Another turn of the screw on the history of the reaction object construction
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
References (66)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baayen, Harald & Rochelle Lieber. 1991. Productivity
and English derivation: A corpus-based
study. Linguistics 29(5). 801–844. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baldick, Chris. 2001. The
concise Oxford dictionary of literary
terms. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2001. Case
in Icelandic: A synchronic, diachronic and comparative
approach. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald (eds.). 2008. Constructions
and language
change. Berlin: Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bouso, Tamara. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bouso, Tamara. 2017.
Muttering
contempt and smiling appreciation: Disentangling the history of the Reaction Object Construction
in English. English
Studies 98(2). 194–215. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bouso, Tamara. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Busse, Beatrix. 2010. Speech,
writing and thought presentation in a corpus of nineteenth-century English narrative
fiction. Bern: University of Bern.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carter, Ronald & John McRae. 1996. The
Penguin guide to English literature: Britain and
Ireland. London: Penguin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining
language change: An evolutionary
approach. Harlow: Pearson.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, William. 2001. Radical
construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological
perspective. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
De Smet, Hendrik (compiler). 2008. Corpus
of English Novels (CEN). Leuven: KU Leuven.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fludernik, Monika. 1993. The
fictions of language and the languages of
fiction. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, Thomas. 1979. On
understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar
approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of
generalization in
language. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, Adele E. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity,
competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, Stefan Th. 2014. Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to
compute perform collostructional analyses.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hart, Hilary. 2004. Sentimental
spectacles: The sentimental novel, natural language, and early film performance. Oregon, OR: University of Oregon PhD thesis.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–1068. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Head, Dominic (ed.). 2006. The
Cambridge guide to literature in English, 3rd
edn. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Distinctive
collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic
Theory 2(2). 243–256. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional
change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and
syntax. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction
grammar and its application to English, 2nd
edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women,
fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leech, Geoffrey & Mick Short. 1981. Style
in
fiction. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levin, Beth. 1993. English
verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mahlberg, Michaela, Viola Wiegand, Peter Stockwell & Anthony Hennessey. 2019. Speech-bundles
in the 19th-century English novel. Language and
Literature 28(4). 326–353. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Martínez-Vázquez, Montserrat. 2015. Nominalized
expressive acts in
English. Verbum 37(1). 147–170.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McIntyre, Dan & Brian Walker. 2019. Corpus
stylistics: Theory and practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ousby, Ian (ed.). 1988. The
Cambridge guide to literature in
English. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 [URL]
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and
environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Viena, Austria.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruano San Segundo, Pablo & Tamara Bouso (compilers). 2019. British
Sentimental Novel Corpus (BSNC). Cáceres: Departamento de Filología Inglesa, Universidad de Extremadura.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Samuels, Shirley. 1992. The
culture of sentiment: Race, gender, and sentimentality in nineteenth-century
America. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Scott, Mike. 2012. WordSmith
Tools version 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Semino, Elena & Mick Short. 2004. Corpus
stylistics. Speech, thought and writing presentation in a corpus of English
writing. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Simpson, Paul. 1993. Language,
ideology and point of
view. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, Geoff. 1996. Voices
in the text: Discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied
Linguistics 17(4). 501–530. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Toolan, Michael. 2001. Narrative:
A critical linguistic introduction, 2nd
edn. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization
and constructional
changes. Oxford: OUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Bouso, Tamara
2022.
Where Does Lexical Diversity Come From? Horizontal Interaction in the Network of the Late Modern English Reaction Object Construction.
English Studies 103:8
► pp. 1334 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.