1887
Volume 7 Number 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

On the interaction of constructions with register and genre, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/cf.7.2.001int-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.001int
2015-12-30
2019-10-23
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. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergs, A. , & Diewald, G
    (Eds.) (2009) Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.9
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, J
    (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  4. Clark, H.H
    (1996) Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen, E
    (2014) What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. doi: 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  6. Devitt, A
    (2009) Re-fusing form in genre study. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein (Eds.), Genres in the Internet (pp. 27–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.188.02dev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.02dev [Google Scholar]
  7. Drummen, A
    (2015)  Dramatic pragmatics. A discourse approach to particle use in ancient Greek tragedy and comedy . Ph.D. Thesis, University of Heidelberg.
  8. Fillmore, C.J
    (1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C.J. , Kay, P. , & Connor, M.C
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64, 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fischer, K
    (2010) Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. doi: 10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis [Google Scholar]
  11. (2011) Recipient design, alignment and interaction: The role of the addressee in so-called ‘simplified registers’. Habilitation Thesis, University of Bremen.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fried, M. , & Östman, J.-O
    (2004) A thumbnail sketch of construction grammar. In M. Fried & J-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  13. (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]
  14. Herring, S. , Scheidt, L.A. , Bonus, S. , & Wright, E
    (2004) Bridging the gap: A genre analysis of weblogs. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Hawaii.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C.J
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33. doi: 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  16. Langacker, R
    (2001) Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. doi: 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  17. Linell, P
    (2009) Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 97–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.9.05lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.05lin [Google Scholar]
  18. Lindström, J. , & Londen, A.-M
    (2008) Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional reorganization (pp. 105–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.5.06lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.5.06lin [Google Scholar]
  19. Matsumoto, Y
    (2010) Interactional frames and grammatical descriptions: The case of Japanese noun-modifying constructions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 136–157. doi: 10.1075/cf.2.2.01mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.01mat [Google Scholar]
  20. Michaelis, L. , & Lambrecht, K
    (1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72, 215–247. doi: 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  21. Nikiforidou, K
    . (2016). ‘Genre knowledge’ in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in the folk tales. In N. Stukker , W. Spooren , & G. Steen (Eds.) Genre in language, discourse and cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Östman, J.-O
    (2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  23. Puschmann, C
    (2009) Lies at Wal-Mart: Style and the subversion of genre in the Life at Wal-Mart blog. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein (Eds.), Genres in the Internet (pp. 49–84). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.188.03pus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.03pus [Google Scholar]
  24. Ruppenhofer, J. , & Michaelis, L
    (2010) A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 158–184. doi: 10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup [Google Scholar]
  25. Terkourafi, M
    (2009) On de-limiting context. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 17–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.9.02ter
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.02ter [Google Scholar]
  26. Wide, C
    (2009) Interactional construction grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.111–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 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.7.2.001int
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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