1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Utterance interpretation involves semantically specified codes and context-based pragmatic inferences, which complement each other. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the very complex relation between a subset of codes, Goldbergian constructions, specifically ones centering around ‘alternativity’, and pragmatic inferences. I analyze a variety of constructions and sub-constructions, emphasizing not only the role of coded constructions on the one hand, and of inferences, on the other hand, but also of cues, namely, linguistic forms that bias towards a specific interpretation, although they do not encode that interpretation. The synchronic variability with respect to the relative contribution of code, inference and cue reflects a grammaticization cycle whereby codes (here constructions) are routinely enriched by inferences, often supported by cues, which in turn may evolve into new codes (here sub-constructions).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00028.ari
2019-11-07
2020-08-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O.
    (1976) L’argumentation dans la langue. Langages, 42, 5–27. 10.3406/lgge.1976.2306
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1976.2306 [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. (2010) Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511777912
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2015) Higher-level category or constructions: When many is one. Studies in Pragmatics, 17, 42–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ariel, M., & Mauri, C.
    (2018) Why use or?Linguistics, 56, 939–994. 10.1515/ling‑2018‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0020 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2019) An ‘alternative’ core for or. Journal of Pragmatics, 149, 40–59. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
    (Eds.) 2015Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bod, R.
    (2006) Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples?The Linguistic Review: Special issue on exemplar-based models of language, 23, 291–320. 10.1515/TLR.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J.
    (2001) Phonology and language use [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2002) Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. InT. Givón & B. F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp.109–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.53.07byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.53.07byb [Google Scholar]
  11. (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  12. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dattner, E.
    (2015) Mapping the Hebrew dative constructions. Ph.D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University.
  14. Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N.
    (2000–2005) Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 1–4: Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
  15. Finkbeiner, R.
    (2015) The grammar and pragmatics of N hin, N her (‘N thither, N hither’) in German. Pragmatics & Society, 6, 89–116. 10.1075/ps.6.1.05fin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.1.05fin [Google Scholar]
  16. Giora, R.
    (submitted). Defaultness vs. Constructionism: The case of default constructional sarcasm and default non-constructional literalness. InH. Colston, G. Steen, & T. Matlock Eds. Metaphor in language, cognition, and communication (MiLCC). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
    (2015) Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 30, 290–313. 10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804 [Google Scholar]
  18. Givón, T.
    (1979) On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2006) Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Grice, H. P.
    (1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kuno, S.
    (1972) Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 269–320.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Levshina, N.
    (2016) A geometric exemplar-based model of semantic structure: The Dutch causative construction with laten. InJ. Yoon & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to construction grammar (pp.241–262). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.19.09lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.19.09lev [Google Scholar]
  26. Mauri, C.
    (2008) Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211498
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211498 [Google Scholar]
  27. Mauri, C., & Van der Auwera, J.
    (2012) Connectives. InA. Keith & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp.377–401). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139022453.021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.021 [Google Scholar]
  28. Prince, E. F.
    (1976) The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French. Language, 52, 404–426. 10.2307/412568
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412568 [Google Scholar]
  29. (1978) A comparison of WH-clefts and IT-clefts in discourse. Language, 54, 883–906. 10.2307/413238
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413238 [Google Scholar]
  30. Sinclair, J. M.
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1986/1995) Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  33. Thompson, S. A.
    (2002) Constructions and conversation. Unpublished MS., UC Santa Barbara.
  34. Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
    (2002) Regularity in semantic change [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Traugott, E. C., & 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.00028.ari
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): code , construction , cue , inference , or and sub-construction
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