The cognitive mechanisms involved in the “DEGREE ADVERB + PROPER NAME” construction
Evaluating proposals from Construction Grammar and Formal Semantics
In: International Review of PragmaticsSearch for other papers by Gabriel Frazer-McKee in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Patrick J. Duffley in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
There are broad disagreements between existing models regarding the mental representations and processes involved in the “DEGREE ADVERB + PROPER NAME” construction, including divergences regarding the semantics of the degree device, the category status of the proper name, the construction’s expressed meaning, its compositionality, and, crucially, the operation holding between the degree device and the proper name. Our corpus-based investigation of two competing models from Construction Grammar and Formal Semantics shows that while both make useful contributions to the scientific understanding of the construction, neither is empirically adequate. Most importantly, we find that the construction participates in several non-predicted expressed meanings; multivariate analyses show that the three meanings amenable to statistical analysis cluster with different semantic usage-features. We argue that the best way to account for the construction’s semantics/pragmatics is via a previously-dismissed cognitive mechanism: an enrichment/strengthening-type operation whereby a pragmatically-supplied scale is added to the message.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic Gradience: The Nature of Grammatical Indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Aarts, Bas. 2018. English Syntax and Argumentation (5th ed.). London: Red Globe Press.
-
Addinsoft. 2021. XLSTAT statistical and data analysis solution (2021.3.1) [Computer software].
-
Algeo, John. 1962. A fun thing. American Speech 37: 158–159.
-
Anderson, Tonya. 2012. Still kissing their posters goodnight: female fandom and the politics of popular music. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies 9: 249–264.
-
Apple pie. 2018. In Oxford English Dictionary. https://www-oed-com/view/Entry/9686?
-
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Arnaud, Pierre J.L. 2010. Judging the degree of adjectivization of English nouns: an investigation of the discourse behaviour of a sample of frequent premodifier nouns. English Studies 91: 303–327.
-
Arnaud, Pierre J.L. 2022. Metaphor, metonymy and the nounness of proper names. Lexis: Journal in English Lexicology 20. https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.6617
-
Audring, Jenny & Geert Booij. 2016. Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics 54: 617–637.
-
Bach, Kent. 2015. The predicate view of proper names. Philosophy Compass 10: 772–784.
-
Bäcklund, Ulf. 1973. The Collocation of Adverbs of Degree in English. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.
-
Bauer, Laurie & Rodney Huddleston. 2002. Lexical word-formation. In R. Huddleston & G.K. Pullum (eds), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, 1621–1742. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Beltrama, Andrea. 2016. Bridging the gap: Intensifiers between semantic and social meaning. PhD thesis, University of Chicago.
-
Bhat, Shankara D.N. 2000. Word classes and sentential functions. In P.M. Vogel & B. Comrie (eds), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes, 47–64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
-
Bolinger, Dwight W. 1963. “It’s so fun.” American Speech 38: 246–240.
-
Bolinger, Dwight W. 1972. Degree Words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Bordet, Lucile. 2017. From vogue words to lexicalized intensifying words: the renewal and recycling of intensifiers in English. A case-study of very, really, so and totally. Lexis 10. https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.1125
-
Breban, Tine. 2018. Proper names used as modifiers: a comprehensive functional analysis. English Language and Linguistics 22: 381–401.
-
Breban, Tine & Kristin Davidse. 2016. The history of very: the directionality of functional shift and (inter)subjectification. English Language & Linguistics 20: 221–249.
-
Bury, Beata. 2017. Such LOL: linguistic variety and identity construction in internet memes. Studia Neofilologiczne 13: 81–90.
-
Butler, Christopher S. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-functional Theories. Part 1: Approaches to the Simplex Clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Bylinina, Elizaveta. 2011. This is so NP! The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication6: 1–29.
-
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
-
Castella, Marta. 2014. Bare predicates: Between syntax and semantics. PhD thesis, University of Verona.
-
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.
-
Constantinescu, Camelia. 2011. Gradability in the nominal domain. PhD thesis, University of Leuven.
