Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 28:2 (2021) ► pp.208–231

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

Another turn of the screw on the history of the reaction object construction

ORCiD logo with link | Universitat de les Illes Balears
ORCiD logo with link | Universidad de Extremadura
Published online: 7 April 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.20026.bou
Abstract
This article deals with the Reaction Object Construction (ROC), as in She smiled disbelief, where an intransitive verb (smile), by adding an emotional object (disbelief), acquires the extended sense “express X by V−ing” (i.e. “She expressed disbelief by smiling”). Earlier research has suggested a diachronic connection between the ROC and Direct Discourse Constructions (DDCs) of the type She smiled, “I don’t believe you” (Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English language. Volume I: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). More recently, . 2018. Changes in argument structure in the history of English, with special reference to the emergence and development of reaction object constructions. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela PhD thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar has shown that the ROC is primarily a feature of 19th century narrative fiction. This paper aims to bring together these insights. On the basis of a self-compiled corpus and De Smet’s Corpus of English Novels, it investigates the productivity of the ROC in 19th and 20th century fiction, and the role of DDCs in its development. The results reveal a peak in the productivity of the ROC that coincides with the development of the sentimental novel, and a correlation between the development of the ROC on the one hand and of those DDCs that have been mistakenly hypothesised to be its single source constructions on the other. Extravagance is proposed as a triggering factor for the use of the ROC in the 19th century as an alternative to DDCs.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.State of the art
    • 2.1Characterisation and history of the ROC
    • 2.2The function of the ROC
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Relation between the ROC and the sentimental novel
    • 4.2The role of DDCs in the development of the ROC
  • 5.Concluding remarks and future research
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (66)
References
Baayen, Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, Volume 2, 899–919. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald & Rochelle Lieber. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29(5). 801–844. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baldick, Chris. 2001. The concise Oxford dictionary of literary terms. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1999. Case and argument structure of some loan verbs in 15th century Icelandic. In Inger Haskå & Carin Sandqvist (eds.), Alla tiders språk. En Vänskrift till Gertrud Pettersson november 1999, 9–23. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Case in Icelandic: A synchronic, diachronic and comparative approach. Lund: Department of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald (eds.). 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouso, Tamara. 2012. Reaction object constructions in contemporary American English: A preliminary corpus-based study. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela MA thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. On the nonprototypical status of reaction objects and other nonsubcategorized objects. In Esther Álvarez López, Emilia María Durán Almarza & Alicia Menéndez Tarrazo (eds.), Building interdisciplinary knowledge. Approaches to English and American studies in Spain, 307–314. Oviedo: 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
. 2018. Changes in argument structure in the history of English, with special reference to the emergence and development of reaction object constructions. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela PhD thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Busse, Beatrix. 2010. Speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of nineteenth-century English narrative fiction. Bern: University of Bern.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caldas-Coulthard, Carmen Rosa. 1994. On reporting reporting: The representation of speech in factual and factional narratives. In Malcom Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis, 295–308. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald & John McRae. 1996. The Penguin guide to English literature: Britain and Ireland. London: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik (compiler). 2008. Corpus of English Novels (CEN). Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, Hans-Jürgen Diller & Jukka Tyrkkö (compilers). 2013. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0 (CLMET3.0). Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 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
Fludernik, Monika. 1993. The fictions of language and the languages of fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(1). 106–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2014. Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, Hilary. 2004. Sentimental spectacles: The sentimental novel, natural language, and early film performance. Oregon, OR: University of Oregon PhD thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6). 1043–1068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Head, Dominic (ed.). 2006. The Cambridge guide to literature in English, 3rd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Distinctive collexeme analysis and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2). 243–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 391–404. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Construction grammar and its application to English, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Susanne Flach. Forthcoming. A case of constructional contamination in English: Modified noun phrases influence adverb placement in the passive. In Marcin Grygiel (ed.), Contrast and analogy in language: Perspectives from Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Höche, Silke. 2009. Cognate object constructions in English. A cognitive-linguistic account. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Laurie Bauer, Betty Birner, Ted Briscoe, Peter Collins, David Denison, David Lee, Anita Mittwoch, Geoffrey Nunberg, Frank Palmer, John Payne, Peter Peterson, Lesley Stirling & Gregory Ward. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunt, Leigh, Laurence Sterne, John Hawkesworth, Jean-François Marmontel, Samuel Johnson, Voltaire, Henry Brooke, Oliver Goldsmith & Henry Mackenzie. 1806. Classic tales, serious and lively: With critical essays on the merits and reputation of the authors. London: John Hunt & Carew Raynell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Mick Short. 1981. Style in fiction. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. A preliminary investigation. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahlberg, Michaela, Viola Wiegand, Peter Stockwell & Anthony Hennessey. 2019. Speech-bundles in the 19th-century English novel. Language and Literature 28(4). 326–353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martínez-Vázquez, Montserrat. 2010. Reaction object constructions in English. A corpus-based study. In Isabel Moskowich, Begoña Crespo, Inés Lareo & Paula Lojo (eds.), Language windowing through corpora / Visualización del lenguaje a través de corpus, 551–561. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña.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
McHale, Brian. 1978. Free indirect discourse: A survey of recent accounts. PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 31. 249–287.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McIntyre, Dan & Brian Walker. 2019. Corpus stylistics: Theory and practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel & Kristel Van Goethem. 2018. Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or constructional change? In Geert Booij (ed.), The construction of Words. Studies in morphology, 475–518. Springer: Cham. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ousby, Ian (ed.). 1988. The Cambridge guide to literature in English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk & Freek Van de Velde. 2016. Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica 50(2). 543–581. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piper, Andrew & Richard Jean So. 2015. Quantifying the weepy bestseller: Are commercial novels really more sentimental than literary fiction? The New Republic. Accessed October 3, 2020. Available online at [URL]
R Core Team. 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Viena, Austria.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, Ann Wierda. 2008. Sentimental fiction. In Rirchard Maxwell & Katie Trumpener (eds.), The Cambridge companion to fiction in the Romantic period, 191–206. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruano San Segundo, Pablo. 2017. Reporting verbs as a stylistic device in the creation of fictional personalities in literary texts. Atlantis. Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies 39(2). 105–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruano San Segundo, Pablo & Tamara Bouso (compilers). 2019. British Sentimental Novel Corpus (BSNC). Cáceres: Departamento de Filología Inglesa, Universidad de Extremadura.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samuels, Shirley. 1992. The culture of sentiment: Race, gender, and sentimentality in nineteenth-century America. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2012. WordSmith Tools version 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semino, Elena & Mick Short. 2004. Corpus stylistics. Speech, thought and writing presentation in a corpus of English writing. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul. 1993. Language, ideology and point of view. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 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
Thompson, Geoff. 1996. Voices in the text: Discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied Linguistics 17(4). 501–530. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toolan, Michael. 2001. Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Visser, Frederikus Theodorus. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English language. Volume I: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

GRUND, PETER J.
2025. Gasping, chuckling, wheezing, bellowing and co.: the development of speech representation verbs in Late Modern English. English Language and Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bouso, Tamara & Pablo Ruano San Segundo
2024. The Reaction Object Construction in the Leech and Short’s model: A new strategy of discourse presentation in the nineteenth-century novel. Studia Neophilologica ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bouso, Tamara
2022. Where Does Lexical Diversity Come From? Horizontal Interaction in the Network of the Late Modern English Reaction Object Construction. English Studies 103:8 ► pp. 1334 ff. DOI logo
Bouso, Tamara
2024. Towards a usage-based characterisation of the English Superlative Object Construction. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 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