1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/cf.00027.fin-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00027.fin
2019-11-07
2020-08-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antonopoulou, E., & Nikiforidou, K.
    (2011) Construction Grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2594–2609. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariel, M.
    (2008) Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2012) Research paradigms in pragmatics. InK. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp.23–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.003 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2016) Revisiting the typology of pragmatic interpretations. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(1), 1–35. 10.1515/ip‑2016‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2016-0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bach, K.
    (1994) Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9, 124–162. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1994.tb00220.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x [Google Scholar]
  6. (1995) Standardization vs. Conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 677–686. 10.1007/BF00983302
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00983302 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M.
    (1992) How performatives really work: A reply to Searle. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 93–110. 10.1007/BF00635834
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00635834 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
    (2009) Contexts and constructions. InA. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.1–14). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.01ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.01ber [Google Scholar]
  9. Bezuidenhout, A.
    (2017) Contextualism and Semantic Minimalism. InY. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics (pp.21–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Booij, G.
    (2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cappelle, B.
    (2017) What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions?InI. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp.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]
  12. Carston, R.
    (2002) Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  13. Copestake, A., & Terkourafi, M.
    (2010) Conventional speech act formulae: from corpus findings to formalization. InP. Kühnlein, A. Benz, & C. Sidner (Eds.), Constraints in Discourse2 (pp.125–140). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.194.07cop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.194.07cop [Google Scholar]
  14. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  15. Depraetere, I., & Salkie, R.
    (Eds.) (2017) Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Diewald, G.
    (2011) Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics, 49(2), 365–390. 10.1515/ling.2011.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.011 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fetzer, A.
    (2012) Contexts in interaction: relating pragmatic wastebaskets. InR. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer, & P. Schumacher (Eds.), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges (pp.105–127). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.196.08fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.196.08fet [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore, C.
    (1981 [1976]) Pragmatics and the description of discourse. InP. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp.143–166). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1996) The pragmatics of constructions. InD. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language. Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp.53–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. The case of ‘let alone’. Language, 64, 501–528. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  21. Finkbeiner, R.
    (2017) ‘Argumente hin, Argumente her’. Regularity and idiomaticity in German ‘N hin, N her’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 29(3), 205–258. 10.1017/S1470542716000234
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542716000234 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2018) ‘Bla(h), bla(h), bla(h)’. Usage and meaning of a repetitive all-rounder. InA. Urdze (Ed.), Non-prototypical reduplication (pp.71–89). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110599329‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110599329-003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fischer, K.
    (2015) Situation in grammar or in frames?Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 258–288. 10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis [Google Scholar]
  24. Fischer, K., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (Eds.) (2008) Konstruktionsgrammatik I. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie. Second edition. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
    (2005) Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2013) Constructionist approaches. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Grice, H. P.
    (1989) Logic and conversation. InH. P. Grice, Studies in the way of words (pp.22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gutzmann, D.
    (2015) Use-conditional meaning. Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723820.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jaszczolt, K. M.
    (2005) Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199261987.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaplan, D.
    (1999) The meaning of ouch and oops. Explorations in the theory of meaning as use. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.
  33. Kay, P.
    (2004) Pragmatic aspects of constructions. InL. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of pragmatics (pp.675–700). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations. The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–34. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2012) Constructional meaning and compositionality. InC. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics (pp.2271–2296). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) There-constructions. InG. Lakoff, Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind (pp.462–585). Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lambrecht, K.
    (1990) “What, me worry?” – ‘Mad Magazine sentences’ revisited. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 215–228. 10.3765/bls.v16i0.1730
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v16i0.1730 [Google Scholar]
  38. (1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  39. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Levinson, S.
    (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Liedtke, F.
    (2017) Constructions, templates, and pragmatics: Response to Cappelle. InI. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp.153–162). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_9 [Google Scholar]
  42. Matsumoto, Y.
    (2010) Interactional frames and grammatical descriptions: The case of Japanese noun-modifying constructions. Constructions & Frames, 2(2), 135–157. 10.1075/cf.2.2.01mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.01mat [Google Scholar]
  43. Meibauer, J.
    (2015) On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach. Language Typology and Universals (STUF), 68(3), 241–261.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Morgan, J. L.
    (1978) Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. InP. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp.261–280). London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Nikiforidou, K.
    (2009) Constructional analysis. InF. Brisard, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics (pp.16–32). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.5.01nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5.01nik [Google Scholar]
  46. (2011) Grammar and discourse: A constructional approach to discourse-based conventionality. Athens: Parousia.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Nikiforidou, K., & Fischer, K.
    (2015) On the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 137–147. 10.1075/cf.7.2.001int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.001int [Google Scholar]
  48. Östman, J.-O.
    (2005) Construction Discourse. A prolegomenon. InJ.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.121–144). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  49. (2015) From Construction Grammar to Construction Discourse … and back. InJ. Bücker, S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V. Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten (pp.15–43). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Paul, I., & Stainton, R.
    (2006) Really intriguing, that Pred NP!Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association Canadienne de Linguistique 2006. Proceedings of the 2006 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Potts, C.
    (2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Recanati, F.
    (2010) Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Salmon, W.
    (2015) Conversational implicatures, reference point constructions, and that noun thing. Linguistics, 53(3), 443–477. 10.1515/ling‑2015‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0009 [Google Scholar]
  54. Savva, E.
    (2017) Subsentential speech from a contextualist perspective. PhD diss., University of Cambridge.
  55. Searle, J. R.
    (1979) Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Taylor, J. R.
    (2012) The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Terkourafi, M.
    (2009) On de-limiting context. InA. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.17–42). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.02ter
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.02ter [Google Scholar]
  59. Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00027.fin
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00027.fin
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Introduction
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