Article published in:
Computational Construction Grammar and Constructional Change
Edited by Katrien Beuls and Remi van Trijp
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 30] 2016
► pp. 55–90

Tracking shifts in the literal versus the intensifying fake reflexive resultative construction

The development of intensifying dood ‘dead’ in 19th–20th Century Dutch

| Ghent University | FWO-Flanders
| Ghent University
This paper explores diachronic shifts in the literal and intensifying uses of dood ‘dead’ in the Dutch fake reflexive resultative construction. Without sufficient context, a clause like Hij werkte zich dood (lit. ‘He worked himself dead’) is ambiguous in that it is unclear whether dood 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 dood – in its function as an intensifier – is moving. By taking into account the variety of verbs that dood has occurred with since the early 19th Century, we aim to assess whether the dramatic increase in relative frequency of intensifying dood 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.
Published online: 10 January 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.04gys
References
Delpher The online database of digitized Dutch newspapers from 1618–1995. Available at www​.delpher​.nl​/kranten
SoNaR = 500 million word Dutch reference corpus; see http://​opensonar​.inl​.nl and Oostdijk et al. (2013)
Van Dale = Boon, Ton den, and Dirk Geeraerts 2005 Van Dale: Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal: 3 Dl. (14e dr.). Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
WNT Online version of Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal , made available at http://​wnt​.inl​.nl by the Institute for Dutch Lexicology. Most recent version: 10th December 2015
Aronoff, Mark
1976 Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald R.
1990 “Corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar morfologische produktiviteit [Corpus-based research into morphological productivity].” Spektator 191: 213–233.Google Scholar
1992 “Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1991, ed. by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 109–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 “On Frequency, Transparency and Productivity.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1992, ed. by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Corpus Linguistics in Morphology: Morphological Productivity.” In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook., ed. by Anke Lüdeling, and Merja Kytö, 900–919. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald R., and Rochelle Lieber
1991 “Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus-based Study.” Linguistics 29 (5): 801–844. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, and Spike Gildea
2015 “Diachronic Construction Grammar: Epistemological Context, Basic Assumptions and Historical Implications.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 1–49. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.” Linguistics 49 (1): 53–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
2008 Productivity Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
2003 A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L.
1972 Degree words. Den Haag: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
1977 Dutch Morphology. A Study of Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, Norbert Corver, and Riet Vos
2015 Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases Vol 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1985 Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988 “Morphology as Lexical Organization.” In Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, ed. by Michael Hammond, and Michael Noonan, 119–141. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2014 “Conventional Combinations in Pockets of Productivity: English Resultatives and Dutch Ditransitives Expressing Excess.” In Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, ed. by Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman, and Gijsbert Rutten, 251–282. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy, and Bernard De Clerck
2011 “Constructional Semantics on the Move: On Semantic Specialization in the English Double Object Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 221: 183–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy
2015 “Constructionalization and Post-constructionalization: The Constructional Semantics of the Dutch krijgen-passive from a Diachronic Perspective.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 213–255. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2003 “Lexical rules vs. constructions: A False Dichotomy.” In Motivation 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Clerck, Bernard, and Timothy Colleman
2013 “From Noun to Intensifier: massa and massa’s in Flemish Varieties of Dutch.” Language Sciences 361: 147–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2002 “A Model for Relevant Types of Contexts in Grammaticalization.” In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald, 103–120. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, Teresa M., and Jaume Mateu
2010 “On Classes of Idioms and Their Interpretation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (5): 1397–1411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, Martin, and Alexis Dimitriadis
2013 On Reflexive Resultatives. Lecture given at the Workshop Secondary Predication in Formal Frameworks at Utrecht University on 27 May 2013.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2013 “Constructionist Approaches.” In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann, and Graeme Trousdale, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., and Ray Jackendoff
2004 “The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions.” Language 80 (3): 532–568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Leo A., and William H. Kruskal
1954 “Measure of Association for Cross Classifications.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 49 (268): 732–764.Google Scholar
Gould, Madelyn S.
