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



The aim of this paper is to analyze how speakers refer to non-exhaustive sets in spoken discourse, by means of open lists. We will propose an analysis of non-exhaustivity in terms of indexicality and we will therefore consider open lists as having an inherently pragmatic component. Based on corpus data of spoken Italian, we will identify three main types of non-exhaustive lists, showing different structural properties and non-compositional semantics. In order to account for the observed variation, we will take a construction grammatical perspective, arguing that what may appear as a heterogeneous set of strategies is instead an inheritance-based network of constructions sharing a schematic core (cf. Goldberg 1995). We will elaborate on the most recent approaches to list constructions, along the lines proposed by Masini, Mauri, & Pietrandrea (2018), and will identify three types of non-exhaustive list constructions, which inherit the core properties from the upper-level list construction, but at the same time show more specific features and constraints.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, J., & Keenan, E.
    (1985) Deixis. InT. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp.259–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, P.
    (2009) On-line syntax. Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences, 31(1), 1–13. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, P., & Pfänder, S.
    (2007) Multiple retractions in spoken French and spoken German. A contrastive study in oral performance styles. Cahier de Praxématique, 48, 57–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barotto, A., & Mauri, C.
    (2018) Constructing lists to construct categories. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 95–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bazzanella, C.
    (2011) Indeterminacy in dialogue. Language and Dialogue, 1, 21–43. 10.1075/ld.1.1.04baz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.1.1.04baz [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonvino, E., Masini, F., & Pietrandrea, P.
    (2009) List constructions: a semantic network. Talk given at the3rd International AFLiCo Conference – Grammars in Construction(s). Paris, 27–29 May 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Channell, J.
    (1994) Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cheshire, J.
    (2007) Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(2), 155–193. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2007.00317.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00317.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Chierchia, G.
    (2004) Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. Structures and beyond, 3, 39–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2006) Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic inquiry, 37, 535–590. 10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2006.37.4.535 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B.
    (2009) Hurford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures: Evidence for embedded implicatures. InP. Egré & G. Magri (Eds.), Presuppositions and implicatures. Proceedings of the MIT-Paris Workshop. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 60.
    [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. De Mauro, T., Mancini, F., Vedovelli, M., & Voghera, M.
    (1993) Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato. Milano: Etaslibri.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dubois, S.
    (1992) Extension particles etc. Language Variation and Change, 4, 179–204. 10.1017/S0954394500000740
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000740 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fiorentini, I.
    (2018) Eccetera eccetera e così via di seguito. I general extenders dell’italiano contemporaneo. InF. Masini & F. Tamburini (Eds.), CLUB Working Papers in LinguisticsVOL.2 (pp.20–39). University of Bologna.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fried, M., & Östman, J. O.
    (2005) Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–78. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gerdes, K., & Kahane, S.
    (2009) Speaking in piles: paradigmatic annotation of French spoken corpus. InM. Mahlberg, V. González-Díaz, & C. Smith (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL2009), article #309. ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/cl2009/
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Giannakidou, A.
    (2016) The myth of exhaustivity for all NPIs. Paper presented at the52nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 21–23, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2006) Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Goria, E., & Mauri, C.
    (2018) Il corpus Kiparla. Una nuova risorsa per lo studio dell’italiano parlato. InF. Masini & F. Tamburini (Eds.), CLUB Working Papers in LinguisticsVOL.2 (pp.76–95). University of Bologna.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goria, E.
    (forthcoming). The discursive construction of categories. Categorisation as a dynamic and cooperative process. Submitted toLanguage Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gumperz, J.
    (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (Eds.) 2013The 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]
  26. Jefferson, G.
    1990 List construction as a task and resource. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Interactional competence (pp.63–92). New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InG. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  28. Kahane, S., Pietrandrea, P., & Gerdes, K.
    (2018) The annotation of list structures. InA. Lacheret, S. Kahane & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Rhapsodie: A prosodic syntactic treebank of spoken French (pp.69–95). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kiss, K.
    (2010) Structural focus and exhaustivity. InM. Zimmermann & C. Féry (Eds.), Information structure. Theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives (pp.64–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lin, J., & Giannakidou, A.
    (2015) No exhaustivity for the Mandarin NPI shenme. Retrieved fromhome.uchicago.edu/giannaki/pubs/LinGianna.2015.23.05.pdf
  31. Lo Baido, C.
    (2018) Categorization via exemplification: evidence from Italian. Folia Linguistica Historica, 52(s39–1), 69–95. 10.1515/flih‑2018‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flih-2018-0007 [Google Scholar]
  32. Masini, F.
    (2006) Binomial constructions: inheritance, specification and subregularities. Lingue e Linguaggio, V, 207–232.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Masini, F., Mauri, C., & Pietrandrea, P.
    (2018) Lists: towards a unified account. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 49–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Masini, F., & Pietrandrea, P.
    (2010) Magari. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 75–121. 10.1515/cogl.2010.003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.003 [Google Scholar]
  35. 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]
  36. (2017) Building and interpreting ad hoc categories. InJ. Blochowiak, C. Grisot, S. Durrleman-Tame, & C. Laenzlinger (Eds.), Formal models in the study of language (pp.297–326). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑48832‑5_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_16 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mauri, C., & Sansò, A.
    (2018a) Linguistic strategies for the construction of ad hoc categories: theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation. Folia Linguistica Historica, 52(s39–1), 1–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Mauri, C., & Sansò, A.
    (2018b) Un approccio tipologico ai general extenders. InM. Chini & P. Cuzzolin (Eds.), Tipologia, acquisizione, grammaticalizzazione (Typology, acquisition, grammaticalization studies) (pp.63–72). Milan: Franco Angeli.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Mauri, C., & Barotto, A.
    (in preparation). Non-exhaustive connectives.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Overstreet, M.
    (1999) Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that: General extenders in English discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (2005) And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1845–1864. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  42. Recanati, F.
    (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H.
    (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382. 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  44. Selting, M.
    (2007) Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list constructions as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 483–526. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P.
    (2008) Annotation by category – ELAN and ISO DCR. InN. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stolz, T.
    (2006) (Wort-)Iteration: (k)eine universelle Konstruktion. InK. Fischer & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (pp.105–132). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (2007) Das ist doch keine Reduplikation! Über falsche Freunde bei der Suche nach richtigen Beispielen. InA. Ammann & A. Urdze (Eds.), Wiederholung, Parallelismus, Reduplikation. Strategien der multiplen Strukturanwendung (pp.47–80). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (2009) Total reduplication: Syndetic vs. asyndetic patterns in Europe. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 71, 99–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Traugott, E. C.
    (2007) The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 18, 523–557. 10.1515/COG.2007.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.027 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2008) Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. InR. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development. Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp.219–250). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Trousdale, G.
    (2008) Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization. Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. InG. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp.33–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199178.1.33
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199178.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2010) Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization. InK. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp.51–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.119.05tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.119.05tro [Google Scholar]
  53. Voghera, M.
    (2012) Chitarre, violino, banjo e cose del genere. InA. Thornton & M. Voghera (Eds.), Per Tullio De Mauro. Studi offerti dalle allieve in occasione del suo 80° compleanno (pp.341–364). Roma: Aracne.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (2013) A case study on the relationship between grammatical change and synchronic variation: The emergence of tipo [-N] in Italian. InA. Giacalone Ramat, C. Mauri, & P. Molinelli (Eds.), Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface (pp.283–312). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.133.12vog
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.133.12vog [Google Scholar]
  55. Voghera, M., Iacobini, C., Savy, R., Cutugno, F., De Rosa, A., & Alfano, I.
    (2014) VoLIP: a searchable Italian spoken corpus. InL. Veselovská & M. Janebová (Eds.), Complex visibles out there, Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium: Language Use and Linguistic Structure (pp.628–640). Olomouc: Palacký University.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Voghera, M., & Collu, L.
    (2017) Intentional vagueness: a corpus-based of Italian and German. InM. Napoli & M. Ravetto (Eds.), Intensity, intensification and intensifying modification across languages (pp.371–389). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Wälchli, B.
    (2005) Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276219.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276219.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Xiang, Y.
    (2016) Interpreting questions with non-exhaustive answers. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.

Data & Media loading...

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