Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper addresses constructional change in a dialogical construction that is illustrated by utterances such as , which typically serve the purpose of an interactional challenge. Drawing on web-based corpus data, we argue that this construction is currently undergoing a process of change that expands its range of possible uses. Specifically, we observe the emergence of uses with a different intersubjective function, in which the writer does not aim for confrontation but is rather seeking the solidarity and alignment of the addressee. We offer an account of this development in terms of constructional change, and we use this case study to explore how intersubjectification and the dialogic nature of language can be accommodated more thoroughly in a constructional theory of language change.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aarts, B.
    (2007) Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, M.
    (2014) Slang in new media. A case study. InJ. Coleman (Ed.), Global English slang. Methodologies and perspectives (pp.175–186). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G.
    (2015) On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–382. 10.1111/1467‑968X.12068
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.12068 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brisard, F.
    (Ed.) (2002) Grounding. The epistemic footing of deixis and reference. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899801 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brône, G., & Zima, E.
    (2014) Towards a dialogic construction grammar. A corpus-based approach to ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0027 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J. L.
    (2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  7. Davies, M.
    (2013) Corpus of global web-based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries (GloWbE). Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/glowbe/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Deppermann, A.
    (2011) Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik: Affinitäten, Komplementaritäten und Diskrepanzen. InA. Lasch & A. Ziem (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze (pp.205–238). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Diessel, H.
    (2015) Usage-based construction grammar. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitivelinguistics (pp.295–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gutzmann, D., & Henderson, R.
    (2019) Expressive updates, much?Language, 95(1), 107–135. 10.1353/lan.2019.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2019.0014 [Google Scholar]
  14. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C.
    (2004) An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd ed.London: Hodder Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hilpert, M.
    (2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2017) Historical sociolinguistics and construction grammar: From mutual challenges to mutual benefits. InT. Säily, A. Nurmi, M. Palander-Collin, & A. Auer (Eds.), Exploring future paths for historical sociolinguistics (pp.217–237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ahs.7.09hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ahs.7.09hil [Google Scholar]
  17. (2018) Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. InE. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp.21–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.21.c2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.21.c2 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2019) Construction grammar and its application to English. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Imo, W.
    (2015) Interactional construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 69–78. 10.1515/lingvan‑2015‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kristiansen, G.
    (2008) Style-shifting and shifting styles: A socio-cognitive approach to lectal variation. InG. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp.45–90). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199154.1.45
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154.1.45 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kristiansen, G., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2013) Contexts and usage in cognitive sociolinguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 52, 1–4. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Vol.1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Liberman, M.
    (2010) X much. languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2836, date of access: 8.3.2018]
  25. Michaelis, L. A., & Feng, H.
    (2015) What is this, sarcastic syntax?Constructions and Frames, 7, 148–180. 10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic [Google Scholar]
  26. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Traugott, E. Closs
    (2010) Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. InK. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification, and grammaticalization (pp.27–70). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
    (2010) Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization – how do they intersect?InE. Closs Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization (pp.19–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90.04tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90.04tra [Google Scholar]
  29. (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]
  30. Zappavigna, M.
    (2012) Discourse of Twitter and social media. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ziem, A.
    (2015) Probleme und Desiderata einer Social Construction Grammar. InA. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionenalssoziale Konventionen und kognitiveRoutinen (pp.1–22). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]

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