1887
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Grammatical organization of conversational language presents us with the challenge of incorporating recurrent contextual and discourse-relevant properties in grammatical descriptions, as part of speakers’ conventional knowledge. Using data from conversational Czech extracted from the Czech National Corpus, I address this issue by tracing the relationships among a set of dative-marked expressions of interpersonal relations (traditionally labeled ‘ethical datives’) and their connection to argument-expressing dative NPs. The discourse-referential expressions form a family of distinct patterns, the differences having to do with person (1st, 2nd) and number (. vs. .); functionally, they range from marking subjectively assessed newsworthiness to signaling evidentiality and solidarity to expressing the speaker’s emotional state. The attendant reorganization of formal, semantic, and discourse features that define these dative-marked items amounts to several patterns – ‘interactional datives’ – and I show that they have the status of grammatical constructions, which are conventionally tied to certain types of discourse settings and speaker-hearer expectations. In order to represent these constructions and their relationship to other, partially related, patterns, I propose a network representation in the form of contiguous functional spaces that overlap at the boundary between argument-expression and interactional markers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00046.fri
2021-08-02
2021-10-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Czech National Corpus
    Czech National Corpus, https://www.korpus.cz/
  2. PMK
    PMK (2001); ORALv.1 (2017); SYNv.7 (2018)
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Antonopoulo, 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]
  4. Auer, P.
    (2009) On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences, 31, 1–13. 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Authier, J.-M., & Reed, L.
    (1992) Case theory, Theta theory, and the distribution of French affected datives. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 10, 27–39. CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berman, R. A.
    (1982) Dative marking of the affectee role: Data from Modern Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review, 6, 35–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Borer, H., & Grodzinski, Y.
    (1986) Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics. InH. Borer (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics19 (pp.175–217). Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brinton, L. J.
    (1996) Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110907582
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brône, G., & Zima, E.
    (2014) Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. InR. Giora & J. W. Du Bois (Eds.), special issue ofCognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0027 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2001) Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Croft, W.
    (1992) Voice: beyond control and affectedness. InB. Fox & P. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: form and function (pp.89–117). John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dabrowska, Ewa
    (1997) Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Cognitive Linguistics Research Vol. 9. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110814781
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110814781 [Google Scholar]
  15. DeLancey, S.
    (2001) The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369–382. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80001‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80001-1 [Google Scholar]
  16. Evola, V., & Raineri, S.
    (2011) A comparative analysis of narrative datives in French and Italian. Paper presented at the44th Annual Meeting of SLE, Logroño, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fillmore, Ch. J.
    (1974/1981) Pragmatics and the description of discourse. InP. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 143–166) (reprint of Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, 1974). Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1982) Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111–137). Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fischer, K.
    (2010) Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. 10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis [Google Scholar]
  20. (2015) Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 7, 563–588. doi:  10.1017/langcog.2015.23
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.23 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fox, B.
    (2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318. doi:  10.1177/1461445607076201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201 [Google Scholar]
  22. Franks, S., & King, T. H.
    (2000) A handbook of Slavic clitics. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fried, M.
    (1999) The ‘free’ datives in Czech as a linking problem. InK. Dziwirek, H. Coats, & C. Vakareliyska (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics7, 145–166. Michigan Slavica Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2007) Constructing grammatical meaning: Isomorphism and polysemy in Czech reflexivization. Studies in Language, 31(4), 721–764. 10.1075/sl.31.4.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.4.02fri [Google Scholar]
  25. (2008) Constructions and constructs: Mapping a shift between predication and attribution. InA. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp.47–79). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2009) Plain vs. situated possession in a network of grammatical constructions. InW. McGregor (Ed.), Expression of possession (pp.213–248). Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213232.213
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213232.213 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2011) The notion of affectedness in expressing interpersonal functions. InM. Grygiel & L. A. Janda (Eds.), Slavic linguistics in a cognitive framework, 121–14. Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2014) From semantic to interactional dative: a preliminary investigation. InM. Martinková, M. Janebová, & J. Macháček (Eds.), Categories and categorial changes: The third syntactical plan and beyond, 12–20. Palacký University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2015) Construction Grammar. InA. Alexiadou & T. Kiss (Eds.), Syntax – theory and analysis. An international handbook. Handbooks of linguistics and communication science42.1–3 (pp.974–1003). Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110377408
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377408 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2019) Interakční dativ v konverzační češtině [Interactional dative in conversational Czech]. InJ. Hoffmannová (Eds.), Syntax mluvené češtiny [Syntax of spoken Czech], 218–243. Praha: Academia.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fried, M., & Östman, J-O.
