Cover not available
Article published In:
The Linguistic Expression of Mirativity
Edited by Agnès Celle and Anastasios Tsangalidis
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 15:2] 2017
► pp. 343–384

Degrees of mirativity

 | Université de Lille/UMR 8163 STL, France
 | Université de Lille/UMR 8163 STL, France
This paper studies degrees of mirativity as grammaticalised in the Indo-Aryan language Odia by four light verb constructions, asymmetric complex predicates combining a lexical verb with a (partially) bleached light verb. As such, these light verb constructions can be considered non-parasitic expressions of mirativity. The present paper adds a number of important new insights to the discussion of mirativity. Firstly, we show that mirativity is a complex category which, next to the prototypical notion of surprise, also comprises the notion of “unsupposedness”. Secondly, we demonstrate that the four constructions vary in the degree of mirativity they express. These differences can be related to features of transitivity, such as volitionality or control and affectedness (as contextually realised by the process size, impact, force, or scope). This hypothesis is confirmed by two corpus studies: a collostructional analysis (based on verb types) and a comparison of contexts for constructional minimal pairs.
Keywords: mirativity, light verb, collostructional analysis, completion, volitionality, affectedness
Article outline
  • 1.Odia light verbs: Non-parasitic expressions of mirativity
  • 2.General properties of ‘V-go’, ‘V-fall’, ‘V-give’, and ‘V-drop’
    • 2.1The grammar of completion and MIRATIVITY
    • 2.2Lexical versus grammatical expression of completion
    • 2.3Degrees of MIRATIVITY
  • 3.Corpus and analysis
  • 4.Corpus-based analysis of ‘V-go’, ‘V-fall’, ‘V-give’ and ‘V-drop’
    • 4.1Comparison of verb types
      • 4.1.1Intransitive ‘-go’ and ‘-fall’
        • Main verb distribution
        • Collostructional analysis
      • 4.1.2Transitive ‘-drop’ and ‘-give’
        • Main verb distribution
        • Collostructional analysis
    • 4.2Comparison of context types
      • 4.2.1Intransitive ‘-go’ and ‘-fall’
      • 4.2.2Transitive ‘-drop’ and ‘-give’
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.2.03sah
References (32)
References
Abbi, A., & Gopalakrishnan, D. (1991). Semantics of explicator compound verbs in South-Asian languages. Language Sciences, 13(2),161–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A., & Slobin, D. I. (1986). A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish. In W. Chafe & J. Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 159–167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
McEnery, A. M., Baker, P., & Hardie, A. (2003). The EMILLE corpus. [URL].
Bashir, E. (2010). Traces of mirativity in Shina. Himalayan Linguistics, 9(2), 1–55.Google Scholar
Butt, M. (1995). The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Butt, M., & Geuder, W. (2001). On the (semi) lexical status of light verbs. In N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Semilexical categories: On the content of function words and the function of content words (pp. 323–370). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, M., & Lahiri, A. (2002). Historical stability vs. historical change. Ms (available at [URL]).
DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1(1), 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 529–564.Google Scholar
Dickinson, C. (2000). Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language, 24(2), 379–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, J., & Plag, I. (2004). What constrains possible suffix combinations?: On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(3), 565–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, N. W. (2012). “Mirativity” does not exist: hdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 389–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hook, P. E. (1993). Aspectogenesis and the compound verb in Indo-Aryan. In M. K. Verma (Ed.), Complex predicates in South Asian languages (pp. 97–113). New Delhi: Manohar Publication.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montaut, A. (2006). Mirative meanings as extensions of aorist in Hindi/Urdu. In R. Singh (Ed.), The yearbook of South-Asian languages and linguistics (pp. 71–86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, M. (2015). Cognitive semantics. In N. Riemer (Ed.), Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 90–105). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2017). A cognitive, usage-based view on lexical pragmatics. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 101–114). Amsterdam: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, M., & Sahoo, K. (2016). Something’s gotta go, something’s gotta give: Completion, mirativity, and transitivity in Odia light verb constructions. Studia Linguistica. (online pre-publication 2016 DOI logo).Google Scholar
(accepted.). Rise and be surprised: Aspectual profiling and mirativity in Odia light verb constructions.
Napiorkowska, L. (2016). Mirativity and the near deixis copula dule in Neo-Aramaic. Journal of Pragmatics, 98(1), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, J. (2000). Evidentials, inferentials and mirativity in Nepali. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 23(2), 13–37.Google Scholar
Peterson, T. (2013). Rethinking mirativity: The implication and expression of surprise. [URL].
(2015). Mirativity as surprise: Evidentiality, information, and deixis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(6), 1327–1357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(this volume). Problematizing mirativity.
Sahoo, K. (2001). Oriya verb morphology and complex verb constructions. Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiklund, A. (2009). The syntax of surprise: Unexpected event readings in complex predication. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 841, 181–224.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Lemmens, Maarten & Kalyanamalini Sahoo
2019. Rise and be surprised: Aspectual profiling and mirativity in Odia light verb constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Ayoun, Dalila, Agnès Celle & Laure Lansari
2018. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality [Studies in Language Companion Series, 197], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 july 2024. 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.