Cover not available
Introduction published In:
Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-Level Phenomena: Theoretical challenges and empirical advances
Edited by Renata Enghels and María Sol Sansiñena
[Constructions and Frames 13:1] 2021
► pp. 3–20
Introduction

Discourse-level phenomena in construction grammars

| Ghent University
| University of Leuven
Article outline
  • 1.(Recent) advances in constructional research on discourse-level phenomena
  • 2.Overview of the chapters in this volume
  • 3.Implications and future directions
  • References


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00045.int
References (58)
References
Auer, P. (2011). ‘Online syntax and Construction Grammar: a perfect match? Some reflections on elliptical expansions.’ Paper Presented at the Workshop on Grammar and Interaction Revisited, Helsinki, March 10–12, 2011.
Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic, Vol. 81. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional approach to resultatives (Stanford Monograph in Linguistics). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2005). Construction-dependent morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio, 41, 31–46.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2008). The comment clause in English. Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, G. & Zima, E. (2014). Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2017). What is pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp. 115–151). Springer International. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T. et al. (2020). The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. & Cuyckens, H. (2007). Diachronic aspects of complementation: Constructions, entrenchment, and the matching problem. In C. Cain & G. Russom (Eds.), Shaking the tree: Fresh perspectives on the genealogy of English (pp. 187–213). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R. (2018). Towards a constructional approach to discourse-level phenomena: The case of the Spanish interpersonal epistemic stance construction. Folia Linguistica, 52(1), 107–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elvira García, W., Roseano, P. & Fernández Planas, A. M. (2017). Prosody as a cue for syntactic dependency. Evidence from dependent and independent clauses with subordination marks in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 1091, 29–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
(1974/1981). Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 143–166) (reprint of Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, 1974). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1975). Santa Cruz lectures on deixis: 1971. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. [(1997). Lectures on deixis. CSLI Lecture Notes 65. CSLI Publications.]Google Scholar
(1982). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2010). Beyond the sentence. Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 71, 563–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. & Alm, M. (2013). A radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. In B. Cornillie, P. Pietrandrea & L. Degand (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description (pp. 47–87). [ Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 234]. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. (2010). Grammar and interaction. New directions in constructional research. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 125–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gras, P. & Sansiñena, M. S. (2015). An interactional account of discourse connective que-constructions in Spanish. Text & Talk 35(4), 505–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gras, P. (2016). Revisiting the functional typology of insubordination: que-initial sentences in Spanish. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds), Insubordination. [ Typological Studies in Language 115 ] (pp. 113–144). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?. In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 19–40). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2013). Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 307–328). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp. 22–44). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. (2013). The development of comment clauses. In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. N. Leech & S. Wallis (Eds.), The Verb Phrase in English. Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp. 286–317). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (1997). Words and the grammar of context. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 4] (pp. 71–98). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J. & Londen, A-M. (2008). Constructing reasoning. The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional Reorganization [ Constructional Approaches to Language 5 ] (pp. 105–152). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Constructions in dialogue. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds), Contexts and Constructions [ Constructional Approaches to Language 9 ] (pp. 97–110). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marandin, J-M. (2006). Contours as constructions. Constructions, SV1-10/2006. [URL]
Nikiforidou, K., & Torres Cacoullos, R. (2010). Variably future-marked conditionals in Greek: Integrating discourse and grammar. Constructions and frames, 2(1), 90–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S. & Mikros, G. K. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. & Fischer, K. (2015). Introduction. On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre. In K. Nikiforidou & K. Fischer (Eds.), Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 137–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nir, B. & Berman, R. (2010). Parts of speech as constructions: The case of Hebrew “adverbs”. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 242–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (1999). Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns: Focus on news reports. In W. Bublitz et al. (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it (pp. 77–100). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J-O. (2005). Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. [ Constructional Approaches to Language 3 ], 121–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J-O. & M. Fried. (2005). The cognitive grounding of Construction Grammar. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. [ Constructional Approaches to Language 3 ], 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J-O. (2015). From Construction Grammar to Construction Discourse… and back. In J. Bücker, S. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V. Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten (pp. 15–43). Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Sadat-Tehrani, N. (2008). An Intonational Construction. Constructions 3/2008. [URL]
Sansiñena, M. S. (2015). The multiple functional load of que. An interactional approach to insubordinate complement clauses in Spanish. University of Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar
Sansiñena, M. S. & Elvira García, W. (2018). Using intonation to delimit grammatical constructions: the case of Chilean ‘que + indicative’. Paper presented at the ICCG10, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle and École Normale Supérieure, Paris, July 18th 2018.
Schwenter, S. A. (2016). Independent si-clauses in Spanish: Functions and Consequences for insubordination. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds), Insubordination. [ Typological Studies in Language 115 ]. (pp. 89–112). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2018). Modeling language change with constructional networks. In S. Pons Bordería & Ó. Loureda Lamas (Eds.), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers. [ Studies in Pragmatics 18 ] (pp. 17–50). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, J. (2009). The grammar of complement-taking mental predicate constructions in present-day spoken British English. Ghent University dissertation.Google Scholar
(2010). A Constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English language and linguistics, 14(3), 399–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (Eds.), The extending scope of construction grammar, Vol. 54 (pp. 141–179). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zima, E. & Bergs, A. (2014). Multimodality and construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1). 20161006. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Foolen, Ad
2023. CONSTRUCTION PRAGMATICS IN A WIDER CONTEXT. AN ADDITION TO WEN (2022). Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Atayan, Vahram & Bogdan Babych
2022. Translating Argumentation: Distributional Semantic Analysis of Argumentation Resources in Parallel Corpora. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 119:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 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.