2001 “Suicide and the Media.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 932 (1): 200–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 Geschiedenis LXX.
Heine, Bernd
2002 “On the Role of Context in Grammaticalization.” In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald, 83–101. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013 Constructional Change in English : Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus
2004 “Lexicalization and Grammaticization: Opposite or Orthogonal?” In What 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
Hiramatsu, Keijiro
2003 “Fake Reflexive Objects and Run Verbs.” Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics 81: 1–21.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack
2012 “Elative Compounds in Dutch: Properties and Developments.” In Intensivierungskonzepte 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
Huang, James
2006 “Resultatives and Unaccusatives: a Parametric View.” Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan 20061: 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iwata, Seizi
2006 “Argument Resultatives and Adjunct Resultatives in a Lexical Constructional Account: The Case of Resultatives with Adjectival Result Phrases.” Language Sciences 28 (5): 449–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1997 “Twisting the Night Away.” Language 731: 534–559. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É.
2006 “The Function and the Syntax of the Verbal Particle.” In Event Structure and the Left Periphery – Studies on Hungarian, ed. by Katalin É. Kiss, 17–55. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kudo, Shun
2011 “A Comparative Study between Resultative Constructions and Body Part Off Constructions.” Tsubaka English Studies 291: 169–185.Google Scholar
Lorenz, Gunter
2002 “ Really Worthwhile or Not Really Significant? A Corpus-based Approach to Delexicalization and Grammaticalization of Intensifiers in Modern English.” In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer, and Gabriele Diewald, 143–161. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luzondo-Oyon, Alba
2014 “Constraining Factors on the Family of Resultative Constructions.” Review of Cognitive Linguistics 121: 30–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Margerie, Hélène
2011 “Grammaticalising Constructions: To Death as a Peripheral Degree Modifier.” Folia Linguistica Historica 32 (1): 115–147.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén
2003 “On Intensifiers and Grammaticalization: The Case of swithe .” English Studies 84 (4): 372–391. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan
2006 “Phrasal or Lexical Constructions?” Language 82 (4): 850–883. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna J., and Jack Hoeksema
2009 “The Grammatical Versatility of Taboo Terms.” Studies in Language 33 (3): 612–643. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Veronique Hoste, and Ineke Schuurman
2013 “The Construction of a 500 Million Word Reference Corpus of Contemporary Written Dutch.” In Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch: Results by the STEVIN-project, ed. by Peter Spijns, and Jan Odijk. 219–247. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partington, Alan
1993 “Corpus Evidence of Language Change: The Case of the Intensifier.” In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 177–192. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, David P.
1974 “The Influence of Suggestion on Suicide: Substantive and Theoretical Implications of the Werther Effect.” American Sociological Review 391: 340–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., and Beth Levin
2001 “An Event Structure Account of English Resultatives.” Language 771: 766–797. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sawada, Shigeyasu
2000 “The Semantics of the ‘Body Part Off’ Construction.” English Linguistics 17 (2): 361–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schultink, Henk
1961 “Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen [Productivity as a morphological phenomenon].” Forum der Letteren 21: 100–125.Google Scholar
1962 De 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
Simpson, Jane
1983 “Resultatives.” In Papers in Lexical-functional Grammar, ed. by Lori Levin, Malka Rappaport, and Annie Zaenen, 143–157. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Stack, Steven
1996 “The Effect of the Media on Suicide: Evidence From Japan, 1955–1985.” Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 26 (2): 132–142.Google Scholar
Stoffel, Cornelis
1901 Intensives and Down-toners: a Study in English Adverbs. Heidelberg: C. Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago T.
2015 “On the Relation between Inheritance and Change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses.” In Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Jóhanna Barðdal, Elena Smirnova, Lotte Sommerer, and Spike Gildea, 173–211. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek
2011 “Left-peripheral Expansion of the English NP.” English Language and Linguistics 15 (2): 387–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Marle, Jaap
1985 On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Washio, Ryuichi
1997 “Resultatives, Compositionality and Language Variation.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 61: 1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen, and Bokyung Noh
2001 “Predication and Anaphora: Parallels Between Korean and English Resultatives.” Language Sciences 231: 391–423. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeldes, Amir
2012 Productivity in Argument Selection: From Morphology to Syntax. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeschel, Arne
2012 Incipient Productivity: a Construction-Based Approach to Linguistic Creativity. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Hoeksema, Jack & Donna Jo Napoli
2019. Degree Resultatives as Second-Order Constructions. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 225 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.