (2021) To score or to score a goal: Transitivity in football match reports. English Studies, 102(2), 243–266. 10.1080/0013838X.2021.1886676
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2021.1886676 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fanego, T.
    (1997) On patterns of complementation with verbs of effort. English Studies, 78(1), 60–67. 10.1080/00138389708599061
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00138389708599061 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2019) A construction of independent means: The history of the way construction revisited. English Language & Linguistics, 23(3), 671–699. 10.1017/S1360674318000059
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674318000059 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fernández, S. P., Gras, P., & Brisard, F.
    (2021) Semantic polyfunctionality and constructional networks: On insubordinate subjunctive complement constructions in Spanish. Constructions and Frames, 18(1), 82–125. 10.1075/cf.00048.fer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00048.fer [Google Scholar]
  24. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1968) The case for case. InE. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.1–89). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  30. González Díaz, V.
    (2008) English adjective comparison: A historical perspective. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.299
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.299 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gries, S. Th.
    (2014/2022) Coll.analysis 3.5/4.0. A Script for R to Compute Perform Collostructional Analyses. https://tinyurl.com/7vfx2eej (accessed28 July 2023)
  32. Gu, Q.
    (2017) A corpus-based comparative study on the superlative forms in British English and Singapore Colloquial English. Word, 63(4), 241–257. 10.1080/00437956.2017.1386892
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2017.1386892 [Google Scholar]
  33. Günther, C.
    (2018) The rich, the poor, the obvious: Arguing for an ellipsis analysis of “adjectives used as nouns.” InA. H. Leung & W. van der Wurff (Eds.), The noun phrase in English: Past and present (pp.77–112). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.246.04gun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.246.04gun [Google Scholar]
  34. Haspelmath, M.
    (1999) Why is grammaticalization irreversible?Linguistics, 37(6), 1043–1068. 10.1515/ling.37.6.1043
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.6.1043 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hilpert, M.
    (2008) The English comparative – language structure and language use. English Language & Linguistics, 12(3), 395–417. 10.1017/S1360674308002694
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674308002694 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2014) Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.391–404). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.15hil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.15hil [Google Scholar]
  38. (2014/2019) Construction Grammar and its application to English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2021) Ten lectures on diachronic construction grammar. Brill. 10.1163/9789004446793
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446793 [Google Scholar]
  40. Höche, S.
    (2009) Cognate object constructions in English. A cognitive-linguistic account. Gunter Narr Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hoffmann, T.
    (2018) Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 259–276. 10.1515/zaa‑2018‑0024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2018-0024 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2019a) English comparative correlatives: Diachronic and synchronic variation at the lexicon-syntax interface. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108569859
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108569859 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2019b) Language and creativity: A Construction Grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard, 5(1), 10.1515/lingvan‑2019‑0019
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0019 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hoffmann, T., & Bergs, A.
    (2018) A Construction Grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes, 181, 10.4000/cognitextes.1032
     https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.1032 [Google Scholar]
  45. Huddleston, R.
    (2002) Comparative constructions. InR. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.1097–1170). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.014
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014 [Google Scholar]
  46. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  47. Israel, M.
    (1996) The way constructions grow. InA. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.217–230). CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Ivorra Ordines, P.
    (2021a) Comparative constructional idioms. A corpus-based study of the creativity of the [más feo que X] construction. InC. Mellado Blanco (Ed.), Productive patterns in phraseology and construction grammar. A multilingual approach (pp.29–52). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110520569‑002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110520569-002 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2021b) Les construccions comparatives intensificadores de la lletjor en català, espanyol, anglès i francès des de les gramàtiques de construccions: Un estudi basat en corpus [Intensifying comparative constructions in Catalan, Spanish, English, and French from a construction grammar perspective: A corpus-based study]. Universitat Pompeu Fabra PhD dissertation.
