“And the Rabbi Begins the Benediction … ”: Declarative Shell Nouns in English

ABSTRACT

Although in cognitive linguistics it is generally assumed that whether a verb/noun/adjective can or cannot occur in a construction is a matter of compatibility between the meaning of the verb/noun/adjective and the meaning of the construction, in the case of nouns, studies that focus specifically on which substructures (or lack thereof) in the conceptual structure of lexical items are relevant for linking and integration of elements in a construction are missing. In this paper, we focus on nouns and investigate the constructions in which declarative shell nouns, i.e., nouns that report declarative speech acts (e.g., declaration, abrogation, exoneration) occur. In particular, the patterns in which a set of declarative shell nouns occur are analysed and compared with prevoius results obtained on assertive, and on commissive shell nouns, i.e., nouns that report assertive (e.g., assertion, claim, guess) and commissive (e.g., promise, threat, bet) speech acts, with the aim of showing that only specific substructures (or lack thereof) in the conceptual structure of these nouns are relevant for linking and integration, thus explaining the noun behavioural profile, i.e., the constructions they occur with.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Vergaro, “Ways of Asserting.”

2 Vergaro and Schmid.

3 Schmid, English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells.

4 Other terms referring to similar phenomena include “container nouns” by Vendler, Linguistics in Philosophy, and Id., Adjectives and Nominalization; “unspecific nouns” by Winter, “Unspecific versus Specific”; “anaphoric nouns” by Francis, Anaphoric Nouns; “anaphoric encapsulation” by Conte, “Anaphoric Encapsulation”; “signaling nouns” by Flowerdew, “Signalling Nouns in Discourse.”

5 Schmid, “Constant and Ephemeral Hypostatization.”

6 Schmid, English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells, 4.

7 Ibid., 15.

8 Schmid, “Shell Nouns in English,” 112.

9 Hopper and Thompson; Bierwisch; Brinton; Gaeta; Heyvaert.

10 Searle, “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts,” 15.

11 Searle, “How Performatives Work,” 551.

12 Verschueren, 309.

13 Schmid, English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells.

14 Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 1; Id., Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 2; Id., “A Dynamic Usage-Based Model”; Id., “Constructions in Cognitive Grammar”; Id., Cognitive Grammar; Id., Investigations in Cognitive Grammar.

15 Langacker, Cognitive Grammar, 55.

16 Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 2, 5.

17 Ibid., 551.

18 Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 1 and Id., Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 2.

19 Proost.

20 Searle, Speech Acts.

21 Proost.

22 Searle, Speech Acts.

23 Searle, “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts.”

24 Davies.

25 Schmid, English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells, 54–5.

26 Gries.

27 Searle and Vanderveken, 206.

28 Proost, 279–81.

29 Ibid.

30 Schmid, English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells; Vergaro, “Ways of Asserting”; Vergaro and Schmid.

31 N-that 16.7%, Pro-BE-N 30%.

32 Searle, “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts,” 15.

33 Wierzbicka, English Speech Act Verbs, 349.

34 Kiparsky and Kiparsky; Quirk et al.; Wierzbicka, The Semantics of Grammar; Frajzyngier and Jasperson.

35 Rudanko; Granath; Acuña Fariña, “That-Clauses”; Id. “The Functional Motivation of That-Clauses”; Hudson-Ettle; Noël; Bowen.

36 Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 2, 440–1.

37 Akmajian, 19.

38 Mikkelsen, 1814.

39 Quirk et al.; Wierzbicka, The Semantics of Grammar; Mair; Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 2; Duffley; Smith; Ungerer.

40 Egan.

41 Vergaro, “Ways of Asserting.”

42 Vergaro and Schmid.

43 Vergaro, “Ways of Asserting.”

44 Vergaro and Schmid.

45 Proost.

46 Langacker, Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 1; Id., Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. 2.