Volume 34, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Despite recent advances in Construction Pragmatics, a systematic way for delimiting coded pragmatic information has yet to be offered. This squib provides a step in establishing such an account by assessing what kind of pragmatic information speakers generalize from various usage-events. Drawing on findings from Conversation Analysis, I propose a distinction between pragmatic functions as speakers’ actions, and interactional patterns as discourse-information sequences. A synchronic examination of the Hebrew multifunctional discourse marker / (′know.′) demonstrates the consistent use of the construction in an interactional pattern across numerous usage-events. A qualitative diachronic analysis of / suggests that speakers may associate forms with interactional patterns rather than with functions. This preliminary evidence provides support for the generalization of interactional patterns.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ariel, Mira
    2010Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511777912
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bybee, Joan
    2013 “Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. by Thomas Hoffmann , and Graeme Trousdale , 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cappelle, Bert
    2017 “What’s Pragmatics Doing outside Constructions?” InSemantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. by Ilse Depraetere , and Raphael Salkie , 115–151. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_8 [Google Scholar]
  4. Clift, Rebecca
    2016Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Enghels, Renata
    2018 “On the Grammaticalization of the Deverbal Epistemic Pragmatic Marker sabes. A Study in Recent Language Change.” Romanian Review of Linguistics63 (4): 341–360.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1987 “A Private History of the Concept ‘Frame’.” InConcepts of Case, ed. by René Dirven , and Giinter Radden , 28–36. Tiibingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Finkbeiner, Rita
    2019 “Introduction: Reflections on the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar.” Constructions and Frames11 (2): 171–192. 10.1075/cf.00027.fin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00027.fin [Google Scholar]
  8. Fischer, Kerstin
    2015a “Conversation, Construction Grammar, and Cognition.” Language and Cognition7 (4): 563–588. 10.1017/langcog.2015.23
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.23 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2015b “Situation in Grammar or in Frames? Evidence from the So-called Baby Talk Register.” Constructions and Frames7 (2): 258–288. 10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis [Google Scholar]
  10. Fox Tree, Jean E. , and Josef C. Schrock
    2002 “Basic Meanings of you know and I mean.” Journal of Pragmatics34 (6): 727–747. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00027‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fried, Mirjam , and Jan-Ola Östman
    2005 “Construction Grammar and Spoken Language: The Case of Pragmatic Particles.” Journal of Pragmatics37 (11): 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hary, Benjamin , and Shlomo Izre’el
    2003 “The Preparatory Model of the Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH).” InCorpus Linguistics and Modern Hebrew: Towards the Compilation of the Corpus of Spoken Israeli Hebrew (CoSIH), ed. by Benjamin Hary , 189–219. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Heine, Bernd
    2013 “On Discourse Markers: Grammaticalization, Pragmaticalization, or Something Else?” Linguistics51 (6): 1205–1247. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0048
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0048 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2017 “Multimodal Constructs – Multimodal Constructions? The Role of Constructions in the Working Memory.” Linguistics Vanguard3 (s1). doi:  10.1515/lingvan‑2016‑0042
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0042 [Google Scholar]
  15. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2009Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  16. Maschler, Yael
    2009Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.181
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.181 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2012 “Emergent Projecting Constructions: The Case of Hebrew yada (‘know’).” Studies in Language36 (4): 785–847. 10.1075/sl.36.4.03mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.4.03mas [Google Scholar]
  18. Melnik, Nurit
    2006 “A Constructional Approach to Verb-initial Constructions in Modern Hebrew.” Cognitive Linguistics17 (2): 153–198. 10.1515/COG.2006.004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.004 [Google Scholar]
  19. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2014 “Lexico-grammatical Patterns, Pragmatic Associations and Discourse Frequency.” InConstructions, Collocations, Patterns, ed. by Thomas Herbst , Hans-Jörg Schmid , and Susen Faulhaber , 239–293. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110356854.239
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110356854.239 [Google Scholar]
  20. Taylor, John
    2002Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Traugott, Elizabeth C.
    2010 “Grammaticalization.” InContinuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, ed. by Silvia Luraghi , and Vit Bubenik , 269–283. London: Continuum Press.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construction pragmatics; discourse markers; Hebrew language; multifunctionality
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error