Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Usage-based grammars have become increasingly prominent in recent years. In these theories usage is construed quantitatively and serves as a circumstance for the emergence and development of grammar. This paper argues that usage can go deeper than this, and may become a component of the semiotic resources of a language and a part of grammar. However, this semioticisation is restricted to interpersonal grammar, those semiotic resources of grammar that construe interpersonal meaning. Three apparently unrelated grammatical phenomena – optionality of grammatical markers, insubordination, and a range of repetition-based constructions – are shown to be unified by the notions of grammaticalised usage and interpersonal grammar. This has implications for the nature of interpersonal grammar: it represents the codification of the triadic actional frame, the basis of which is the idea that action on an interlocutor is effected via action on linguistic units.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Austin, John L
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad
    2001 Register variation: A corpus approach. InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), Deborah Schiffrin , Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds). Malden, MA, Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell, 175–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1973 [1933]Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolinger, Dwight
    1968 Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa2: 119–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1972That’s That (Janua Lingarum Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata). The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1987 The remarkable double IS. English Today9: 39–40. doi: 10.1017/S0266078400002728
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400002728 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson
    1978 Universals of language usage: Politeness phenomena. InQuestions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Esther Goody (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, Joan
    2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  9. Christie, Agatha
    1979 [1933]Sad Cypress. London: Pan.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, Herbert H
    2016 Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review123 (3): 324–347. doi: 10.1037/rev0000026
    https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000026 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clark, Herbert H. & Richard J. Gerrig
    1990 Quotations as demonstrations. Language66: 764–805. doi: 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  12. Comrie, Bernard
    1981The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Coppock, Elizabeth & Laura Staum
    2004 Origin of the English double-is construction. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Available at: www.casasanto.com/laura/documents/doubleis.pdf (Last accessed on3 June 2017).
  14. Coupe, Alexander R
    2011 On core case marking patterns in two Tibeto-Burman languages of Nagaland. Linguistics in the Tibeto-Burman Area34 (2): 21–47.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2016 Routes to insubordination: A cross-linguistic perspective. InInsubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115), Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 393–422. doi: 10.1075/tsl.115.15cri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.15cri [Google Scholar]
  16. Cuenca, Maria Josep
    2007 Repetició consecutiva i idiomaticitat. Zeitschrift für Katalanistik20: 189–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Curme, George O
    1931A Grammar of the English Language: Syntax, Vol. 3. Boston, DC: Heath and Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Delbecque, Nicole
    2002 A construction grammar approach to transitivity in Spanish. InThe Nominative & Accusative and their Counterparts (Case and Grammatical Relations across Languages 4), Kristin Davidse & Béatrice Lamiroy (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 81–130. doi: 10.1075/cagral.4.06del
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.4.06del [Google Scholar]
  19. Evans, Nicholas
    2007 Insubordination and its uses. InFiniteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 366–431.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2009 Insubordination and the grammaticalisation of interactive presuppositions. Lecture given at the conference Methodologies in Determining Morphosyntactic Change , Osaka, March 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Evans, Nicholas & Honoré Watanabe
    2016a The dynamics of insubordination: An overview. InInsubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115), Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–37. doi: 10.1075/tsl.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115 [Google Scholar]
  22. (eds) 2016bInsubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.115
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, Charles J
    1988 The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistic Society14: 35–55. doi: 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ghomeshi, Jila , Ray Jackendoff , Nicole Rosen & Kevin Russell
    2004 Contrastive focus reduplication in English: The salad-salad paper. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory22: 307–357. doi: 10.1023/B:NALA.0000015789.98638.f9
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000015789.98638.f9 [Google Scholar]
  25. Givón, Talmy
    1980 The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language4: 333–377. doi: 10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg, Adele E
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gosden, Chris
    2003Prehistory: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/actrade/9780192803436.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780192803436.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gras, Pedro
    2016 Revisiting the functional typology of insubordination: Insubordinate que-constructions in Spanish. InInsubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115), Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 113–143. doi: 10.1075/tsl.115.05gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.05gra [Google Scholar]
  29. Grice, H. Paul
    1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Haiman, John
    1980 The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language56: 515–540. doi: 10.2307/414448
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414448 [Google Scholar]
  31. 1997 Repetition and identity. Lingua100: 57–70. doi: 10.1016/S0024‑3841(93)00027‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(93)00027-6 [Google Scholar]
  32. Halliday, M.A.K
    1979 Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions. InFunction and Context in Linguistic Analysis: Essays offered to William Haas, D.J. Allerton , Edward Carney & David Holdcroft (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 1st ed. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hand, David J
    2016Measurement: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/actrade/9780198779568.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198779568.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Heine, Bernd , Gunther Kaltenböck & Tania Kuteva
    2016 On insubordination and cooptation. InInsubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115), Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–63. doi: 10.1075/tsl.115.02hei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.02hei [Google Scholar]
  36. Hobson, Peter
    2004The Cradle of Thought: Exploring the Origins of Thinking. London: Pan Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hockett, Charles F
    1960 The origin of speech. Scientific American203: 88–96. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0960‑88
    https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ishikawa, Minako
    1991 Iconicity in discourse: The case of repetition. Text11 (4): 553–580. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.553
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.553 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jaeger, T. Florian
    2006 Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
  40. 2010 Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology61: 23–62. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Johnstone, Barbara
