1,721,077 research outputs found
Wonder nouns and the emergence of a mirative constructional network
Full text linkpeer reviewedBased on extensive synchronic corpus research (cf. Brems & Van linden 2019), this paper deals with a mirative constructional network centred on the mirative shell noun wonder. The wonder nouns studied qualify the propositions in their scope in terms of mirativity, i.e. as “unexpected” (DeLancey 2001: 369), or “the opposite meaning, ... lack of surprise” (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007: 37), as in (1)-(4). We argue that the network encompasses several allostructions, all relying on an anti-concessive discourse schema. This schema, established by a mirative qualifier (MQ), signals that even though a certain proposition (P) seems unexpected, it is not, given the justification (J) invoked. In (1), for instance, the speaker uses the MQ it is no wonder to express their lack of surprise about us having the most dangerous rail network (P) given that Byers in in charge of it (J). The MQ is thus similar in meaning to an expectation adverb like of course (Simon-Vandenbergen & Aijmer 2007: 172). As shown in (1)-(3), this schema appears in a number of structural variants, e.g. complementation (1), paratactic (2) and adverbial patterns (3).
(1) With Byers in charge it is no wonder we have the most dangerous rail system in Europe. (WB)
(2) Already, clinicians hesitate to speak authoritatively, preferring instead to present the patient with a range of options from which they must choose. This is no wonder, given the constant pressure […] for ‘both parties in the doctor-patient relationship’ to ‘recognise and respect the other’s area of expertise’ (WB)
(3) Then it was announced she had beaten the track record by an amazing three and a half seconds. No wonder! She had run 110 yards less than she should. (WB)
In addition to wonder, other mirative nouns are part of this synchronic network, such as marvel surprise and coincidence. We argue that the anti-concessive discourse schema can be understood as a macro-construction, while the allostructions are meso-constructions that inherit the schema, one of whose schematic slots is filled with the various wonder nouns. Micro-constructions are the individual constructions attested per wonder noun, like the structural variants in (1) to (3) for wonder. We will also discuss partial inheritance of the schema, observed e.g. for ironically used surprise, surprise (4).
(4) Apparently, the insurance industry suddenly has woken up to the fact that the over-50s are – surprise, surprise – less likely to prang their cars, and more likely to look after their possessions and be at home to deter burglars. (WB)
While diachronic research has shown that the network first emerged in Old English revolving around wonder, with Romance nouns being added in the course of history, this paper will focus on Present-day data drawn from WordbanksOnline (WB).
References
Brems, Lieselotte & An Van linden. 2019. Miracles and mirativity: Lexical versus grammatical uses of wonder, marvel, and surprise. Paper presented at Workshop on the English Noun Phrase (ENP 2019), University of Vienna.
DeLancey, Scott. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369-382.
Simon-Vandenbergen & Karin Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.“Negation and grammaticalization. The development of modal, polar and mirative meanings by expressions with ‘no’ need, ‘no’ wonder, ‘no’ chance, ‘no’ way” (FSR-S-SH-17/15); (2) “Competition in emergent grammatical paradigms” (FSR-S-SH-CDR-19/09
No way and no chance as emphatic negative response items
Full text linkpeer reviewedPrevious research has shown that verbo-nominal patterns with semiotic nouns such as way, doubt and chance followed by a relative or complement clause are a locus of synchronic variation and diachronic change (Davidse, De Wolf & Van linden 2015, Gentens et al. 2016, Saad et al. 2012, Van linden & Brems 2018).
In this presentation we want to focus on the adverbials no way and no chance (without relative or complement clause) as emphatic negative response items in the sense that they act as intensified variants of no (cf. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 849). In addition, they also exceed the latter’s functional range by having modal-attitudinal inferences or basic meanings. Examples are in (1) and (2).
(1a) “What do we do? Do we hike out downriver?” “No way,” Max answered firmly. (WB)
(1b) “A hitchhiker!” said Ellie excitedly. “Yeah, no way,” said Julia. (WB)
(2a) Did he blast the kick closer to Argentina keeper Pablo Cavallero than he intended? He grinned: “No chance! It was just as I had planned.” (WB)
(2b) Smoove bring us this manic dance track. Hear it once and then try to get the “Hype! Hype!” chorus out of your head. No chance. (WB)
In (1a) no way emphatically rejects hiking out downriver as an attractive proposal for a joint activity, whereas in (2b) it is not an intensified variant of no (see preceding yeah), but it functions as a mirative qualifier, expressing disbelief on behalf of the speaker. In (2a) no chance expresses strong speaker commitment to the impossibility of the kick having been unintentionally close to the keeper (epistemic meaning), which makes for an emphatic negative response to the preceding question. In (2b) no chance emphatically indicates the participant’s inability to get the song out of their head (dynamic meaning). Like in (1b), no + noun cannot be replaced by a ‘simple’ no.
