Cover not available

Article published In: Constructions and Frames
Vol. 16:1 (2024) ► pp.100–129

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Towards a usage-based characterisation of the English Superlative Object Construction

ORCiD logo with link | University of Santiago de Compostela
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

This article was made Open Access under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license through payment of an APC by or on behalf of the author.

Published online: 6 February 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22020.bou
Abstract
Little attention has been paid to the English Superlative Object Construction (SOC), as in She worked her hardest. The historical grammarians Jespersen, O. (1909–1949). A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar and Poutsma, H. (1904–1929). A grammar of Late Modern English: For the use of continental, especially Dutch, students. P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar are the only ones who do touch on the SOC, and they do so in passing relying on what seem to be the prototypical examples of the construction. This empirical evidence, though valuable for a first characterisation of the pattern, is insufficient to provide a detailed analysis of the form, function, frequency, and distribution of the SOC in Present Day English from the perspective of Construction Grammar. Based on usage-based data from COCA, this paper argues that the SOC qualifies as an intensifying comparative construction. Despite being low frequent and showing a set of highly entrenched, lexicalised units (e.g., smile [X] prettiest, work [X] hardest), the SOC is relatively productive, especially in informal registers where the construction can be easily accommodated to serve emotive, phatic, and conative functions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Characteristic features of the modern SOC
  • 3.The SO and other analogous object types and structures
    • 3.1The SO within the system of English comparatives
  • 4.Looking our finest: The view from construction grammar
  • 5.Data sources and methodology
  • 6.Results and discussion
    • 6.1The SOC as a traditional Goldbergian construction
    • 6.2The SOC as a low-frequency construction
    • 6.3The SOC as a relatively productive construction
    • 6.4The SOC as a polyfunctional and genre-based (sensitive) construction
  • 7.Final discussion and concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (84)
References
Allerton, D. J. (1982). Valency and the English verb. Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of language. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beland, N. (2022). The superlative alternation in British vs. American English: Questionnaire-based insights. In M. Krug, O. Schützler, F. Vetter, & V. Werner (Eds.), Perspectives on contemporary English: Structure, variation, cognition. Bamberg studies in English linguistics. Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johannson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999/2021). Grammar of spoken and written English. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouso, T. (2012). Presupposition, persuasion and mag food advertising: A preliminary study. Odisea. Revista de Estudios Ingleses, 131, 19–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). On the nonprototypical status of reaction objects and other nonsubcategorized objects. In E. Álvarez López, E. M. Durán Almarza, & A. Menéndez Tarrazo (Eds.), Building interdisciplinary knowledge. Approaches to English and American studies in Spain (pp. 307–314). AEDEAN & KRK Ediciones.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Muttering contempt and smiling appreciation: Disentangling the history of the reaction object construction in English. English Studies, 98(2), 194–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Changes in argument structure. The transitivizing reaction object construction. Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022a). The English reaction object construction: A case of syntactic constructional contamination. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 651, 13–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022b). Where does lexical diversity come from? Horizontal interaction in the network of the Late Modern English reaction object construction. English Studies, 103(8), 1334–1360. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouso, T., & Ruano San Segundo, P. (2021a). Another turn of the screw on the history of the reaction object construction. Functions of Language, 28(2), 208–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021b). The British Sentimental Novel Corpus (BSNC) and the ROC-DDC alternation at the level of the individual. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 20(1), 215–257.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2022). Only collect? How construction grammarians also link it all up. Abralin AO VIVO talk. Available at: [URL]
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990–present. [URL] (accessed 30 August 2022)
(2010). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810–2009. [URL] (accessed 30 August 2022)
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duffley, P. J., & Tremblay, R. (1994). The infinitive and the -ing as complements of verbs of effort. English Studies, 75(6), 566–575. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ebeling, O. S. (2021). To score or to score a goal: Transitivity in football match reports. English Studies, 102(2), 243–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fanego, T. (1997). On patterns of complementation with verbs of effort. English Studies, 78(1), 60–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). A construction of independent means: The history of the way construction revisited. English Language & Linguistics, 23(3), 671–699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–89). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2014/2022). Coll.analysis 3.5/4.0. A Script for R to Compute Perform Collostructional Analyses. [URL] (accessed 28 July 2023)