-
Croft, William & Alan D. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Cronin, Frances & Lauren Turner. 2017. Six reasons why we still love Kurt Cobain. The British Broadcasting Corporation. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-39005630
-
Cross, Charles R. 2001. Heavier than Heaven: A Biography of Kurt Cobain. New York: Hyperion Books.
-
Cross, Charles R. 2014. Here We are Now: The Lasting Legacy of Kurt Cobain. New York: It Books.
-
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 1999. The view from the periphery: the English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 543–571.
-
Culicover, Peter W. & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Dabrowska, Ewa. 2016. Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics 27: 479–491.
-
Dancygier, Barbara. 2011. Modification and constructional blends in the use of proper names. Constructions and Frames 3: 208–335.
-
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88: 601–633.
-
Denison, David. 2001. Gradience and linguistic change. In L. Brinton (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 119–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Denison, David. 2010. Category change in English with and without structural change. In E.C. Traugott & G. Trousdale (eds), Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization, 105–128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Denison, David. 2015. Pushing the boundaries of word classes. Colloque international Bi-annuel sur la Diachronie de l’Anglais, Troyes, France.
-
Divjak, Dagmar & Nick Fieller. 2014. Cluster analysis: finding structure in linguistic data. In D. Glynn & J.A. Robinson (eds), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, 405–442. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Duffley, Patrick J. 2020. Linguistic Meaning Meets Linguistic Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Duffley, Patrick J. & Gabriel Frazer-McKee. 2024. The category status of proper names in adverbial degree constructions. CLANA1: Inaugural Conference of the Cognitive Linguistics Association of North America, Montreal, Canada.
-
Faulkner, Sandra L. & Stormy Trotter. 2017. Data saturation. In J. Matthes, C.S. Davis & R.F. Potter (eds), The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0060
-
Fillmore, C. John. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, 111–137. Berkeley, CA: UC Press.
-
Films about Kurt Cobain. 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_about_Kurt_Cobain
-
Fish, Duane R. 1995. Serving the servants: an analysis of the music of Kurt Cobain. Popular Music and Society 19: 87–102.
-
Frazer-McKee, Gabriel. 2020. The semantics and pragmatics of proper names in adverbial degree constructions: A corpus-driven contribution. MA thesis, Université Laval.
-
Frazer-McKee, Gabriel & Bruno Courbon. 2022. Relationship with a semioreferential object as a predictor variable: the case of insiders’ and outsiders’ uses of “very New York” on Twitter. Signifying 5: 128–162.
-
Frazer-McKee, Gabriel & Patrick J. Duffley. 2021. The expressed meanings of “very Kurt Cobain”: A corpus-based evaluation of proposed cognitive mechanisms. American Name Society Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17409.17764
-
Frazer-McKee, Gabriel & Patrick J. Duffley. 2022. The cognitive mechanisms involved in the “DEGREE ADVERB + PROPER NAME” construction: evaluating proposals from Construction Grammar and Formal Semantics. SocArcXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/r9udp
-
Gangemi, Aldo, Nicola Guarino, Claudio Masolo, Alessandro Oltramari & Luc Schneider. 2002. Sweetening Ontologies with DOLCE. International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Siguenza, Spain.
-
Glynn, Dylan. 2014a. Correspondence analysis: exploring data and identifying patterns. In D. Glynn & J.A. Robinson (eds), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, 443–486. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Glynn, Dylan. 2014b. Techniques and tools: corpus methods and statistics for semantics. In D. Glynn & J.A. Robinson (eds), Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy, 307–342. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Gnutzmann, Claus. 1975. Some aspects of grading. English Studies 56: 421–433.
-
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Gonzálvez García, Francisco. 2020. Metonymy meets coercion: the case of the intensification of nouns in attributive and predicative constructions in Spanish. In A. Baicchi (ed.), Figurative Meaning Construction in Thought and Language, 152–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Gonzálvez-García, Francisco. 2014. “That’s so a construction!” Some reflections on innovative uses of “so” in present-day English. In M. de los Ángeles Gómez González, F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez & F. Gonzálvez García (eds), Theory and Practice in Functional-cognitive Space, 271–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Grandi, Nicola. 2017. Intensification processes in Italian: a survey. In M. Napoli & M. Ravetto (eds), Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, Diachronic and Cross-linguistic Perspectives, 55–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Greenacre, Michael J. 1993. Correspondence Analysis in Practice. New York: Academic Press.
