Article published in:
Functions of Language
Vol. 28:2 (2021) ► pp. 208–231

Another turn of the screw on the history of the reaction object construction

| Universitat de les Illes Balears
| Universidad de Extremadura
This article deals with the Reaction Object Construction (ROC), as in She smiled disbelief, where an intransitive verb (smile), by adding an emotional object (disbelief), acquires the extended sense “express X by V−ing” (i.e. “She expressed disbelief by smiling”). Earlier research has suggested a diachronic connection between the ROC and Direct Discourse Constructions (DDCs) of the type She smiled, “I don’t believe you” (Visser 1963–1973). More recently, Bouso (2018) has shown that the ROC is primarily a feature of 19th century narrative fiction. This paper aims to bring together these insights. On the basis of a self-compiled corpus and De Smet’s Corpus of English Novels, it investigates the productivity of the ROC in 19th and 20th century fiction, and the role of DDCs in its development. The results reveal a peak in the productivity of the ROC that coincides with the development of the sentimental novel, and a correlation between the development of the ROC on the one hand and of those DDCs that have been mistakenly hypothesised to be its single source constructions on the other. Extravagance is proposed as a triggering factor for the use of the ROC in the 19th century as an alternative to DDCs.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.State of the art
    • 2.1Characterisation and history of the ROC
    • 2.2The function of the ROC
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Relation between the ROC and the sentimental novel
    • 4.2The role of DDCs in the development of the ROC
  • 5.Concluding remarks and future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 07 April 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20026.bou
References
Baayen, Harald
2009 Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, Volume 2, 899–919. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald & Rochelle Lieber
1991 Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29(5). 801–844. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baldick, Chris
2001 The concise Oxford dictionary of literary terms. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna
1999 Case and argument structure of some loan verbs in 15th century Icelandic. In Inger Haskå & Carin Sandqvist (eds.), Alla tiders språk. En Vänskrift till Gertrud Pettersson november 1999, 9–23. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
2001 Case in Icelandic: A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
2008 Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald
(eds.) 2008 Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bouso, Tamara
2012 Reaction object constructions in contemporary American English: A preliminary corpus-based study. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela MA thesis.Google Scholar
2014 On the nonprototypical status of reaction objects and other nonsubcategorized objects. In Esther Álvarez López, Emilia María Durán Almarza & Alicia Menéndez Tarrazo (eds.), Building interdisciplinary knowledge. Approaches to English and American studies in Spain, 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. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela PhD thesis.Google Scholar
2020 The growth of the transitivising Reaction Object Construction. Constructions and Frames 12(2). 239–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Busse, Beatrix
2010 Speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of nineteenth-century English narrative fiction. Bern: University of Bern.Google Scholar
Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen Rosa
1994 On reporting reporting: The representation of speech in factual and factional narratives. In Malcom Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis, 295–308. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald & John McRae
1996 The Penguin guide to English literature: Britain and Ireland. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
2001 Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik
(compiler) 2008 Corpus of English Novels (CEN). Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Hans-Jürgen Diller & Jukka Tyrkkö
(compilers) 2013 The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0 (CLMET3.0). Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64(3). 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fludernik, Monika
1993 The fictions of language and the languages of fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van
2011 Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(1). 106–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Thomas
1979 On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2019 Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2014 Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses.Google Scholar
Hart, Hilary
2004 Sentimental spectacles: The sentimental novel, natural language, and early film performance. Oregon, OR: University of Oregon PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1999 Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–1068. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Head, Dominic
(ed.) 2006 The Cambridge guide to literature in English, 3rd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2006 Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2). 243–256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 391–404. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 Construction grammar and its application to English, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Susanne Flach
Forthcoming. A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive. In Marcin Grygiel ed. Contrast and analogy in language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics Amsterdam Benjamins
Höche, Silke
2009 Cognate object constructions in English. A cognitive-linguistic account. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.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: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, Leigh, Laurence Sterne, John Hawkesworth, Jean-François Marmontel, Samuel Johnson, Voltaire, Henry Brooke, Oliver Goldsmith & Henry Mackenzie
1806 Classic tales, serious and lively: With critical essays on the merits and reputation of the authors. London: John Hunt & Carew Raynell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Mick Short
1981 Style in fiction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, Michaela, Viola Wiegand, Peter Stockwell & Anthony Hennessey
2019 Speech-bundles in the 19th-century English novel. Language and Literature 28(4). 326–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Vázquez, Montserrat
2010 Reaction object constructions in English. A corpus-based study. In Isabel Moskowich, Begoña Crespo, Inés Lareo & Paula Lojo (eds.), Language windowing through corpora / Visualización del lenguaje a través de corpus, 551–561. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña.Google Scholar
2015 Nominalized expressive acts in English. Verbum 37(1). 147–170.Google Scholar
McHale, Brian
1978 Free indirect discourse: A survey of recent accounts. PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 31. 249–287.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Dan & Brian Walker
2019 Corpus stylistics: Theory and practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael
1996 The way constructions grow. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk
2007 Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14(2). 177–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem
2018 Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or constructional change? In Geert Booij (ed.), The construction of Words. Studies in morphology, 475–518. Springer: Cham. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ousby, Ian
(ed.) 1988 The Cambridge guide to literature in English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van de Velde
2016 Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica 50(2). 543–581. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piper, Andrew & Richard Jean So
2015 Quantifying the weepy bestseller: Are commercial novels really more sentimental than literary fiction? The New Republic. Accessed October 3, 2020. Available online at newrepublic​.com​/article​/126123​/quantifying​-weepy​-bestseller
R Core Team
2019 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Viena, Austria.Google Scholar
Rowland, Ann Wierda
2008 Sentimental fiction. In Rirchard Maxwell & Katie Trumpener (eds.), The Cambridge companion to fiction in the Romantic period, 191–206. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruano San Segundo, Pablo
2017 Reporting verbs as a stylistic device in the creation of fictional personalities in literary texts. Atlantis. Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies 39(2). 105–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruano San Segundo, Pablo & Tamara Bouso
(compilers) 2019 British Sentimental Novel Corpus (BSNC). Cáceres: Departamento de Filología Inglesa, Universidad de Extremadura.Google Scholar
Samuels, Shirley
1992 The culture of sentiment: Race, gender, and sentimentality in nineteenth-century America. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike
2012 WordSmith Tools version 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Semino, Elena & Mick Short
2004 Corpus stylistics. Speech, thought and writing presentation in a corpus of English writing. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Paul
1993 Language, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff
1996 Voices in the text: Discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied Linguistics 17(4). 501–530. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toolan, Michael
2001 Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale
2013 Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Theodorus
1963–1973 An historical syntax of the English language. Volume I: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar