Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 22:1 (2024) ► pp.151–203

Capturing meaningful generalizations at varying degrees of resolution

The case of the family of ser muy de-PP constructions in present-day Spanish

ORCID logo | University of Almería
This article provides a principled constructionist account (Goldberg & Herbst, 2021) of the main characteristics of expressions like the following: (1) Juan es muy de (ir de) bares (‘Juan is very into (going to) bars’), and (2) Tu ayuda es muy de agradecer (‘Your help is very much appreciated’). Instances of this kind are best handled in terms of coercion between the intensifier and non-stative/non-gradable elements in the nominal slot of the de-PPs. Specifically, these combinations qualify as individual-level predicates with a characterizing, evaluative interpretation. The specific constructional interpretations in (1)–(2) arise from contextual adjustments (Carston, 2015), encoding a person’s habits and a potential modal deontic habituality, respectively. The semantic and pragmatic properties of the sub-constructions in (1)–(2), among others, can be adequately subsumed under a family of ser muy de-PP constructions, with the following general meaning: ‘X (SOMEONE/SOMETHING) (SUBJECT) IS SUBJECTIVELY CONSTRUED AS HAVING Y (A HIGHLIGHTED CLASSIFICATORY PROPERTY OF AN INDIVIDUAL/CLASS) (ATTRIBUTE)’.
Keywords: intensifier, coercion, gradability, subjectivity, pragmatic adjustment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The semantic and pragmatic contribution of the ser muy de-PP constructions
  • 3.Subjectivity, construal, pragmatic adjustment and linguistic cueing
  • 4.An overview of the different morphosyntactic realizations of ser muy de-PP constructions in present-day Spanish
  • 5.The ser muy de-PP construction with bare nouns, NPs with a definite determiner and NPs with an indefinite determiner
  • 6.The ser muy de-PP construction with active infinitival complement clauses
  • 7.The ser muy de-PP construction with a que- (‘that’-) complement clause construction
  • 8.The modal/evaluative construction with a passive infinitival complement clause
  • 9.Outlook and closing remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00153.gon
References (51)
References
Baayen, R. H., & Lieber, R. (1991). Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics, 29 (5), 801–844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A constructional approach to resultatives (Stanford Monographs in Linguistics). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1968). Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.Google Scholar
(1972). Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I. (dir.) (2004). REDES. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: Ediciones SM.Google Scholar
Camus Bergareche, B. (2011). Restricciones aspectuales y la perífrasis soler + infinitivo. In J. Cuartero Otal & L. García Fernández (Eds.), Estudios sobre perífrasis y aspecto (pp. 120–138). München: Peniope – Verlaj Anja Urbanek.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions, SV1 , 7, 1–28.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachussets.
Carston, R. (2015). Contextual adjustment of meaning. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Semantics (pp. 195–210). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Corpus del Español NOW. [URL]
Croft, W. (2003). Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K. U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vaere, H., Kolkmann, J., & Belligh, T. (2020). Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 170 1, 96–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, M. V., & Leonetti, M. (2002). Coercion and the stage/individual distinction. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse (pp. 159–179). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Leborans, M. J. (1999). La predicación: Las oraciones copulativas. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Dirs.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 2357–2460). Madrid: RAE/Espasa.Google Scholar
Fernández-Leborans, M. J., & Sánchez López, C. (2015a). Sentences as predicates: The Spanish construction <ser muy de + infinitive>. In I. Pérez-Jiménez, M. Leonetti & S. Gumiel-Molina (Eds.), New perspectives on the study of ser and estar (pp. 85–118). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). On events that express properties. In E. Barrajón, J. L. Cifuentes Honrubia & S. Rodríguez Rosique (Eds.), Verb classes and aspect (pp. 238–263). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Ramírez, S. (1987). Gramática Española 4. El verbo y la oración. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., Casenhiser, D., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 1, 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Herbst, T. (2021). The nice-of-you construction and its fragments. Linguistics, 59 (1), 285–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González García, L. (2012). Estudio de las construcciones formadas por adjetivo + de + infinitivo (tipo difícil de entender). In T. E. Jiménez Juliá, B. López Moraima, V. Vázquez Rozas & A. Veiga (Eds.), Cum corde et in nova grammatica: Estudios ofrecidos a Guillermo Rojo (pp. 383–397). Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2011a). Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49 (6), 1305–1358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011b). Looks, appearances and judgements: Towards a unified constructionist analysis of predicative complements in English and Spanish. In P. Guerrero Medina (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 264–293). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
(2020). Metonymy meets coercion: The case of the intensification of nouns in attributive and predicative constructions in Spanish. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (Figurative Thought and Language, 9) (pp. 151–184). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rodríguez, E., & Pérez-Ocón, P. (2021). Un nuevo análisis de la construcción ser de + infinitivo en español europeo y americano. Revista del Instituto de Lengua y Cultura Españolas, 37 (2), 621–649. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. (2014a). The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In T. Herbst, H. Schmid & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions, collocations, patterns (pp. 159–207). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Idiosyncrasies and generalizations: Argument structure, semantic roles, and the valency realization principle. In M. Hilpert & S. Flach (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Jahrbuchder Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kognitive Linguistik, Vol. II. (pp. 253–289). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T., & Uhrig, P. (2020). The issue of specifying slots in argument structure constructions in terms of form and meaning. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 1, 135–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laporte, S., Larsson, T., & Goulart, L. (2021). Testing the Principle of No Synonymy across levels of abstraction. A constructional account of subject extraposition. Constructions and Frames, 13 (2), 230–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Paper 6: Construal. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics – Foundations of language (pp. 140–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In R. J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 101–124). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2011). Stative by construction. Linguistics, 49 (6), 1359–1400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreno Cabrera, J. C. (1987). Aspectos lógico-sintácticos de los cuantificadores en español. In V. Demonte & M. Fernández Lagunilla (Eds.), Sintaxis de las lenguas románicas (pp. 408–417). Madrid: El Arquero.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L. (1973). Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. In B. B. Kachru, R. B. Lees, Y. Malkiel, A. Pietrangeli & S. Saporta (Eds.), Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane (pp. 719–751). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Peña Cervel, M. S., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2022). Figuring out figuration. A cognitive linguistic account (Figurative Thought and Language, 14). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portero-Muñoz, C. (2022). “It’s way too intriguing!” The fuzzy status of emergent intensifiers: A Functional Discourse Grammar account. Open Linguistics, 8 (1), 618–649. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
RAE-ASALE (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: RAE/Espasa.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Ten lectures on cognitive modeling. Between grammar and language-based inferencing (Distinguished Lectures in Cognitive Linguistics, 25). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective (Human Cognitive Processing, 45). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salazar, V. (2002). La estructura estar + N en el marco general de las construcciones atributivas en español. Language Design, 4 1, 67–91.Google Scholar
Sánchez López, C. (2002). Las construcciones con ‘se’. Estado de la cuestión. In C. Sánchez López (Ed.), Las construcciones con ‘se’ (pp. 13–163). Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Scheibman, J. (2002). Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 164) (pp. 111–138). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. (2006). Predication with characterizing sentences in Spanish. In B. Fernández & I. Laka (Coords.), Andolin gogoan. Essays in honor of professor Eguzkitza (pp. 835–853). Bilbao: Publicaciones de la Universidad del País Vasco-EHU.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes (Oxford Studies in Diachronic Linguistics, 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, P. (2015). Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, 63 (3), 323–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar