Well, maybe you shouldn’t go around shaving poodles: collostructional semantic and discursive prosody in the go (a)round Ving and go (a)round and V constructions
-
Kim Ebensgaard Jensen
Abstract
This article presents a corpus-based study of the go (a)round Ving- and go (a)round and V-constructions in American English. More specifically, it addresses the possibility of the constructions serving as pragmatic markers of stance through the collocational phenomenon of semantic prosody. It is argued that the notions of internal and external constructional properties from the early days of construction grammar as well as the corpus-linguistic idea of association patterns would be beneficial to usage-based construction grammatical descriptions of phenomena such as semantic prosody. Drawing on a 248,145,425-word portion of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, both simple collexeme analysis and distinctive collexeme analysis are applied to generate output that feeds into semantic-prosodic analysis. Moreover, standard distinctive collexeme analysis and multiple distinctive collexeme analysis are applied at the level of semantic prosodies in the collexemic fields (i.e., distinctive semantic-prosodic analysis), at the level of verbal category colligations (i.e., distinctive colligational analysis), and at the level of speech act functions of usage-events of the two constructions (i.e., distinctive speech act analysis) as a type of trial balloon. The purpose is to expand semantic-prosodic analysis from focusing merely on lexemes to exploring how other linguistic and pragmatic phenomena may be at play.
References
Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William A. Croft, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman & Tom Schoenemann. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system. Language Learning 59(s1). 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Randi Reppen. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804489Search in Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 2. 119–127.Search in Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram. 1996. Semantic prosody and cohesive company: Somewhat predictable. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschriift voor Germaanse Filologie 85(1). 7–34.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William A. 2005. Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Jan-Ola Östman (ed.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 273–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.3.11croSearch in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of construction grammar. BLS 14. 35–55. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794.Search in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2017. Ten lectures on cognitive sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: Brill.10.1163/9789004336841Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2022. Coll.analysis 4.0.: A script for R to perform collostructional analyses. Available at: https://www.stgries.info/teaching/groningen/index.html.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004a. Covarying collexemes in the into-causative. In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture and mind, 225–236. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004b. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based survey on “alternations”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1). 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri.Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Diachronic collostructional analysis: How to use it and how to deal with confounding factors. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Current methods in historical semantics, 133–160. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110252903.133Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction grammar and its application to English, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474433624Search in Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 1999. Pattern grammar: The principles and practices of corpus-driven grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.4Search in Google Scholar
Louw, Bill. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Mona Baker, Gill Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, 157–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.64.11louSearch in Google Scholar
Partington, Alan. 2004. “Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9. 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.07par.Search in Google Scholar
Patten, Amanda L. 2014. The historical development of the it-cleft: A comparison of two different approaches. In Nikolas Gisborne & Willem B. Hollmann (eds.), Theory and data in cognitive linguistics, 87–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.67.04patSearch in Google Scholar
Schönefeld, Doris. 2013. It is … quite common for theoretical predictions to go untested (BNC_CMH). A register-specific analysis of the English go un-V-en construction. Journal of Pragmatics 52. 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.012.Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2000. The English GO-(PRT)-AND-VERB construction. BLS 25. 259–270. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v26i1.1158.Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 2–43.10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03steSearch in Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.6Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2014. Contentful constructionalization. Journal of Historical Linguistics 4(2). 256–283. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.4.2.04tra.Search in Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2007. Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 101–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197709.101Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
