Article published in:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 12:2 (2020) ► pp. 239–271

The growth of the transitivising Reaction Object Construction

| University of the Balearic Islands
This paper explores the growth of the Reaction Object Construction (ROC) as in Pauline smiled her thanks, offering new insights into its characterisation and historical development from the perspective of Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2006, 2019) and its application to patterns of language change (Hilpert 2013; Traugott & Trousdale 2013). It is argued that the modern ROC qualifies as a traditional form-meaning pairing and, at a deeper level, as a polysemous construction that follows the path of development of other transitivising constructions such as the way-construction (Israel 1996), and of processes of constructionalisation in general. Once the ROC imposes a coreferential constraint on its object argument, acquiring in this way its status as a form-meaning pairing over the Early Modern English period (1500–1700), the construction increases its productivity and schematicity; at the same time it decreases its compositionality since the link between the form/syntax and the overall meaning of the construction becomes less transparent, as in The door jingled a welcome. The ROC can thus be argued to be part and result of a broader development in the grammar of English, namely the historical trend towards transitivisation.
Keywords: Reaction Object Construction, transitivising construction, polysemous construction, constructionalisation, history of English
Published online: 30 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00041.bou
References

References

Aldezabal, I., Aranzabe, M., Atutxa, A., & Lersundi, M.
(2002) Levin-ek English verb classes and alternations (1993) liburuan proposatzen dituen ingeleserako alternantziak euskararekin parekatuz. University of the Basque Country, LSI Department: Internal report TR 13-2002. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from http://​ixa​.si​.ehu​.es​/node​/4099
Ameka, F.
(1992) Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2), 101–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 267 ]
Bosworth, J., & Northcote Toller, T. (B&T)
(1898) An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (1921)  Supplement by T. Northcote Toller (1972) Revised and enlarged addenda by Alistair Campbell. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bouso, T.
(2012) Reaction object constructions in contemporary American English: A preliminary corpus-based study (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.Google Scholar
(2014) On the nonprototypical status of reaction objects and other nonsubcategorized objects. In E. Álvarez López, E. M. Durán Almarza, & A. Menéndez Tarrazo (Eds.), Building interdisciplinary knowledge. Approaches to English and American studies in Spain (pp. 307–314). Oviedo: AEDEAN & KRK Ediciones.Google Scholar
(2017)  Muttering contempt and smiling appreciation: Disentangling the history of the reaction object construction in English. English Studies, 98(2), 194–215. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Changes in argument structure in the history of English, with special reference to the emergence and development of reaction object constructions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J.
(2014) Interjection-based delocutive verbs in the history of English. In C. Claridge, I. Taavitsainen, J. Smith, & M. Kytö (Eds.), Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence (pp. 140–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & McClelland, J. L.
(2005) Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4), 381–410.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., Hans-Jürgen, D., & Tyrkkö, J.
(compilers) (2013) The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0 (CLMET3.0). Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Erasmus, D.
(1544 [1467–1536]) Evangelium Matthaei D. Erasmi Rot. Paraphrasis, Lvgdvni apud seb. gryphivm. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from http://​www​.galiciana​.bibliotecadegalicia​.xunta​.es​/museos​_gal​/es​/consulta​/registro​.cmd​?id​=9549
Fanego, T.
(2017)  The trolley rumbled through the tunnel: On the history of the English intransitive motion construction. Folia Linguistica Historica, 38, 29–73.Google Scholar
(2019) A construction of independent means: The history of the Way construction revisited. English Language and Linguistics, 23(3), 671–699. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García García, L.
(2012) Morphological causatives in Old English: The quest for a vanishing formation. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110(1), 122–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 268 ]
(2014) Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, Vol. 43 (pp. 391–404). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A.
(1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, G., & Stavrou, M.
(2010) Morphological aspect and the function and distribution of cognate objects across languages. In M. R. Hovav, E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure (pp. 284–308). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M.
(1996) The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(1990) Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1909–49) A Modern English grammar on historical principles (7 Volumes). Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
(1922) Language: Its nature, development, and origin. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Khan, Z.
(1994) Bangla verb classes and alternations. In D. A. Jones, R. C. Berwick, F. Cho, Z. Khan, K. T. Kohl, N. Nomura, A. Radhakrishnan, U. Sauerland, & B. Ulicny (Eds.), Verb classes and alternations in Bangla, German, English, and Korean (pp. 36–50). Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology. Center for Biological and Computational Learning and the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Retrieved November 30, 201, from https://​dspace​.mit​.edu​/handle​/1721​.1​/7197
Kogusuri, T.
(2009) The syntax and semantics of reaction object constructions in English. Tsukuba English Studies, 28, 33–53.Google Scholar
(2011) On the passivization of the gesture expression construction. Tsukuba English Studies, 29, 149–168.Google Scholar
Kulikov, L.
(2010) Bridging typology and diachrony: A preliminary questionnaire for a diachronic typological study of voice and valency-changing categories. In V. F. Vydrin, S. Ju. Dmitrenko, N. M. Zaika, S. S. Saj, N. R. Sumbatova, & V. S. Xrakovskij (Eds.), Problemy grammatiki i tipologii: Sbornik statej pamjati Vladimira Petroviča Nedjalkova (1928–2009) [Issues in grammar and typology: A memorial volume for Vladimir Nedjalkov] (pp. 139–163). Moscow: Znak.Google Scholar
Kulikov, L., & Lavidas, N.
(Eds.) (2014) Typology of labile verbs: Focus on diachrony. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences (Special Issue), 52(14), 871–1165.Google Scholar
Lavidas, N.
