Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 16:1 (2024) ► pp.100–129

Towards a usage-based characterisation of the English Superlative Object Construction

ORCID logo | University of Santiago de Compostela
Little attention has been paid to the English Superlative Object Construction (SOC), as in She worked her hardest. 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., smile [X] prettiest, work [X] hardest), the SOC is relatively productive, especially in informal registers where the construction can be easily accommodated to serve emotive, phatic, and conative functions.
Keywords: Superlative Object Construction, intensifying comparative construction, frequency, productivity, distribution
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Characteristic features of the modern SOC
  • 3.The SO and other analogous object types and structures
    • 3.1The SO within the system of English comparatives
  • 4.Looking our finest: The view from construction grammar
  • 5.Data sources and methodology
  • 6.Results and discussion
    • 6.1The SOC as a traditional Goldbergian construction
    • 6.2The SOC as a low-frequency construction
    • 6.3The SOC as a relatively productive construction
    • 6.4The SOC as a polyfunctional and genre-based (sensitive) construction
  • 7.Final discussion and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 6 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22020.bou
References (84)
References
Allerton, D. J. (1982). Valency and the English verb. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of language. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beland, N. (2022). The superlative alternation in British vs. American English: Questionnaire-based insights. In M. Krug, O. Schützler, F. Vetter, & V. Werner (Eds.), Perspectives on contemporary English: Structure, variation, cognition. Bamberg studies in English linguistics. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johannson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999/2021). Grammar of spoken and written English. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouso, T. (2012). Presupposition, persuasion and mag food advertising: A preliminary study. Odisea. Revista de Estudios Ingleses, 13 1, 19–47.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). 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). The growth of the transitivising reaction object construction: Constructions and Frames, 12 (2), 239–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Changes in argument structure. The transitivizing reaction object construction. Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022a). The English reaction object construction: A case of syntactic constructional contamination. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 65 1, 13–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2022). Only collect? How construction grammarians also link it all up. Abralin AO VIVO talk. Available at: [URL]
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. [URL] (accessed 30 August 2022)
(2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. [URL] (accessed 30 August 2022)
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffley, P. J., & Tremblay, R. (1994). The infinitive and the -ing as complements of verbs of effort. English Studies, 75 (6), 566–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ebeling, O. S. (2021). To score or to score a goal: Transitivity in football match reports. English Studies, 102 (2), 243–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanego, T. (1997). On patterns of complementation with verbs of effort. English Studies, 78 (1), 60–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). A construction of independent means: The history of the way construction revisited. English Language & Linguistics, 23 (3), 671–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–89). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80 (3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González Díaz, V. (2008). English adjective comparison: A historical perspective. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2014/2022). Coll.analysis 3.5/4.0. A Script for R to Compute Perform Collostructional Analyses. [URL] (accessed 28 July 2023)
Gu, Q. (2017). A corpus-based comparative study on the superlative forms in British English and Singapore Colloquial English. Word, 63 (4), 241–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günther, C. (2018). The rich, the poor, the obvious: Arguing for an ellipsis analysis of “adjectives used as nouns.” In A. H. Leung & W. van der Wurff (Eds.), The noun phrase in English: Past and present (pp. 77–112). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37 (6), 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). The English comparative – language structure and language use. English Language & Linguistics, 12 (3), 395–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 (pp. 391–404). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014/2019). Construction Grammar and its application to English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2021). Ten lectures on diachronic construction grammar. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höche, S. (2009). Cognate object constructions in English. A cognitive-linguistic account. Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2018). Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, 66 (3), 259–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019a). English comparative correlatives: Diachronic and synchronic variation at the lexicon-syntax interface. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). Language and creativity: A Construction Grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard, 5 (1), DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Bergs, A. (2018). A Construction Grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes, 18 1, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. (2002). Comparative constructions. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp. 1097–1170). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ivorra Ordines, P. (2021a). Comparative constructional idioms. A corpus-based study of the creativity of the [más feo que X] construction. In C. Mellado Blanco (Ed.), Productive patterns in phraseology and construction grammar. A multilingual approach (pp. 29–52). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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.
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, 30 1, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1909–1949). A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kester, E. (1996). Adjectival inflection and the licensing of empty categories in DP. Journal of Linguistics, 32 (1), 57–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kogusuri, T. (2009). The syntax and semantics of reaction object constructions in English. Tsukuba English Studies, 28 1, 33–53.Google Scholar
(2011). On the passivization of the gesture expression construction. Tsukuba English Studies, 29 1, 149–168.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Liu, D. (2008). Intransitive or object deleting? Classifying English verbs used without an object. Journal of English Linguistics, 36 (4), 289–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez Vázquez, M. (1998). Effected objects in English and Spanish. Languages in Contrast, 1 (2), 245–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Nominalized expressive acts in English. Verbum, 37 (1), 147–170.Google Scholar
Massam, D. (1990). Cognate objects as thematic objects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 35 (2), 161–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (1), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Möhlig, R., & Klages, M. (2002). Detransitivization in the history of English from a semantic perspective. In F. Fanego & M. J. López-Couso (Eds.), English historical syntax and morphology (pp. 231–254). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, B. (2003). Support for more-support. In Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B. (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 251–304). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Snake legs it to freedom: Dummy it as pseudo object. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(1), 73–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, B., & Schneider, U. (2016). Detransitivisation as a support strategy for causative bring . English Language & Linguistics, 20 (3), 439–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2018). Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition, 25 (3), 543–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J. (2005). Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23 (3), 601–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Rethinking constructional polysemy. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 61–85). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1904–1929). A grammar of Late Modern English: For the use of continental, especially Dutch, students. P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A. (Ed.). (2000). Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. [URL]
Snell-Hornby, M. (1983). Verb-descriptivity in German and English: A contrastive study in semantic fields. Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (1), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp. 299–250). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963–1973). An historical syntax of the English language. Brill.Google Scholar
Watanabe, A., & Iyeiri, Y. (2020). Explaining the variability of adjective comparatives and superlatives: Entering the twenty-first century. Word, 66 (2), 71–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeschel, A. (2012). Incipient productivity: A construction-based approach to linguistic creativity. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bouso, Tamara, Marianne Hundt & Laetitia Van Driessche
2024. A sisterhood of constructions? A structural priming approach to modelling links in the network of Objoid Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 35:3 ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 august 2024. 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.