2004
Volume 137, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0040-7550
  • E-ISSN: 2212-0521

Abstract

Abstract

This article discusses the adjectivization of the Dutch interjections and . Lemmens (2013) argues that this adjectivization process was driven by analogical relations based on broad syntactic categories. A corpus investigation and acceptability judgements show (i) that the adjectival use of and has become more frequent since Lemmens’s research, but that their adjectivization is not (yet) completed, (ii) that not only abstract generalizations, but also lower-level generalizations and specific constructions play a crucial role in the adjectivization of both interjections, and, (iii) that and already as interjections showed limited grammatical behaviour, making them more susceptible to adjectivization. We argue – contra Lemmens (2013) – that not (only) reinterpretation has led to the adjectivization of both interjections, buth rather their lexical and horizontal links in the constructional network.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TNTL2021.1.001.DELA
2021-01-01
2021-10-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Androutsopoulos 2006 – J.Androutsopoulos, ‘Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication’. In: Journal of sociolinguistics10(2006)4, p. 419–438.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. ANS 1997 – W.Haeseryn e.a., Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Tweede, geheel herziene druk. Groningen: MartinusNijhoff/Deurne: Wolters Plantyn, 1997.
  3. Croft 2001 – W.Croft, Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
  4. De Smet 2009 – H.De Smet, ‘Analysing reanalysis’. In: Lingua119(2009)11, p. 1728–1755.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. De Smet 2012 – H.De Smet, ‘The course of actualization’. In: Language88(2012)3, p. 601–633.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Diessel 2015 – H.Diessel, ‘Usage-based construction grammar’. In: E.Dąbrowska & D.Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, p. 295–321.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Francis 2005 – E.J.Francis, ‘Syntactic Mimicry as Evidence for Prototypes in Grammar’. In: S.Mufwene, E.J.Francis & R.S.Wheeler (eds.), Polymorphous Linguistics: Jim McCawley’s Legacy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005, p. 161–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldberg 2006 – A.Goldberg, Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
  9. Herring 2001 – S.C.Herring, ‘Computer-mediated discourse’. In: D.Tannen, D.Schiffrin, & H.Hamilton (eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, p. 612–634.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hilpert 2018 – M.Hilpert, ‘Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar’. In: E.Coussé, P.Andersson, & J.Olofsson (eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2018, p. 21–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Koch & Oesterreicher 1985 – P.Koch & W.Oesterreicher, ‘Sprache der Nähe-Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte’. In: Romanistisches Jahrbuch36(1985), p. 15–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lemmens 2012 – M.Lemmens, ‘Dit artikel is nog wel ça va. De grammaticalisatie van ça va in het Belgisch-Nederlands’. In: n/f11(2012), p. 47–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lemmens 2013 – M.Lemmens, ‘Van (neutraal) tussenwerpsel naar (positief) evaluatief adjectief: ça va en oké in het Nederlands’. In: Internationale Neerlandistiek51(2013)1, p. 5–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Oostdijk 2000 – N.Oostdijk, ‘Het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands’. In: Nederlandse Taalkunde5(2000)3, p. 280–284.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Oostdijk e.a. 2013 – N.Oostdijk e.a., ‘The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch’. In: P.Spijns & J.Odijk (eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch. Berlijn: Springer, 2013, p. 219–247.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Perek 2015 – F.Perek, Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2015.
  17. Van de Velde 2014 – F.Van de Velde, ‘Degeneracy: The Maintenance of Constructional Networks’. In: R.Boogaart, T.Colleman & G.Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 2014, p. 141–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Van de Velde, De Smet & Ghesquière 2013 – F.Van de Velde, H.De Smet & L.Ghesquière, ‘On multiple source constructions in language change’. In: Studies in Language37(2013)3, p. 473–489.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Van de Velde & Pijpops 2018 – F.Vande Velde & D.Pijpops, ‘Grensoverschrijdend syntactisch gedrag’. In: T.Colleman, J.De Caluwe, V.De Tier, A.S.Ghyselen, L.Triest, R.Vandenberghe & U.Vogl (red.), Woorden om te bewaren. Huldeboek voor Jacques Van Keymeulen. Drongen: Skribis, 2018, p. 433–449.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Vandekerckhove & Nobels 2010 – R.Vandekerckhove & J.Nobels, ‘Code eclecticism: Linguistic variation and code alternation in the chat language of Flemish teenagers’. In: Journal of Sociolinguistics14(2010)5, p. 657–677.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Vandekerckhove 2004 – R.Vandekerckhove, ‘Waar zijn je, jij en jou(w) gebleven? Pronominale aanspreekvormen in het gesproken Nederlands van Vlamingen’. In: J.De Caluwe, G.De Schutter, M.Devos & J.Van Keymeulen (red.), Taeldeman, man van de taal, schatbewaarder van de taal. Gent: Academia Press, 2004, p. 981–993.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Zehentner & Traugott 2020 – E.Zehentner & E.C.Traugott, ‘Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English’. In: L.Sommerer & E.Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2020, p. 167–212.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TNTL2021.1.001.DELA
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TNTL2021.1.001.DELA
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error