Article published In:
Expressing and Describing SurpriseEdited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 353–382
Edited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 353–382
Operationalizing mirativity
A usage-based quantitative study of constructional construal in English
This study focuses on the conceptual category of mirativity and its constructional construal in English. We propose an operationalization of mirativity with a view to investigating the phenomenon within the usage-based quantitative methodology of multifactorial analysis (Geeraerts, Grondelaers, & Bakema, 1994; Gries, 2003). The proposed operationalization is founded on two usage dimensions, i.e., the degree of performativity of the utterance and the degree of incongruity of the described event. It is argued that mirativity, in its prototypical form, can be operationally defined as a combination of high levels of these two variables. The feasibility of this operationalization in usage-based quantitative research is tested in a case study investigating three surprise-encoding constructions in English: [what + the + np], [what + a + np] and [to + my + np]. The data, amounting to 350 observations of the three constructions, were extracted from dialogic online diaries and submitted to detailed manual annotation and subsequent multivariate statistical modeling. The results reveal a usage continuum ranging from [what + the + np] through [to + my + np] to [what + a + np] relative to the high degrees of performativity and incongruity.
References (39)
Akatsuka, N. (1985). Conditionals and the epistemic scale. Language, 61(3), 625–639. 
Arppe, A. (2008). Univariate, bivariate and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography; A study of synonymy. PhD dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Bondarko, A. (1991). Functional grammar. A field approach (trans. I. Chulaki). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H. (2007). Predicting the dative. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation alternation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 11, 33–52.
. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 369–382.
. (2012). Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology, 161, 529–564.
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L. (2001). Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 339–348.
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E. (1982). The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say, and tell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Divjak, D. (2010). Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fontaine, J., Scherer, K., & Soriano, C. (Eds.). (2013). Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, St., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Glynn, D. (2008). Lexical fields, grammatical constructions and synonymy. A study in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In H.-J. Schmid & S. Handl (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage-patterns: Empirical studies (pp. 89–118). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2009). Polysemy, syntax, and variation. A usage-based method for Cognitive Semantics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 77–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. (2010). Testing the hypothesis: Objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 239–269). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2014). Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics. Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443–486). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Glynn, D., & Fischer, D. (Eds.). (2010). Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J. (Eds.). (2014). Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gries, S.T. (1999). Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 101, 105–145.
. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum.
Grondelaers, S., & Geeraerts, D. (2003). Towards a pragmatic model of cognitive onomasiology. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics (pp. 67–92). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Heylen, K. (2005). A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (pp. 241–264). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Krawczak, K. (2014a). Shame and its near-synonyms in English: A multivariate corpus-driven approach to social emotions. In I. Novakova, P. Blumenthal, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Emotions in discourse (pp. 84–94). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
. (2014b). Epistemic stance predicates in English: A quantitative corpus-driven study of subjectivity. In D. Glynn & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity: Corpus, discourse, and literary approaches to stance (pp. 355–386). Lund: Lund University Press.
. (2014c). Corpus evidence for the cross-cultural structure of social emotions: Shame, embarrassment, and guilt in English and Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 541, 441–475.
Krawczak, K., & Glynn, D. (in press). Operationalising construal. Of / about prepositional profiling for cognition and communication predicates. In C.M. Bretones Callejas & C. Sinha (Eds.), Construals in language and thought: What shapes what? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lattin, J.M., Carrol, J.D., & Green, P.E. (2003). Analyzing multivariate data. Pacific Grove: Thomson Brooks.
McFadden, D. (1978). Quantitative methods for analyzing travel behavior of individuals: Some recent developments. In D.A. Hensher & P.R. Stopher (Eds.), Behavioral travel modeling (pp. 279–318). London: Croom Helm.
Nordmark, H., & Glynn, D. (2013). Anxiety between mind and society: A corpus-driven cross-cultural study of conceptual metaphors. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 11, 107–130.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 383–400.
Scherer, K. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 441, 693–727.
Soriano, C., Fontaine, J.R.J., & Scherer, K.R. (this volume). Surprise in the GRID.
Speelman, D. (2005). LiveJournal corpus of British and American English. Leuven University.
Stefanowitsch, A. (2010). Empirical Cognitive Semantics: Some thoughts. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 355– 380). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Winner, E., Windmueller, G., Rosenblatt, E., Bosco, L., Best, E., & Gardner, H. (1987). Making sense of literal and nonliteral falsehood. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 21, 13–32.
Cited by (14)
Cited by 14 other publications
Glynn, Dylan & Olaf Mikkelsen
2024. Concrete constructions or messy mangroves? How modelling contextual effects on constructional alternations reflect theoretical assumptions of language structure. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 9 ff. 
Troughton, Faye
Troughton, Faye
2024. Quelle traduction ! A study of the translation of French quel and
English what exclamatives in political discourse. Meta 68:2 ► pp. 245 ff.
Türkyılmaz, Bahar
2024. Özbek Türkçesinde Miratif (Beklenmeyen Bilgi) Kategorisi. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi :15 ► pp. 507 ff.
Choi, Soonja, Florian Goller, Ulrich Ansorge, Upyong Hong & Hongoak Yun
2022. Lexical expressions and grammatical markers for source of information: A contrast between German and Korean. Language Sciences 92 ► pp. 101475 ff.
Glynn, Dylan
2022. Chapter 8. Emergent categories. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 245 ff.
Glynn, Dylan & Avgustina Biryukova
2022. Death, enemies, and illness: How English and Russian metaphorically conceptualise boredom. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 10:1 ► pp. 33 ff.
Krawczak, Karolina
2022. Chapter 11. Modeling constructional variation. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 341 ff.
Ghesquière, Lobke & Faye Troughton
2021. What a Change! A Diachronic Study of Exclamative What Constructions. Journal of English Linguistics 49:2 ► pp. 139 ff.
SERRANO-LOSADA, MARIO
2020. Analogy-driven change: the emergence and development of mirativeend upconstructions in American English. English Language and Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 97 ff.
Fronhofer, Nina-Maria
2019. Chapter 9. My anger was justified surely?. In Emotion in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 302], ► pp. 213 ff.
De Wit, Astrid
2017. The expression of mirativity through aspectual constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:2 ► pp. 385 ff.
Ioannou, Georgios
2017. A corpus-based analysis of the verb pleróo in Ancient Greek. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 253 ff.
Ioannou, Georgios
2019. From Athenian fleet to prophetic eschatology. Correlating formal features to themes of discourse in Ancient Greek. Folia Linguistica 53:s40-s2 ► pp. 355 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 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.