Cover not available

Article published In: Expressing and Describing Surprise
Edited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 353–382

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

Operationalizing mirativity

A usage-based quantitative study of constructional construal in English

Published online: 31 December 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.2.04kra
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arppe, A. (2008). Univariate, bivariate and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography; A study of synonymy. PhD dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bondarko, A. (1991). Functional grammar. A field approach (trans. I. Chulaki). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 11, 33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 369–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2012). Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology, 161, 529–564.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dendale, P., & Tasmowski, L. (2001). Introduction: Evidentiality and related notions. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 339–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Divjak, D. (2010). Structuring the lexicon: A clustered model for near-synonymy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fontaine, J., Scherer, K., & Soriano, C. (Eds.). (2013). Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, St., & Bakema, P. (1994). The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glynn, D., & Fischer, D. (Eds.). (2010). Quantitative Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S.T. (1999). Particle movement: A cognitive and functional approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 101, 105–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lattin, J.M., Carrol, J.D., & Green, P.E. (2003). Analyzing multivariate data. Pacific Grove: Thomson Brooks.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 331, 383–400. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scherer, K. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured? Social Science Information, 441, 693–727. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Wąsik, Marta & Maciej Witek
2025. Illocutionary Competence in Irony Comprehension: Insights from Empirical Studies on ASD. Analiza i Egzystencja 72 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Troughton, Faye
2024. Projected meaning in English and French. Languages in Contrast 24:2 ► pp. 248 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Türkyılmaz, Bahar
2024. Özbek Türkçesinde Miratif (Beklenmeyen Bilgi) Kategorisi. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi :15 ► pp. 507 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Glynn, Dylan
2022. Emergent categories. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Krawczak, Karolina
2022. Modeling constructional variation. In Analogy and Contrast in Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 73], ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Ghesquière, Lobke & Faye Troughton
2021. What a Change! A Diachronic Study of Exclamative What Constructions. Journal of English Linguistics 49:2 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Fronhofer, Nina-Maria
2019. Chapter 9. My anger was justified surely?. In Emotion in Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 302], ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
De Wit, Astrid
2017. The expression of mirativity through aspectual constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:2 ► pp. 385 ff. DOI logo
Ioannou, Georgios
2017. A corpus-based analysis of the verbpleróoin Ancient Greek. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:1 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 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