Cover not available

In: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

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

“That’s so a construction!”

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

Published online: 22 July 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.12gon
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.
References (38)
Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Athanasiadou, A. (2007). On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences , 29, 554–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, L., & Bauer, W. (2002). Adjective boosters in the English of young New Zealanders. Journal of English Linguistics , 30(3), 244–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.L. (1972). Degree words . The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bylinina, E. (2011). This is so np! The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication , 6, 1–29.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (2007). Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives (Oxford Surveys in Syntax and Morphology, 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument Structure . Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar . London: Arnold. Third edition.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language , 81(2), 345–381. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuha, M. (2004). Investigating the spread of “so” as an intensifier: Social and structural factors. Texas Linguistic Forum , 48, 217–227.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden. G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics , 9(1), 37–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, B. (2008). Introduction. English intensifiers. English Language and Linguistics , 12(2), 213–219.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2012). Notions of (inter-)subjectivity. English Text Construction , 5(1), 53–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics , 12(2), 317–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language . London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2008). So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics , 12(2), 361–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E.C., & Dasher, R.B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. (1993). Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics , 4(3), 273–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition . Oxford. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (2006). [URL] (April6, 2006).
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Duffley, Patrick
2025. Can syntax swallow semantics? Or might it not be the other way around?. Folia Linguistica DOI logo
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2020. Metonymy meets coercion. In Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language [Figurative Thought and Language, 9], ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco, Alba Luzondo Oyón & Paula Pérez Sobrino
2017. Introduction. In Constructing families of constructions [Human Cognitive Processing, 58], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Stange, Ulrike
2017. “You’re So Not Going to Believe This”:. American Speech 92:4 ► pp. 487 ff. DOI logo
Bordet, Lucile
2016. References. Lexis :10 DOI logo
Cacchiani, Silvia
2016. Cognitive motivation in English complex intensifying adjectives. Lexis :10 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 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