Gu, Q. (2017). A corpus-based comparative study on the superlative forms in British English and Singapore Colloquial English. Word, 63(4), 241–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günther, C. (2018). The rich, the poor, the obvious: Arguing for an ellipsis analysis of “adjectives used as nouns.” In A. H. Leung & W. van der Wurff (Eds.), The noun phrase in English: Past and present (pp. 77–112). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37(6), 1043–1068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). The English comparative – language structure and language use. English Language & Linguistics, 12(3), 395–417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 391–404). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014/2019). Construction Grammar and its application to English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Ten lectures on diachronic construction grammar. Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Höche, S. (2009). Cognate object constructions in English. A cognitive-linguistic account. Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2018). Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 259–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). English comparative correlatives: Diachronic and synchronic variation at the lexicon-syntax interface. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019b). Language and creativity: A Construction Grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard, 5(1), Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Bergs, A. (2018). A Construction Grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes, 181, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (2002). Comparative constructions. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp. 1097–1170). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, M. (1996). The way constructions grow. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 217–230). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivorra Ordines, P. (2021a). Comparative constructional idioms. A corpus-based study of the creativity of the [más feo que X] construction. In C. Mellado Blanco (Ed.), Productive patterns in phraseology and construction grammar. A multilingual approach (pp. 29–52). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021b). Les construccions comparatives intensificadores de la lletjor en català, espanyol, anglès i francès des de les gramàtiques de construccions: Un estudi basat en corpus [Intensifying comparative constructions in Catalan, Spanish, English, and French from a construction grammar perspective: A corpus-based study]. Universitat Pompeu Fabra PhD dissertation.
Ivorra Ordines, P., & Mellado Blanco, C. (2021). Más tontos que el novio de la Chelo. La intensificación de la estulticia en foros y chats por medio de comparaciones creativas: Una aproximación desde la gramática de construcciones [Más tontos que el novio de la Chelo. The intensification of stupidity in forums and chats through creative comparisons: A Construction Grammar approach]. Estudios Románicos, 301, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1909–1949). A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kester, E. (1996). Adjectival inflection and the licensing of empty categories in DP. Journal of Linguistics, 32(1), 57–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kogusuri, T. (2009). The syntax and semantics of reaction object constructions in English. Tsukuba English Studies, 281, 33–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). On the passivization of the gesture expression construction. Tsukuba English Studies, 291, 149–168.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, D. (2008). Intransitive or object deleting? Classifying English verbs used without an object. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(4), 289–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez Vázquez, M. (1998). Effected objects in English and Spanish. Languages in Contrast, 1(2), 245–264. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Nominalized expressive acts in English. Verbum, 37(1), 147–170.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Massam, D. (1990). Cognate objects as thematic objects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 35(2), 161–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Möhlig, R., & Klages, M. (2002). Detransitivization in the history of English from a semantic perspective. In F. Fanego & M. J. López-Couso (Eds.), English historical syntax and morphology (pp. 231–254). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondorf, B. (2003). Support for more-support. In Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B. (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 251–304). De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Snake legs it to freedom: Dummy it as pseudo object. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(1), 73–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondorf, B., & Schneider, U. (2016). Detransitivisation as a support strategy for causative bring. English Language & Linguistics, 20(3), 439–462. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2018). Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition, 25(3), 543–575. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, J. (2005). Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Rethinking constructional polysemy. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 61–85). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 65–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1904–1929). A grammar of Late Modern English: For the use of continental, especially Dutch, students. P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A. (Ed.). (2000). Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. [URL]
Snell-Hornby, M. (1983). Verb-descriptivity in German and English: A contrastive study in semantic fields. Carl Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development: Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp. 299–250). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32(3), 389–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963–1973). An historical syntax of the English language. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watanabe, A., & Iyeiri, Y. (2020). Explaining the variability of adjective comparatives and superlatives: Entering the twenty-first century. Word, 66(2), 71–97. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeschel, A. (2012). Incipient productivity: A construction-based approach to linguistic creativity. Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bouso, Tamara, Marianne Hundt & Laetitia Van Driessche
2024. A sisterhood of constructions? A structural priming approach to modelling links in the network of Objoid Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 35:3 ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue