1887
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article provides a principled constructionist account (Goldberg & Herbst, 2021) of the main characteristics of expressions like the following: (1) (‘Juan is very into (going to) bars’), and (2) (‘Your help is very much appreciated’). Instances of this kind are best handled in terms of coercion between the intensifier and non-stative/non-gradable elements in the nominal slot of the -PPs. Specifically, these combinations qualify as individual-level predicates with a characterizing, evaluative interpretation. The specific constructional interpretations in (1)–(2) arise from contextual adjustments (Carston, 2015), encoding a person’s habits and a potential modal deontic habituality, respectively. The semantic and pragmatic properties of the sub-constructions in (1)–(2), among others, can be adequately subsumed under a family of -PP constructions, with the following general meaning: ‘X (SOMEONE/SOMETHING) (SUBJECT) IS SUBJECTIVELY CONSTRUED AS HAVING Y (A HIGHLIGHTED CLASSIFICATORY PROPERTY OF AN INDIVIDUAL/CLASS) (ATTRIBUTE)’.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00153.gon
2023-06-06
2024-07-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baayen, R. H., & Lieber, R.
    (1991) Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29(5), 801–844. 10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives (Stanford Monographs in Linguistics). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bolinger, D. L.
    (1968) Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (1972) Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110877786
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877786 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bosque, I.
    (dir.) (2004) REDES. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: Ediciones SM.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Camus Bergareche, B.
    (2011) Restricciones aspectuales y la perífrasis soler + infinitivo. InJ. Cuartero Otal & L. García Fernández (Eds.), Estudios sobre perífrasis y aspecto (pp.120–138). München: Peniope – Verlaj Anja Urbanek.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions, SV1, 7, 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlson, G. N.
    (1977) Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachussets.
  9. Carston, R.
    (2015) Contextual adjustment of meaning. InN. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Semantics (pp.195–210). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Corpus del Español NOW
    Corpus del Español NOW. https://www.corpusdelespanol.org/now/
  11. Croft, W.
    (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  12. (2012) Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. De Vaere, H., Kolkmann, J., & Belligh, T.
    (2020) Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 1701, 96–111. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.016 [Google Scholar]
  14. Escandell-Vidal, M. V., & Leonetti, M.
    (2002) Coercion and the stage/individual distinction. InJ. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse (pp.159–179). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780585475295_011
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780585475295_011 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fernández-Leborans, M. J.
    (1999) La predicación: Las oraciones copulativas. InI. Bosque & V. Demonte (Dirs.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp.2357–2460). Madrid: RAE/Espasa.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fernández-Leborans, M. J., & Sánchez López, C.
    (2015a) Sentences as predicates: The Spanish construction <ser muy de + infinitive>. InI. Pérez-Jiménez, M. Leonetti & S. Gumiel-Molina (Eds.), New perspectives on the study of ser and estar (pp.85–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ihll.5.04fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.5.04fer [Google Scholar]
  17. (2015b) On events that express properties. InE. Barrajón, J. L. Cifuentes Honrubia & S. Rodríguez Rosique (Eds.), Verb classes and aspect (pp.238–263). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ivitra.9.11fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ivitra.9.11fer [Google Scholar]
  18. Fernández Ramírez, S.
    (1987) Gramática Española 4. El verbo y la oración. Madrid: Arco Libros.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N.
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 151, 289–316. 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldberg, A. E., & Herbst, T.
    (2021) The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics, 59(1), 285–318. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0274
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0274 [Google Scholar]
  22. González García, L.
    (2012) Estudio de las construcciones formadas por adjetivo + de + infinitivo (tipo difícil de entender). InT. E. Jiménez Juliá, B. López Moraima, V. Vázquez Rozas & A. Veiga (Eds.), Cum corde et in nova grammatica: Estudios ofrecidos a Guillermo Rojo (pp.383–397). Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2011a) Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1305–1358. 10.1515/ling.2011.037
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.037 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2011b) Looks, appearances and judgements: Towards a unified constructionist analysis of predicative complements in English and Spanish. InP. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp.264–293). London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2020) Metonymy meets coercion: The case of the intensification of nouns in attributive and predicative constructions in Spanish. InA. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (Figurative Thought and Language, 9) (pp.151–184). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.07gon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.07gon [Google Scholar]
  26. Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, E., & Pérez-Ocón, P.