Using the Collins Wordbanks (WB) corpus we will analyse 100 synchronic examples for no chance and no way each. We will investigate to what extent they are true – intensified – variants of the negative particle no, and analyse the types of modal-attitudinal inferences or basic meanings they express, , including epistemic, deontic, dynamic and mirative shades of meaning. This analysis crucially takes into account the nature of the utterance the adverbial responds to (e.g. proposal for joint action in (1a) vs. exclamative (1b)). We thus aim to shed light on what seems to be a new set of emphatic negative response items (possibly including no doubt/fear/etc.) and on the way they enrich this category semantically and formally (cf. paradigmatic enrichment in author & Davidse 2010).
References
Brems, Lieselotte & Kristin Davidse. 2010. "Complex subordinators derived from noun complement clauses: grammaticalization and paradigmaticity" Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42 (1): 101-116.
Davidse, Kristin Simon De Wolf & An Van linden. 2015. The development of the modal and discourse marker uses of (there/it is / I have) no doubt, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16 (2): 25-58.
Davidse, Kristin, Lieselotte Brems, Jacob Lesage & An Van linden. 2014. Negation, grammaticalization and subjectification: the development of polar, modal and mirative no way-constructions, ICEHL18, 14-18 July 2014, University of Leuven.
Gentens, Caroline, Ditte Kimps, Kristin Davidse, Gilles Jacobs, An Van linden & Lieselotte Brems. 2016. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: The development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the Clause. Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 125-156 [Studies in Language Companion Series 178]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saad, Khalida., Wouter Parmentier, Lieselotte Brems, Kristin Davidse & An Van linden. 2012. The development of modal, polar and mirative no way-constructions. ICAME 33, University of Leuven, 30 May-3 June 2012.
Van linden, An & Lieselotte Brems. 2018. It was chance’s chance to become polyfunctional in the modal domain. Twentieth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL20), University of Edinburgh, 27-31 August 2018.Negation and grammaticalization. The development of modal, polar and mirative meanings by expressions with ‘no’ need, ‘no’ wonder, ‘no’ chance, ‘no’ way
Nature et étendue de la production métaphorique dans les troubles du spectre schizophrénique: une approche par la lingusitique cognitive
Full text linkL'influence du français sur des constructions grammaticales de l'anglais et du néerlandais: Une approche cognitive dans une étude contrastive et historique
No full textComplement and parenthetical constructions:Theory and description
No full textThis special issue brings together the papers presented at the successful 2019 workshop “The syntagmatic properties of complementation patterns: Accommodating lexical and grammatical uses of CTP-clauses” (https://ctp-clauses.sciencesconf.org). It focuses on complement-taking predicate clauses (CTP-clauses) occurring in complement constructions that allow for functional variation – i.e. showing both complementizing/lexical uses and modifying/grammatical uses (cf. Boye & Harder 2007) – as well as in parenthetical constructions (e.g. It is a good idea, I think). While traditionally complement clauses have been analysed as constituents of the main clause headed by the CTP (e.g. Noonan 1985: 42), usage-based approaches – drawing on conversational data – proposed an alternative analysis, viewing the complement clauses as central and the CTP-clauses as “epistemic/evidential/evaluative fragments” (Thompson 2002: 136–141). Recently Boye & Harder’s (2007, 2012) functional approach to CTP-clauses has attempted to strike a balance between the traditional and the usage-based approaches, arguing for a distinction between the levels of usage and structure, and proposing tests to attribute instances showing the same structure to three different types of use, i.e. discourse-primary lexical uses, discourse-secondary lexical uses, and grammatical uses (invariably discourse-secondary). The papers in this issue present various functionalist approaches to the topic of CTP-clauses, with a good mix of theoretical concerns and empirical case studies. After an introduction by the guest editors, the issue proper moves from more general and typological papers, over more theoretically-oriented papers to diachronic corpus studies of English
Complex subordinators with noun phrases that take complement clauses as source construction: a case for paradigmatic enrichment
No full textA corpus study of Measure Noun constructions as an instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization
No full textReview of Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg (eds), Advances in Corpus-based Contrastive Linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 54)
Full text linkpeer reviewe
- …