-
Greenacre, Michael J. 2006. From simple to multiple correspondence analysis. In M.J. Greenacre & J. Blasius (eds), Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods, 41–76. London: Chapman and Hall.
-
Gries, Stefan T. & Dagmar Divjak. 2009. Behavioral profiles: a corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 57–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin Stokhof. 2005. Why compositionality? In G. Carlson & J. Pelletier (eds), Reference and Quantification, 83–106. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
-
Hamilton, William L., Jure Leskovec & Dan Jurafsky. 2016. Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1489–1501.
-
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
-
Horn, Laurence R. 2013. I love me some datives: expressive meaning, free datives, and F-implicature. In D. Gutzmann & H.-M. Gärtner (eds), Beyond Expressives: Explorations in Use-conditional Meaning, 153–201. Boston: Brill.
-
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Husson, François, Sébastien Lê & Jérôme Pagès. 2017. Exploratory Multivariate Analysis by Example Using R. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
-
Israel, Michael. 2002. Literally speaking. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 423–432.
-
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-
Jobes, David A., Alan L. Berman, Patrick W. O’Carroll, Susan Eastgard & Steve Knickmeyer. 1996. The Kurt Cobain suicide crisis: perspectives from research, public health, and the news media. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behaviour 26: 260–271.
-
Kassambara, Alboukadel. 2017. Practical Guide to Cluster Analysis in R: Unsupervised Machine Learning. STHDA.com
-
Kennedy, Chris & Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81: 345–381.
-
King, Kevin. 2016. Intensifiers and image schemas: schema type determines intensifier type. Linguistic Society of America 1: 1–9.
-
König, Ekkehard. 2017. The comparative basis of intensification. In M. Napoli & M. Ravetto (eds), Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, Diachronic and Cross-linguistic Perspectives, 15–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
-
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Lauwers, Peter. 2009. Copular constructions and adjectival uses of bare nouns in French: a case of syntactic recategorization? Word 60: 89–119.
-
Lauwers, Peter & Dominique Willems. 2011. Coercion: definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics 49: 1219–1235.
-
Lorenz, Gunter. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the lexicalization and grammaticalisation of intensifiers in Modern English. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (eds), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 143–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Marr, David. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. New York: W.H. Freeman.
-
Matthews, Peter H. 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Mazullo, Mark. 2000. The man whom the world sold: Kurt Cobain, rock’s progressive aesthetic, and the challenges of authenticity. The Musical Quarterly 84: 713–749.
-
McEnery, Tony & Andrew Hardie. 2012. Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Michaelis, Laura A. 2003. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In H. Cuyckens, R. Dirven & J.R. Taylor (eds), Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, 259–310. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Michaelis, Laura A. 2017. Meanings of constructions. In Oxford Online Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics.
-
Monsell, Stephen. 1981. Representations, processes, memory mechanisms: the basic components of cognition. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 32: 378–390.
-
Morzycki, Marcin. 2016. Modification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-
Nobel, Barry L. 1982. Linguistics for Bilinguals. London: Newbury House.
-
Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics 12: 47–65.
-
Paradis, Carita. 2008. Configurations, construals and change: expressions of DEGREE. English Language and Linguistics 12: 317–343.
-
Payne, John, Rodney Huddleston & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2010. The distribution and category status of adjectives and adverbs. Word Structure 3: 31–81.
-
Portner, Paul. 2005. What is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Pustejovsky, James, Pierrette Bouillon, Hitoshi Isahara, Kyoko Kanzaki & Chungmin Lee. 2013. Introduction. In Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory, 1–8. Berlin: Springer.
-
Quirk, Randolph, Stephen Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
-
Rauh, Gisa. 2010. Syntactic Categories: Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Recanati, François. 2010. Pragmatic enrichment. In G. Russell & D.G. Fara (eds), Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language, 67–78. London: Routledge.
-
Romero, Sara. 2012. This is so cool! A comparative study of intensifiers in British and American English. MA thesis, University of Tampere.
