Cover not available
Part of
Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 68] 2014
► pp. 271–294

“That’s so a construction!”

Some reflections on innovative uses of “so” in Present-day English

This paper provides a fine-grained analysis of the “X is so N(P)” constructionin present-day English, in which the noun in the A slot necessarily involvesmetonymic inferencing and can be determinerless, even if it is countable. Thisconstruction conveys a positive or negative assessment by the speaker/writerof a given person, entity, event or state of affairs, with some interpretationsexhibiting a higher degree of conventionalization than others. From a syntagmaticviewpoint, the construction under scrutiny instantiates a step-wise,gradual transition from noun to adjective in the A slot (e.g. “That’s so applepie”< “That’s so cool”). Our analysis also reveals the existence of paradigmaticsets with other intensifiers (e.g. “very”, “quite”, “totally”, “really”, “too”) in predicativeand attributive contexts.
Keywords: construction, constructional change, intensifier, metonymy, subjectivity
Published online: 22 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.12gon
References (38)
Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences , 29, 554–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., & Bauer, W. (2002). Adjective boosters in the English of young New Zealanders. Journal of English Linguistics , 30(3), 244–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–227). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.L. (1972). Degree words . The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In R. Janda, & B. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 602–623). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bylinina, E. (2011). This is so np! The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication , 6, 1–29.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (2010). Category change in English with and without structural change. In ­Elizabeth Closs Traugott, & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization (Typological Studies in Language, 90) (pp. 105–128). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engelbretson, R. (2007). Stance-taking in discourse. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stance-taking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 1–12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology, 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument Structure . Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar . London: Arnold. Third edition.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language , 81(2), 345–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuha, M. (2004). Investigating the spread of “so” as an intensifier: Social and structural factors. Texas Linguistic Forum , 48, 217–227.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden. G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics , 9(1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 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
Méndez-Naya, B. (2008). Introduction. English intensifiers. English Language and Linguistics , 12(2), 213–219.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L.A. (2003). Headless constructions and coercion by construction. In E. Francis, & L.A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp. 259–310). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2012). Notions of (inter-)subjectivity. English Text Construction , 5(1), 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics , 12(2), 317–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peters, H. (1994). Degree adverbs in Early Modern English. In D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in Early Modern English (pp. 269–288). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints and interaction. Language & Communication , 21(4), 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Díez Velasco, O.I. (2003). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (2011). On the evidence of convergence in linguistic research. In D. ­Schönefeld (Ed.), Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research (pp. 1–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2008). So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics , 12(2), 361–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., & Roberts, C. (2005). So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech , 80(3), 280–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Dasher, R.B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics , 4(3), 273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition . Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wee, L., & Ying Ying, T. (2008). “That’s so last year! Constructions in a socio-cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics , 40, 2100–2113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. (2006). [URL] (April6, 2006).