(2014) Cognate arguments and the transitivity requirement in the history of English. Lingua Posnaniensis, 56(2), 41–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Cognate noun constructions in Early Modern English: The case of Tyndale’s New Testament. In H. Cuyckens, H. De Smet, L. Heyvaert, & Ch. Maekelberghe (Eds.), Explorations in English historical syntax (pp. 51–76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 269 ]
Levin, B., & Rapoport, T. R.
(1988) Lexical subordination. In L. MacLeod, G. Larson, & D. Brentari (Eds.), CLS 24 (pp. 275–289). Chicago: CLS Publications.Google Scholar
Liu, D.
(2008) Intransitive or object deleting? Classifying English verbs used without an object. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4), 289–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Vázquez, M.
(1998) Effected objects in English and Spanish. Languages in Contrast, 1(2), 245–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Reaction object constructions in English. A corpus-based study. In I. Moskowich, B. Crespo, I. Lareo, & P. Lojo (Eds.), Language windowing through corpora / Visualización del lenguaje a través de corpus (pp. 551–561). A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña.Google Scholar
(2014) Expressive object constructions in English. A corpus based analysis. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 69, 171–186.Google Scholar
(2015) Nominalized expressive acts in English. Verbum, (Special issue Nominalisations et corpus, edited by Evelyne Jacquey & Marie Laurence Knittel), 37(1), 147–170.Google Scholar
Mateu, J.
(2012) Conflation and incorporation processes in resultative constructions. In V. Demonte, & L. McNally (Eds.), Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorical view of event structure (pp. 252–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McColm, D.
(2015) A comparison of the way-construction and the fake reflexive resultative construction: A diachronic Construction Grammar account (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
(2019) The way-construction in English, Dutch and German (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
McMillion, A.
(2006) Labile verbs in English: Their meaning, behavior and structure. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University, Sweden.Google Scholar
MED = Kurath, H., Sherman, M. K., & Robert, E. L.
(Eds.) (1952–2001) Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://​quod​.lib​.umich​.edu​/m​/middle​-english​-dictionary​/dictionary
Michaelis, L. A.
(2004) Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mirto, I. M.
(2017) The so-called reaction object construction: Reaction or co-predication? In M. S. Istrate, & D. Rautu (Eds.), Lucrarile celui de-al çaselea simpozion international de linguistica. Bucarest: Univers Enciclopedic Gold Publishing House.Google Scholar
Mondorf, B.
(2016) “Snake legs it to freedom”: Dummy it as pseudo-object. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(1), 73–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, B., & Schneider, U.
(2016) Detransitivisation as a support strategy for causative bring . English Language and Linguistics, 20(3), 439–462. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A., & Wasow, T.
(1994) Idioms. Language, 70, 491–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
OED = Oxford English dictionary online
Retrieved November 30, 2019, from www​.oed​.com
Omuro, T.
(1997) Semantic extension: The case of nonverbal communication verbs in English. In M. Ukaji, T. Nakao, M. Kajita, & S. Chiba (Eds.), Studies in English linguistics: A festschrift for Akira Ota on the occasion of his eightieth birthday (pp. 806–825). Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
[ p. 270 ]
Perek, F.
(2016) Productivity and schematicity of the way-construction in Late Modern English. Paper presented at the Workshop “Historische Konstruktionsgrammatik: Konvergenzen und Divergenzen im Sprach- und Konstruktionswande” (Diachronic Construction Grammar: Convergence and divergence in language and constructional change), Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Germany, February 17–18.Google Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petré, P.
(2013) EEBOCorp 1.0. Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
(2016) EEBOCorp Concordancer 1.7. Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H.
(1926) A grammar of Late Modern English: For the use of continental, especially Dutch, students. Part II: The parts of speech. Section II: The verb and the particles. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G.
(2014) On the differential evolution of simple and complex object constructions in English. Paper presented at the 18th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 18), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, July 14–18.
(2018) On the differential evolution of simple and complex object constructions in English. In H. Cuyckens, H. De Smet, L. Heyvaert, & Ch. Maekelberghe (Eds.), Explorations in English historical syntax (pp. 77–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosca, A.
(2012) Why* Sarah cannot glow the light bulb? Accounting for the constructional behavior of light and sound emission verbs. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique-Romanian Review of Linguistics, 1, 67–82.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R.
(1970) On declarative sentences. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 222–277). Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Stanton, B.
(1995)  Pearl. This being a translation in verse of the Middle English poem Pearl by an unknown poet. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from http://​www​.dmstanton​.freeola​.com​/pearl​/pearl​_new​.htm
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I., & Jucker, A. H.
(2007) Speech act verbs and speech acts in the history of English. In S. M. Fitzmaurice & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics (pp. 107–138). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tizón-Couto, D., & Lorenz, D.
(2018) Realisations and variants of have to: What corpora can tell us about usage-based experience. Corpora, 13(3), 371–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(1991) English speech act verbs: A historical perspective. In L. R. Waugh & S. Rudy (Eds.), New vistas in grammar: Invariance and variation (pp. 387–406). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E.
(2011) Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of Historical Linguistics, 1(1), 106–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) The diachrony of verb meaning: Aspect and argument structure. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. T.
(1963–73) An historical syntax of the English language. Volume I: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
[ p. 271 ]
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Bouso, Tamara & Pablo Ruano San Segundo
2021. Another turn of the screw on the history of the reaction object construction. Functions of Language Crossref logo
Fanego, Teresa
2020. On the History of the English Progressive Construction Jane came whistling down the street. Journal of English Linguistics 48:4 ► pp. 319 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 2021. 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.