1887
Volume 7 Number 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Building on the seminal work on grammar and frames (e.g. Fillmore 1982), in addition to recent studies that apply a construction grammar approach to the description of genres (Antonopoulou & Nikiforidou 2011; Nikiforidou 2010b; Östman 2005) and spoken discourse (Fischer 2011; Fried & Östman 2005), this paper highlights the importance of extending the analytical boundary of grammar to include interactional frames, e.g. genres and social interactions. Using as an illustrative case the stand-alone noun-modifying construction in Japanese, a grammatical construction that is genre-sensitive, this paper suggests that grammatical constructions and interactional frames are in partnership in the construction of meaning. It is argued that this partnership is mediated by the proficient language users’ knowledge, which is socially and culturally inculcated and fostered, and therefore it is important to keep the theoretical model flexible enough to acknowledge fluidity in grammatical understanding.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.05mat
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. Bakhtin, M
    (1986) Speech genres and other late essays. Second Printing Edition. Trans. Vern W. McGee . Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Croft, W
    (2001) Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Devitt, A.J
    (1993) Generalizing about genre: New conceptions of an old concept. College Composition and Communication, 44(4), 573–586. doi: 10.2307/358391
    https://doi.org/10.2307/358391 [Google Scholar]
  5. Emigh, W. , & Herring, S.C
    (2005) Collaborative authoring on the web: A genre analysis of online encyclopedias. Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Hawai’i International Conference on System Science (HICSS-38). Los Alamitos: IEEE Press. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.149
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.149 [Google Scholar]
  6. Evans, N
    (2007) Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Fairclough, N
    (2013) Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fillmore, C.J
    (1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Seoul: Hanshin Pub.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2006) Frame semantics. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edition (pp. 613–620). Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00424‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00424-7 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2008) The merging of “frames”. In R. Rossini Favretti (Ed.), Frames, corpora, and knowledge representation (pp. 1–12). Bologna: Bologna University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fischer, K
    (2011) Recipient design, alignment and interaction: The role of the addressee in so-called ‘simplified registers’. Habilitation Thesis, University of Bremen.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, B.A. , & Thompson, S.A
    (1990) A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297–316. doi: 10.2307/414888
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414888 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fried, M
    (2009) Representing contextual factors in language change. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 63–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.9.04fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.04fri [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Givón, T
    (1982) Logic vs. pragmatics, with human language as the referee: Toward an empirically visible epistemology. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 81–133. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(82)90026‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(82)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  17. (1987) Beyond foreground and background. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 175–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.11.10giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.11.10giv [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Günthner, S. , & Knoblauch, H
    (1995) Culturally patterned speaking practices: The analysis of communicative genres. Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–32. doi: 10.1075/prag.5.1.03gun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.5.1.03gun [Google Scholar]
  20. Hopper, P.J
    (1979) Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 213–241). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Horie, K
    . (n.d.). The attributive-final distinction and the manifestation of “main clause phenomena” in Japanese and Korean NMCs. Unpublished manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Horie, K. , Kim, J. , & Rhee, S
    (2012) Stand-alone nominalizations in Japanese and Korean: Parallelism and divergences. Paper presented at the workshop on Epistemicity, evidentiality and attitudes in Asian Languages , Hong Kong.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Iwasaki, S
    (2015) A multiple-grammar model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(2), 161–210. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0101 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lambrecht, K
    (1988) Presentational cleft constructions in spoken French. In J. Haiman & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 135–179). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.18.08lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.18.08lam [Google Scholar]
  25. (1994) Information structure and sentence form: A theory of topic, focus and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, S.C
    (1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17, 356–399. doi: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  27. Matsumoto, Y
    (1988) Semantics and pragmatics of noun‑modifying constructions in Japanese. In S. Axmaker , A. Jaisser , & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 166–175). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1991) Is it really a topic that is relativized? Arguments from Japanese. In L.M. Dobrin , L. Nichols , & R.M. Rodriguez (Eds.), Papers from the 27th regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society, Part One: The general session, (pp.388–402). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (1997) Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese: A frame semantic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.35
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.35 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2008) Variations in Japanese honorification – deviations or a change in the making?In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional re-organization (Constructional Approaches to Language Series 5) (pp. 89–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.5.05mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.5.05mat [Google Scholar]
  31. (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]
  32. (2015) Japanese relative clauses that stand alone. In M. Giriko , N. Nagaya , A. Takemura , & T. Vance (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 22. (pp. 215–230). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Nikiforidou, K
    (2010a) Viewpoint and construction grammar: The case of past + now . Language and Literature, 19(3), 265–284. doi: 10.1177/0963947010370253
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947010370253 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2010b) Discoursal categories and grammatical description: A constructional integration. Plenary presented at the ICCG6 , Prague, September 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Okamoto, S
    (1995) Pragmaticization of meaning in some sentence-final particles in Japanese. In M. Shibatani & S.A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays in semantics and pragmatics in honor of Charles J. Fillmore (pp. 219–246). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.32.12oka
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.32.12oka [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. 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]
  38. Selinker, L
    (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–241. doi: 10.1515/iral.1972.10.1‑4.209
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 [Google Scholar]
  39. Swales, J.M
    (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Teramura, H
    (1984) Nihongo no shintakusu to imi II [Japanese syntax and meaning II]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, S.A
    (1971) The deep structure of relative clauses. In C.J. Fillmore & D.T. Langendoen (Eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics (pp.79–96). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Traugott, E.C
    (2011) Pragmatics and language change. In A. Keith & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 549–565). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Tsubomoto, A
    (2009) Sonzai no rensa to bubun/zentai no sukīmā: “Uchi” to “soto” no aida [Chaining of existence and part/whole schema]. In A. Tsubomoto , N. Hayase , & N. Wada (Eds.), “Uchi” to “soto” no gen- gogaku [Linguistics of “inside” and “outside”] (pp. 299–351). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tsunoda, T
    (2011) Ningyo kōbun: Nihongo kara ippan gengo-gaku e no kōken [Mer- maid constructions: Contributions from Japanese linguistics to general linguistics]. NINJAL Research Papers, 1, 53–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hashida, Sugako
    (1984) Tonari no Shibafu [The lawn next door]. Tokyo: Nihon Hoso Shuppan Kyokai.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.05mat
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