    (ed.) 1994aRepetition in Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 1 (Advances in Discourse Processes 47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (ed.) 1994bRepetition in Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 2 (Advances in Discourse Processes 48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Langacker, Ronald W
    1990Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research 1). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Levinson, Stephen C
    1992 [1983]Pragmatics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature (Language, Speech, and Communication). Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lilja, Niina
    2014 Partial repetitions as other-initiations of repair in second language talk: Re-establishing understanding and doing learning. Journal of Pragmatics71: 98–116. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  48. Massam, Diane
    1999 Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what’s the right analysis?English Language and Linguistics3 (2): 335–352. doi: 10.1017/S136067439900026X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067439900026X [Google Scholar]
  49. McConvell, Patrick
    1988 To be or double be? Current changes in the English copula. Australian Journal of Linguistics8 (2): 287–305. doi: 10.1080/07268608808599401
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608808599401 [Google Scholar]
  50. McGregor, William B
    1989 Phrase fracturing in Gooniyandi. InConfigurationality: The Typology of Asymmetries, László Marácz & Pieter Muysken (eds). Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 207–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 1994 The grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi. Australian Journal of Linguistics14 (1): 63–92. doi: 10.1080/07268609408599502
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609408599502 [Google Scholar]
  52. 1995 Ja hear that didja?: Interrogative tags in Australian English. Te Reo38: 3–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 1997Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 1998 “Optional” ergative marking in Gooniyandi revisited: Implications to the theory of marking. Leuvense Bijdragen87: 491–534.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2006a Repetition in Gooniyandi narrative. Paper presented atSecond European Workshop on Australian Languages: Narrative and Grammar, Somlószöllös, 14-16 September 2006.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2006b Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua116 (4): 393–423. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2007 Ergative marking of intransitive subjects in Warrwa. Australian Journal of Linguistics27 (2): 201–229. doi: 10.1080/07268600701531351
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268600701531351 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2010 Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua120 (7): 1610–1636. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2013a Optionality in grammar and language use. Linguistics51 (6): 1147–1204. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0047
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0047 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2013b There are existential constructions and existential constructions: Presumption invoking existentials in English. Folia Linguistica47 (1): 139–181. doi: 10.1515/flin.2013.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.007 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2013c Some unusual clause types in Shua. Paper presented atFinal KBA Meeting, Aarhus, 8-9 April 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2015a Four counter-presumption constructions in Shua (Khoe-Kwadi, Botswana). Lingua158: 54–75. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  63. 2015b Optional accusative marking in Shua. Paper presented atVariation and asymmetries in case-marking workshop, Canberra, 31 July 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Mithun, Marianne
    2008 The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language84: 69–119. doi: 10.1353/lan.2008.0054
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2008.0054 [Google Scholar]
  65. Persson, Gunnar
    1974Repetition in English. Part I: Sequential Repetition (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 21). Uppsala: Universitetsbiblioteket.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pike, Kenneth L
    1959 Language as particle, wave, and field. The Texas Quarterly2 (2): 37–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Rumsey, Alan L
    2010 ‘Optional’ ergativity and the framing of reported speech. Lingua120: 1652–1676. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.012 [Google Scholar]
  68. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2013 Is usage more than usage after all? The case of English not that. Linguistics51 (1): 75–116. doi: 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0003 [Google Scholar]
  69. Schwenter, Scott A
    2016 Independent si-clauses in Spanish: Functions and consequences for insubordination. InInsubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115), Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 89–111. doi: 10.1075/tsl.115.04sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115.04sch [Google Scholar]
  70. Shaumyan, Sebastian
    1987A Semiotic Theory of Language. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Simon, Horst J. & Heike Wiese
    (eds) 2011Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 216). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110219098
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219098 [Google Scholar]
  72. Tannen, Deborah
    1987 Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk. Language63: 574–605. doi: 10.2307/415006
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415006 [Google Scholar]
  73. 1989Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac
    1991 The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics15: 237–251. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90012‑M
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90012-M [Google Scholar]
  75. Tomasello, Michael
    1999The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 2003Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 2008Origins of Human Communication (The Jean Nicod Lectures). Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 2014A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. doi: 10.4159/9780674726369
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674726369 [Google Scholar]
  79. Torres Cacoullos, Rena & James A. Walker
    2009 On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study. Linguistics47 (1): 1–43. doi: 10.1515/LING.2009.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.001 [Google Scholar]
  80. Valenzuela, Javier , Joseph Hilferty & Mar Garachana
    2005 On the reality of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics3: 201–215. doi: 10.1075/arcl.3.11val
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.11val [Google Scholar]
  81. van der Voort, Hein
    2003 Reduplication of person markers in Kwaza. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia35: 65–94. doi: 10.1080/03740463.2003.10416074
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2003.10416074 [Google Scholar]
  82. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe , Sarah D’Hertefelt & An Van linden
    2012 A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language36 (1): 123–153. doi: 10.1075/sl.36.1.04ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.1.04ver [Google Scholar]
  83. Wierzbicka, Anna
    1987 Boys will be boys: ‘Radical semantics’ vs. ‘radical pragmatics’. Language63: 95–114. doi: 10.2307/415385
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415385 [Google Scholar]
  84. Wohlgemuth, Jan & Michael Cysouw
    (eds) 2010aRethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 45). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110220933
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220933 [Google Scholar]
  85. (eds) 2010bRara & Rarissima: Documenting the Fringes of Linguistic Diversity (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 46). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110228557
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110228557 [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