Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective
Edited by Alessandra Barotto and Simone Mattiola
[Studies in Language Companion Series 227] 2023
► pp. 35–63

Chapter 3
Towards pragmatic construction typology

The case of discourse formulae

| HSE University | University of Ljubljana
| HSE University | Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Science
This paper introduces discourse formulae, i.e. frequently used formulaic replies like No way! or You bet!, as an object for linguistic typology. It demonstrates that the frame methodology (Rakhilina & Reznikova 2016) could be applied to these multi-word pragmatic units. The method implies deducing typical situations of use (frames) for a group of synonymous units, and comparing the distributions of these units across frames in different languages. The pilot data includes discourse formulae of negation in Russian, Polish, Slovenian, and Serbian. Six major frames are established. The distributions are obtained with surveys, with Correspondence Analysis applied to the data. The pragmatic parameters influencing the distributions concern the illocutionary type of the preceding utterance, and the speaker’s role in the dialogue.
Keywords: discourse formulae, negative replies, lexical typology, frame-based approach, construction grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse formulae from the perspective of Construction Grammar
  • 3.On discourse formulae
  • 4.Pragmatic frame
  • 5.Case study: Discourse formulae of negation
    • 5.1Primary data
    • 5.2Frames of negation: Relevant parameters
    • 5.3Design
    • 5.4Results
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Polar question and hypothesis
    • 6.2Hypothesis and opinion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.227.03byc
References (56)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2014. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ameka, Felix. 1987. A comparative analysis of linguistic routines in two languages: English and ewe. Journal of Pragmatics 11(3): 299–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apresjan, Jurij D. 2005. O Moskovskoj semantičeskoj škole. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1975. How to do Things with Words, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ziem, Alexander. 2018. Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Lyngfelt, Borin, Ohara & Torrent (eds), 183–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byčkova, Polina. 2020a. The pragmaticalization sources of discourse formulae of negation from typological perspective: Russian and Slovene. Philological Studies 18(2): 187–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. Discourse formulae of confirmation in typological perspective. Jezikoslovni zapiski, 26(2): 111–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capone, Alessandro. 2005. Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics 37(9): 1355–1371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Pragmemes (again). Lingua 209: 89–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian. 1981. Introduction: Conversational routine. In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech [Rasmus Rask Studies in Pragmatic Linguistics 2], Florian Coulmas (ed), 1–17. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1994. Speech act classification, language typology and cognition. In Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed), 460–477. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola (eds). 2013. Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed), 403–426. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2011. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49(2): 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckhoff, Hanne, Janda, Laura A. & Nesset, Tore. 2014. Old Church Slavonic “Byti” part two: Constructional profiling analysis. The Slavic and East European Journal 58(3): 498–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara & Sansò, Andrea (eds). 2017. Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives [Studies in Language Companion Series 186]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1979. On fluency. In Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, Charles J. Fillmore, Daniel Kempler & William S. Wong (eds), 85–101. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Frame semantics. In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, Dirk Geeraerts (ed), 373–400. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Atkins, Beryl T. 2000. Describing polysemy: The case of “Crawl”. In Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, Yael Ravin & Claudia Leacock (eds), 91–110. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O’connor, Mary. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3): 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne & Yaguello, Marina. 2004. Discourse markers across languages? Evidence from English and French. In Discourse across Languages and Cultures [Studies in Language Companion Series 68], Carol Lynn Moder & Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds), 129–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2008. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In From Polysemy to Semantic Change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations [Studies in Language Companion Series 106], Martine Vanhove (ed), 163–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerasimenko, Ekaterina, Puzhaeva, Svetlana, Zakharova, Elena & Rakhilina, Ekaterina. 