-
Round, Erich R. 2004. The subidentificational meanings of English some and Swedish nagon: s comparative analysis of polysemy. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27: 169–195.
-
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Sandra Peña Cervel. 2005. Conceptual interaction, cognitive operations, and projection spaces. In Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction, 249–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Sacks, Norman P. 1971. English very, French très, and Spanish muy: a structural comparison and its significance for bilingual lexicography. PMLA 86: 190–201.
-
Sant, Charlotte. 2018. The degree modification of multidimensional predicates. MA thesis, University of York.
-
Sapir, Edward. 1944. Grading, a study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 11: 93–116.
-
Sassoon, Galit W. 2018. Dimension accessibility as a predictor of morphological gradability. In J.A. Hampton & Y. Winter (eds), Compositionality and Concepts in Linguistics and Psychology: Language, Cognition, and Mind, Vol. 3, 291–326. Cham: Springer.
-
Stange, Ulrike. 2020. “Holding grudges is so last century”: the use of GenX so as a modifier of noun phrases. Journal of English Linguistics 48: 107–136.
-
Stoffel, Cornelis. 1901. Intensives and Downtoners: A Study in English Adverbs. Wien: Carl Winter.
-
Stratton, James. 2018. The use of the adjective intensifier well in British English: a case study of The Inbetweeners. English Studies 99: 793–816.
-
Sweep, Josefien. 2014. The Dutch ‘X is zo NP/VP’-construction. Linguistics in the Netherlands 31: 165–179.
-
Sweetser, Eve. 1999. Compositionality and blending: semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework. In T. Janssen & G. Redeker (eds), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology, 129–162. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Tallerman, Maggie. 2011. Understanding Syntax. 3rd ed. London: Hodder.
-
Taylor, John R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Taylor, John R. 2014. Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In M. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 162–186. New York: Psychology Press.
-
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2005. Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In D.A. Cruse, F. Hundnurscher, M. Job & P.R. Lutzeier (eds), Lexicology: An International Handbook on the Nature and Structure of Words and Vocabularies, 1702–1712. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
-
Trousdale, Graham. 2018. Change in category membership from the perspective of construction grammar: a commentary. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé & G. Vanderbauwhede (eds), Category Change from a Constructional Perspective, 291–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
-
Van Langendonck, Willy. 2007. Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-
Wee, Lionel & Ing-Ying Tan. 2008. That’s so last year! Constructions in a socio-cultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 2100–2113.
-
Wu, Yulun. 2021. Syntactic and semantic nature of the nominal in the hen (very)+ N construction in Mandarin Chinese. MA thesis, University of Hong Kong.
-
Ziegeler, Debra. 2007. A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 990–1028.
-
Zwicky, Arnold. 2006. So in style at the NYT. Language Log. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002994.html
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 253 | 253 | 22 |
| Full Text Views | 11 | 11 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 23 | 23 | 0 |
The cognitive mechanisms involved in the “DEGREE ADVERB + PROPER NAME” construction
Evaluating proposals from Construction Grammar and Formal Semantics
In: International Review of PragmaticsSearch for other papers by Gabriel Frazer-McKee in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Patrick J. Duffley in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
There are broad disagreements between existing models regarding the mental representations and processes involved in the “DEGREE ADVERB + PROPER NAME” construction, including divergences regarding the semantics of the degree device, the category status of the proper name, the construction’s expressed meaning, its compositionality, and, crucially, the operation holding between the degree device and the proper name. Our corpus-based investigation of two competing models from Construction Grammar and Formal Semantics shows that while both make useful contributions to the scientific understanding of the construction, neither is empirically adequate. Most importantly, we find that the construction participates in several non-predicted expressed meanings; multivariate analyses show that the three meanings amenable to statistical analysis cluster with different semantic usage-features. We argue that the best way to account for the construction’s semantics/pragmatics is via a previously-dismissed cognitive mechanism: an enrichment/strengthening-type operation whereby a pragmatically-supplied scale is added to the message.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 253 | 253 | 22 |
| Full Text Views | 11 | 11 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 23 | 23 | 0 |
