Abstract
English verbs can combine with an object-like (or Objoid) element consisting of a possessive and a superlative. These Superlative Objoids do not add a participant to the event but function like manner adverbs (they work their hardest, i.e. they work extremely hard). This paper is the first to use diachronic evidence from a corpus of Late Modern American English to trace the recent history of Superlative Objoid Constructions (SOC). In particular, it aims to assess whether the construction has become entrenched to the extent that it can give rise to analogical extension. Secondly, the evidence is used to model, within the framework of Construction Grammar, the horizontal and vertical links between the SOC and its (potential) relatives in the constructional network of transitivity changing constructions.
Funding source: Spanish State Research Agency (AEI)
Award Identifier / Grant number: PID2020-114604GB-100
Funding source: Universitat de les Illes Balears – Oficina de Suport a la Recerca (Ref. UIBOSR- EST11/2022)
Award Identifier / Grant number: UIB grant 11/2022
-
Research funding: This work was supported by Spanish State Research Agency (AEI) (PID2020-114604GB-100) and Universitat de les Illes Balears – Oficina de Suport a la Recerca (Ref. UIBOSR- EST11/2022) (UIB grant 11/2022).
Corpora and databases
COCA = Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca (accessed 30 August 2022).Search in Google Scholar
COHA = Davies, Mark. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. https://www.english-corpora.org/coha/ (accessed 30 August 2022).Search in Google Scholar
OED online: Oxford English Dictionary online. http://www.oed.com (accessed 30 August 2022).Search in Google Scholar
References
Allerton, David J. 1982. Valency and the English verb. London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johannson, Geoffrey N. Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 2021 [1999]. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson.10.1075/z.232Search in Google Scholar
Bouso, Tamara. 2021. Changes in argument structure. The transitivizing reaction object construction. Peter Lang: Bern.Search in Google Scholar
Bouso, Tamara. 2022a. The English reaction object construction: A case of syntactic constructional contamination. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 65. 13–36. https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20226826.Search in Google Scholar
Bouso, Tamara. 2022b. Where does lexical diversity come from? Horizontal interaction in the network of the Late Modern English reaction object construction. English Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2022.2136873.Search in Google Scholar
Bouso, Tamara. Accepted. Towards a usage-based characterization of the English superlative object construction.Search in Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Diachronic linguistics. In Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 945–987. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions(1). 1–28.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2016. How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(1). 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394515000186.Search in Google Scholar
Eitelmann, Matthias & Britta Mondorf. 2018. Cognate objects in language variation and change. In Rita Finkbeiner & Ulrike Freywald (eds.), Exact repetition in grammar and discourse, 200–230. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110592498-009Search in Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa. 2019. A construction of independent means: The history of the way construction revisited. English Language and Linguistics 23(3). 671–699. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674318000059.Search in Google Scholar
Fokkema, Marjorie & Achim Zeileis. 2019. Package ‘glmertree’. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/glmertree/glmertree.pdf (accessed 30 August 2022).Search in Google Scholar
Fokkema, Marjolein, Julian Edbrooke-Childs & Miranda Wolpert. 2021. Generalized linear mixed-model (GLMM) trees: A flexible decision-tree method for multilevel and longitudinal data. Psychotherapy Research 31(3). 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2020.1785037.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics, and discourse factors. In Jan-Ola Östman & Miriam Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.3.03golSearch in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2014. Coll. analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses. http://www.stgries.info/teaching/groningen/index.html (accessed 30 August 2022).Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2021. (Generalized linear) mixed-effects modeling: A learner corpus example. Language Learning 71(3). 757–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12448.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2008. The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora 3(1). 59–81. https://doi.org/10.3366/e1749503208000075.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Martin Hilpert. 2012. Variability-based neighbor clustering: A bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 134–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0014Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri.Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1986. A comparative typology of English and German. Unifying the contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the noun phrase. Studying many a noun in COHA. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 233–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0022Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2019 [2014]. Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474433624Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 251–299. https://doi.org/10.2307/413757.Search in Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Laurie Bauer, Betty Birner, Ted Briscoe, Peter Collins, David Denison, David Lee, Anita Mittwoch, Geoffrey Nunberg, Frank Palmer, John Payne, Peter Peterson, Lesley Stirling & Gregory Ward. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2007. English mediopassive constructions: A cognitive, corpus-based study of their origin, spread, and current Status. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401203784Search in Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Carolin Strobl. In preparation. Tree-based approaches to variation in linguistics. A reply to Gries.Search in Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1909–1949. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110800524Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N., Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511642210Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Dilin. 2008. Intransitive or object deleting? Classifying English verbs used without an object. Journal of English Linguistics 36(4). 289–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424208317128.Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Möhlig, Ruth & Monika Klages. 2002. Detransitivization in the history of English from a semantic perspective. In Teresa Fanego & María José López-Couso (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology, 231–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.223.14mohSearch in Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1914–1929. A grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Search in Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1974. Sekundäre Subjektivierungen im Englischen und Deutschen. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zu Verb- und Adjektivsyntax. Bielefeld: Cornelsen-Velhagen & Klasing.Search in Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte & Elena Smirnova (eds.). 2020. Nodes and networks in diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.27Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste.Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2005. Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2020. The intertwining of differentiation and attraction as exemplified by the history of recipient transfer and benefactive alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 31(4). 549–578. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0042.Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1999. Transitivity. In Keith Brown & Jim Miller (eds.), Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories, 383–391. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar
Ungerer, Tobias. 2022. Extending structural priming to test constructional relations: Some comments and suggestions. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10(1). 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2022-0008.Search in Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik de Smet & Lobke Ghesquière. 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language 37(3). 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.01int.Search in Google Scholar
Velasco, Daniel García & Carmen Portero Muñoz. 2002. Understood objects in Functional Grammar. Universiteit van Amsterdam: Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication.Search in Google Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English Language, 4 volumes. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Jean Carletta, Gregory Garretson, Joan Bresnan, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Tatiana Nikitina, M. Catherine O’Connor & Tom Wasow. 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In Bonnie Webber & Donna Byron (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on Discourse Annotation, 118–125. Barcelona: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/1608938.1608954Search in Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2019. Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110633856Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2022-0088).
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