2019. Defining discourse formulae: computational approach. In Proceedings of Third Workshop “Computational Linguistics and Language Science”, Gerhard Wohlgenannt, Ruprecht von Waldenfels, Svetlana Toldova, Ekaterina Rakhilina, Denis Paperno, Olga Lyashevskaya, Natalia Loukachevitch et al. (eds), 61–69. Manchester: EasyChair.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2): 375–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Endersen, Anna, Zhukova, Valentina, Mordashova, Daria & Rakhilina, Ekaterina. 2021. How to build a constructicon in five years: The Russian example. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34: 161–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Lyashevskaya, Olga, Nesset, Tore, Rakhilina, Ekaterina & Tyers, Francis M. 2018. A constructicon for Russian. In Lyngfelt, Borin, Ohara & Torrent (eds), 165–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Endresen, Anna, Zhukova, Valentina, Mordashova, Daria & Rakhilina, Ekaterina. In print. From data to theory: An emergent semantic classification based on the large-scale Russian constructicon. Constructions and Frames.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42(11): 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2008. Locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(6): 1189–1202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Speech act classifications. In Pragmatics of Speech Actions, Marina Sbisà, & Ken Turner (eds), 173–202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, Rakhilina, Ekaterina & Vanhove, Martine. 2016. The semantics of lexical typology. In Routledge Handbook of Semantics, Nick Riemer (ed), 434–454. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lander, Yurij, Maisak, Timur & Rakhilina, Ekaterina. 2013. Verbs of aquamotion: Semantic domains and lexical systems. In Motion Encoding in Language and Space, Mila Vulchanova & Emile van der Zee (eds), 67–83. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Borin, Lars, Ohara, Kyoko & Torrent, Tiago Timponi (eds). 2018. Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Torrent, Tiago Timpani, Laviola, Adrieli, Bäckström, Linnéa, Hannesdóttir, Anna Helga & da Silva Matos, Ely Edison. 2018. Aligning constructicons across languages: A trilingual comparison between English, Swedish, and Brazilian Portuguese. In Lyngfelt, Borin, Ohara & Torrent (eds), 255–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, Asifa, Boster, James S. & Bowerman, Melissa. 2008. The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 109(2): 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard Negation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2015. Discourse and grammar. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 9–41. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ohara, Kyoko H. 2013. Toward Constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas-Revista de Estudos Linguísticos 17(1): 11–27.Google Scholar
Panov, Vladimir. 2020. The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: Presenting the enimitive. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52(1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent & Patten, Amanda L. 2019. Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 354–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A. 2001. The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of pragmatics 33(3): 349–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, Ekaterina, Bychkova, Polina & Koziuk, Evgenia. forthcoming. At the borders of Constructicon: Discourse formulae. In Constructing Constructicons [Human Cognitive Processing 48], Alexander Ziem, Alexander Willich & Sascha Michel (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rakhilina, Ekaterina & Reznikova, Tatiana. 2016. A frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts, Päivi Juvonen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 95–129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, Ekaterina V., Bychkova, Polina A. & Zhukova, Svetlana Yu. 2021. Speech acts as a linguistic category: The case of discourse formulae. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2: 7–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. & Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy Shopen (ed), 155–196. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Language, Mind and Knowledge, Keith Gunderson (ed), 344–369. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sköldberg, Emma, Bäckström, Linnea, Borin, Lars, Forsberg, Markus, Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Olsson, Leif-Jöran, Prentice, Julia, Rydstedt, Rudolf, Tingsell, Sofia & Uppström, Jonatan. 2013. Between grammars and dictionaries: A Swedish Constructicon. In Electronic Lexicography in the 21st Century: Thinking Outside the Paper. Proceedings of the eLex 2013 Conference, 17–19 October 2013, Tallinn, Estonia, Iztok Kosem, Jelena Kallas, Polona Gantar, Simon Krek, Margit Langemets & Maria Tuulik (eds), 310–327. Ljubljana/Tallinn: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies/Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timpani, Lage, Ludmila M., Sampaio, Thais F., da Silva Tavares, Tatiane & da Silva Matos, Ely E. 2014. Revisiting border conflicts between framenet and construction grammar: Annotation policies for the brazilian portuguese constructicon. Constructions and Frames 6(1): 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba. 2014. The negative existential cycle revisited. Linguistics 52(6): 1327–1389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Cysouw, Michael. 2012. Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50(3): 671–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar