Cover not available
Part of
Theory and Practice in Functional-Cognitive Space
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez and Francisco Gonzálvez-García
[Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 68] 2014
► pp. 295–314

Constructing discourse and discourse constructions

 | University of La Rioja, Spain
 | University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
In line with previous work on the Lexical Constructional Model or LCM(Ruiz de Mendoza & Mairal, 2008; Ruiz de Mendoza, 2013), the present paperpostulates the existence of fixed form-meaning pairings, or constructions, atdiscourse level. The paper first argues that discourse relations such as restatement,contrast, condition, and others, provide cognitive base domains againstwhich the fixed elements of discourse constructions are profiled. Then, thepaper claims that the different constructions that profile the same base domainare members of the same family and discusses the degree of interchangeability,in terms of discourse connectivity, among members of the same family. Finally,the paper studies some examples of how such connectivity can also be achievedon the basis of coherence relations arising from other levels of linguisticdescription.
Keywords: coherence relations, connectivity, constructional family, discourse constructions, profile-base relations
Published online: 22 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sfsl.68.13rui
References (45)
Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical-Constructional Model. Textus. English Studies in Italy , 23(3), 543–563.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D., & Gallai, F. (2014). Discourse markers in free indirect style and interpreting. Journal of Pragmatics , 60, 106–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. (2009). The Lexical Constructional Model: Genesis, strengths and challenges. In C.S. Butler, & J. Martín Arista(Eds.), Deconstructing constructions [Studies in Language Companion Series 107] (pp. 117–151). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John ­Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Constructions in the Lexical Constructional Model. In E. ­Diedrichsen, & B. Nolan(Eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. The role of constructions in grammar [Studies in Language Series] (pp. 271–294). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone.’ Language , 64, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galera, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2012). Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences , 34, 54–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: ­University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Jackendoff, R.S. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language , 80, 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gómez González, M.A. (2001). The theme-topic interface: Evidence from English . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. (2009). The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: Towards a usage-based, constructionist analysis. Language Sciences , 31(5), 663–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Graesser, A.C., & G.H. Bower (Eds.). (1990). Inferences and text comprehension . San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar . 3rd ed., revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J.L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Irmer, M. (2011). Bridging inferences . Constraining and resolving under-specification in discourse interpretation . Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, reason and imagination . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language , 75, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh . New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical pre­requisites . Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization . Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations . A preliminary investigation . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C.S. Butler, & J. Martín Arista(Eds.), Deconstructing constructions [Studies in Language Companion Series 107] (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, W.C., & Thompson, S.A. (1988). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text , 8(3), 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & M.S. Peña Cervel(Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. (2000). The EFFECT FOR CAUSE metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona(Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at a crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J. (2007). High level cognitive models: in search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior. In K. Kosecki(Ed.), Perspectives on metonymy (pp. 11–30). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. (2011). Metonymy and cognitive operations. In B. Reka, A. ­Barcelona, & F.J. Ruiz de Mendoza(Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics. Towards a consensus view (pp. 103–123). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In E. Diedrichsen, & B. Nolan(Eds.), Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. The role of constructions in grammar (Studies in Language Series) (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes, & L. Horn(Eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic,cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Mairal, R. (2007). High-level metaphor and metonymy in meaning construction. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, and P. Siemund(Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp. 33–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica , 42(2), 355–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F., & Mairal, R. (2011). Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero(Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive Perspectives (pp. 62–82). London, UK/ Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F.J., & Pérez, L. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication , 21, 321–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schank, R.C., & R. Abelson. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding . Hillsdale, NJ: ­Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1986). Discourse markers . (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 5). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taboada, M., & Gómez-González, M.A. (2013). Discourse markers and coherence relations: Comparison across markers, languages and modalities. In M. Taboada, S. Doval-Suárez, & E. González-Álvarez(Eds.), Contrastive discourse analysis: Functional and corpus perspectives (pp. 17–41). Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.R. (2003). Linguistic categorization . 3rd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D.Jr. (2005). Exploring the syntax-semantics interface . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (16)

Cited by 16 other publications

Sánchez Fajardo, José A.
2021. On nonce echo constructions expressing disapproval and annoyance. Languages in Contrast 21:2 ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
Iza Erviti, Aneider
2017. An exploratory study of complementary contrastive discourse constructions in English. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:1 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 2. Theoretical pre-requisites. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Acknowledgements. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. ix ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Name index. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 6. Conclusions. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 4. Cognitive operations. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 3. Cognitive models. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Subject index. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 249 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. References. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Chapter 5. Content operations across levels of representation. In Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], ► pp. 147 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2014. Cognitive Modeling [Human Cognitive Processing, 45], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Figuring out Figuration [Figurative Thought and Language, 14], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Modeling Irony [Figurative Thought and Language, 12], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Pejorative Suffixes and Combining Forms in English [Studies in Language Companion Series, 222], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 september 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.