    (2004) Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. InM. Fried & J-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp.11–86). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2005) Construction Grammar and spoken language: the case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  33. Imo, W.
    (2005) A Construction Grammar approach to the phrase “I mean” in Spoken English. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 42. nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-15607
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Janda, L. A.
    1993A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrument. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110867930
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867930 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kemmer, S.
    (1993) The middle voice. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23 [Google Scholar]
  36. King, K. P.
    (1997) The Czech dative of interest: The hierarchical organization of possession in discourse and pragmatics. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Harvard University.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lindström, J., & Londen, A-M.
    (2008) Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. InJ. Leino (Ed.), Constructional Reorganization (pp.105–152). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.5.06lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.5.06lin [Google Scholar]
  38. (2014) Insertion concessive: An interactional practice as a discourse grammatical construction. Constructions, 1–3/2014, 1–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Linell, P.
    (2009) Rethinking language, mind, and the world dialogically. Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Maldonado, R.
    (2002) Objective and subjective datives. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 1–65. 10.1515/cogl.2002.010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.010 [Google Scholar]
  41. Michelioudakis, D., & Sitaridou, I.
    (2009) The ethic dative in Modern Greek and Romance. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 29, 355–370.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Molochieva, Z.
    (2011) Tense, aspect, and mood in Chechen. PhD Thesis. Leipzig University.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Nichols, J., & Molochieva, Z.
    (2015) The diachronic trajectory of ethical datives: Chechen and Ingush. Paper presented at theSLE conference, Logroño, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Nikiforidou, K.
    (2011) Grammar and discourse: A constructional approach to discourse-based conventionality. Parousia.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 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]
  46. Norde, M., & Morris, C.
    (2018) Derivation without category change: A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. InK. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective. (pp.47–90). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.20.03nor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.03nor [Google Scholar]
  47. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S.
    (1996) Interaction and grammar. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874 [Google Scholar]
  48. Östman, J-O.
    (1986) Pragmatics as implicitness: An analysis of question particles in Solf Swedish, with implications for the study of passive clauses and the language of persuasion. Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5kg7s881
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. InJ-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, (pp.121–144). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3 [Google Scholar]
  50. (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). Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Pavlidou, T.-S.
    (2014) Constructing collectivity with ‘we’. InT.-S. Pavlidou (Ed.), Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts (pp.1–19). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.239
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239 [Google Scholar]
  52. Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2016) Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it?Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581. 10.1515/flin‑2016‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0020 [Google Scholar]
  53. Poldauf, Ivan
    (1962) Místo dativu ve výstavbě věty [The role of the dative in sentence structure]. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Slavica PragensiaIV, 335–345.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Siegal, E. B.-A., & Boneh, N.
    (2016) Discourse update at the service of mirativity effects: The case of the Discursive Dative. InProceedings of SALT26, 103–121. 10.3765/salt.v26i0.3784
    https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3784 [Google Scholar]
  55. Su, D.
    (2016) Grammar emerges through reuse and modification of prior utterances. Discourse Studies, 18(3), 330–353. 10.1177/1461445616634551
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616634551 [Google Scholar]
  56. Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
    (2010) Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.90
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.90 [Google Scholar]
  57. Valdmets, A.
    (2013) Modal particles, discourse markers, and adverbs with lt-suffix in Estonian. InL. Degand, B. Cornillie, & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description (pp.107–131). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.234.05val
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234.05val [Google Scholar]
  58. van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G.
    (Eds.) (2018) Category change from a constructional perspective. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.20
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20 [Google Scholar]
  59. Weydt, H.
  60. Whitt, R. J.
    (2014) Singular perception, multiple perspectives through ‘we’: Constructiong instersujective meaning in English and German. InT.-S. Pavlidou (Ed.), Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts (pp.83–104). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.239.06whi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.239.06whi [Google Scholar]
  61. Wide, C.
    (2009) Interactional construction grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. InA. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.111–144). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.06wid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.06wid [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00046.fri
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00046.fri
Loading

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