    (2021) Un nuevo análisis de la construcción ser de + infinitivo en español europeo y americano. Revista del Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Españolas, 37(2), 621–649. 10.15581/008.37.2.621‑49
    https://doi.org/10.15581/008.37.2.621-49 [Google Scholar]
  27. Herbst, T.
    (2014a) The valency approach to argument structure constructions. InT. Herbst, H. Schmid & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions, collocations, patterns (pp.159–207). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110356854.167
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110356854.167 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2014b) Idiosyncrasies and generalizations: Argument structure, semantic roles, and the valency realization principle. InM. Hilpert & S. Flach (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Jahrbuchder Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kognitive Linguistik, Vol. II. (pp.253–289). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/gcla‑2014‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2014-0015 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2020) Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language: Moving towards colloconstruction grammar. Constructions and Frames, 12(1), 56–95. 10.1075/cf.00035.her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00035.her [Google Scholar]
  30. Herbst, T., & Uhrig, P.
    (2020) The issue of specifying slots in argument structure constructions in terms of form and meaning. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 341, 135–147. 10.1075/bjl.00041.her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00041.her [Google Scholar]
  31. Laporte, S., Larsson, T., & Goulart, L.
    (2021) Testing the Principle of No Synonymy across levels of abstraction. A constructional account of subject extraposition. Constructions and Frames, 13(2), 230–262. 10.1075/cf.00052.lap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00052.lap [Google Scholar]
  32. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2019) Paper 6: Construal. InE. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics – Foundations of language (pp.140–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110626476‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626476-007 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lyons, J.
    (1982) Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?InR. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp.101–124). New York: John Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Michaelis, L.
    (2011) Stative by construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1359–1400. 10.1515/ling.2011.038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.038 [Google Scholar]
  36. Moreno Cabrera, J. C.
    (1987) Aspectos lógico-sintácticos de los cuantificadores en español. InV. Demonte & M. Fernández Lagunilla (Eds.), Sintaxis de las lenguas románicas (pp.408–417). Madrid: El Arquero.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Morgan, J. L.
    (1973) Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. InB. B. Kachru, R. B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli & S. Saporta (Eds.), Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane (pp.719–751). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Peña Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
    (2022) Figuring out figuration. A cognitive linguistic account (Figurative Thought and Language, 14). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.14 [Google Scholar]
  39. Portero-Muñoz, C.
    (2022) “It’s way too intriguing!” The fuzzy status of emergent intensifiers: A Functional Discourse Grammar account. Open Linguistics, 8(1), 618–649. 10.1515/opli‑2022‑0210
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0210 [Google Scholar]
  40. RAE-ASALE
    RAE-ASALE (2009) Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: RAE/Espasa.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J.
    (2017) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.009 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2021) Ten lectures on cognitive modeling. Between grammar and language-based inferencing (Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics, 25). Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004439221
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004439221 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective (Human Cognitive Processing, 45). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  44. Salazar, V.
    (2002) La estructura estar + N en el marco general de las construcciones atributivas en español. Language Design, 41, 67–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sánchez López, C.
    (2002) Las construcciones con ‘se’. Estado de la cuestión. InC. Sánchez López (Ed.), Las construcciones con ‘se’ (pp.13–163). Madrid: Visor.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Scheibman, J.
    (2002) Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.11 [Google Scholar]
  47. (2007) Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. InR. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 164) (pp.111–138). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.06sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.06sch [Google Scholar]
  48. Torrego, E.
    (2006) Predication with characterizing sentences in Spanish. InB. Fernández & I. Laka (Coords.), Andolin gogoan. Essays in honor of professor Eguzkitza (pp.835–853). Bilbao: Publicaciones de la Universidad del País Vasco-EHU.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes (Oxford Studies in Diachronic Linguistics, 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Uhrig, P.
    (2015) Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 323–337. 10.1515/zaa‑2015‑0030
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0030 [Google Scholar]
  51. Verhagen, A.
    (2005) Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00153.gon
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00153.gon
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): coercion; gradability; intensifier; pragmatic adjustment; subjectivity
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