  50. Ivorra Ordines, P., & Mellado Blanco, C.
    (2021) Más tontos que el novio de la Chelo. La intensificación de la estulticia en foros y chats por medio de comparaciones creativas: Una aproximación desde la gramática de construcciones [Más tontos que el novio de la Chelo. The intensification of stupidity in forums and chats through creative comparisons: A Construction Grammar approach]. Estudios Románicos, 301, 10.6018/ER.471241
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ER.471241 [Google Scholar]
  51. Jackendoff, R.
    (1990) Semantic structures. MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Jakobson, R.
    (1960) Linguistics and poetics. InT. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp.350–377). MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Jespersen, O.
    (1909–1949) A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Ejnar Munksgaard.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Kester, E.
    (1996) Adjectival inflection and the licensing of empty categories in DP. Journal of Linguistics, 32(1), 57–78. 10.1017/S0022226700000761
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700000761 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kogusuri, T.
    (2009) The syntax and semantics of reaction object constructions in English. Tsukuba English Studies, 281, 33–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. (2011) On the passivization of the gesture expression construction. Tsukuba English Studies, 291, 149–168.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Liu, D.
    (2008) Intransitive or object deleting? Classifying English verbs used without an object. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4), 289–313. 10.1177/0075424208317128
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424208317128 [Google Scholar]
  59. Martínez Vázquez, M.
    (1998) Effected objects in English and Spanish. Languages in Contrast, 1(2), 245–264. 10.1075/lic.1.2.08mar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.1.2.08mar [Google Scholar]
  60. (2015) Nominalized expressive acts in English. Verbum, 37(1), 147–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Massam, D.
    (1990) Cognate objects as thematic objects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 161–190. 10.1017/S0008413100013566
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100013566 [Google Scholar]
  62. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2004) Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  63. Möhlig, R., & Klages, M.
    (2002) Detransitivization in the history of English from a semantic perspective. InF. Fanego & M. J. López-Couso (Eds.), English historical syntax and morphology (pp.231–254). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.223.14moh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.223.14moh [Google Scholar]
  64. Mondorf, B.
    (2003) Support for more-support. InRohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B. (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp.251–304). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110900019.251
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019.251 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2016) Snake legs it to freedom: Dummy it as pseudo object. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(1), 73–102. 10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0071
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0071 [Google Scholar]
  66. Mondorf, B., & Schneider, U.
    (2016) Detransitivisation as a support strategy for causative bring. English Language & Linguistics, 20(3), 439–462. 10.1017/S1360674316000290
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000290 [Google Scholar]
  67. Nikiforidou, K.
    (2018) Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition, 25(3), 543–575. 10.1075/pc.18022.nik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18022.nik [Google Scholar]
  68. Östman, J.
    (2005) Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. InConstruction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.121–144). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  69. Perek, F.
    (2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  70. (2014) Rethinking constructional polysemy. InD. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp.61–85). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.03per
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.03per [Google Scholar]
  71. (2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  72. (2018) Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 65–97. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  73. Poutsma, H.
    (1904–1929) A grammar of Late Modern English: For the use of continental, especially Dutch, students. P. Noordhoff.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Simpson, J. A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. www.oed.com/
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Snell-Hornby, M.
    (1983) Verb-descriptivity in German and English: A contrastive study in semantic fields. Carl Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  78. (2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  79. Traugott, E. C.
    (2008) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. InR. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp.299–250). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110205398.3.219
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110205398.3.219 [Google Scholar]
  80. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  81. Ungerer, T.
    (2021) Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420. 10.1515/cog‑2020‑0016
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0016 [Google Scholar]
  82. Visser, F. T.
    (1963–1973) An historical syntax of the English language. Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Watanabe, A., & Iyeiri, Y.
    (2020) Explaining the variability of adjective comparatives and superlatives: Entering the twenty-first century. Word, 66(2), 71–97. 10.1080/00437956.2020.1751961
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2020.1751961 [Google Scholar]
  84. Zeschel, A.
    (2012) Incipient productivity: A construction-based approach to linguistic creativity. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110274844
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274844 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22020.bou
Loading
Towards a usage-based characterisation of the English Superlative Object Construction
Constructions and Frames 16, 100 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22020.bou
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22020.bou
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.22020.bou
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): distribution; frequency; intensifying comparative construction; productivity; Superlative Object Construction

Most Cited

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