1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Functions of Language
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of The link between syntax, semantics, discourse, and lexicon in counteridenticals
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study goes beyond traditional usage-based work in that it pays close attention not only to the interaction of lexicon and syntax in language use, but also to how other analytic layers of analysis (e.g., discourse) can influence the compatibility of lexemes in particular slots of constructional schemas. To investigate this domain, we examine counteridentical constructions (e.g., ) in a dataset of more than 1,000 examples from The Corpus of Contemporary American English. We focus on significant interdependencies between the slots of the protasis (i.e., types of NPs appearing in the protasis) and apodosis (i.e., semantics of the verb lemma) and how these cross-clausal associations interact with other linguistic variables such as the time reference of the apodosis, the discourse function of the construction, and the order of the protasis and apodosis. We demonstrate a novel application of a multivariate extension of co-varying collexeme analysis via a hierarchical configural frequency analysis.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24101.olg
2026-01-23
2026-02-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/fol.24101.olg
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arregui, Ana
    2019 Being me, being you: Pronoun puzzles in modal contexts. Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra A. Thompson
    2022 Action ascription and deonticity in everyday advice-giving sequences. InArnulf Deppermann & Michael Haugh (eds.), Action ascription in social interaction, –. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781108673419.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108673419.010 [Google Scholar]
  3. Declerck, Renaat & Susan Reed
    2001 Conditionals. A comprehensive empirical analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110851748
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110851748 [Google Scholar]
  4. Diessel, Holger
    2008 Iconicity of sequence. A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics. –. 10.1515/COGL.2008.018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2008.018 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2019 The grammar network. How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  6. Eye, Alexander von
    2002 Configural frequency analysis: Methods, models, and applications. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Family, Neiloufar
    2011 Mapping semantic spaces: A constructionist account of the “light verb” in Persian. Folia Linguistica. –. 10.1515/flin.2011.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2011.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ford, Cecillia E. & Sandra A. Thompson
    1986 Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from English. InElizabeth Closs Traugott, Alice Ter Meulen, Judy Snitzer Reilly & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), On conditionals, –. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511753466.019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753466.019 [Google Scholar]
  9. Givón, Talmy
    2001 Syntax: An introduction, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.syn2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.syn2 [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Goodman, Nelson
    1991 The problem of counterfactual conditionals. InFrank Jackson (ed.), Conditionals, –. Oxford: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Gries, Stefan Th
    2009 Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216042
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216042 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch
    2004a Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. –. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  14. 2004b Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. InMichel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, –. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Hampe, Beate & Stefan Th. Gries
    2018 Syntax from and for discourse II: More on complex sentences as meso-constructions. InBeate Hampe & Susanne Flach (eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/gcla‑2018‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0006 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hoffmann, Thomas, Jakob Horsch & Thomas Brunner
    2019 The more data, the better: A usage-based account of the English comparative correlative construction. Cognitive Linguistics. –. 10.1515/cog‑2018‑0036
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0036 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kauf, Carina
    2017 Counterfactuals and (counter-)identity. The identity crisis of “if I were you”. Göttingen: Universität Göttingen MA thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Krauth, Joachim
    1993 Einführung in die Konfigurationsfrequenzanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Lakoff, George
    1996 Sorry, I’m not myself today: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self. InGilles Fauconnier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammars, –. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Levinson, Stephen C. & Asifa Majid
    2014 Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind and Language. –. 10.1111/mila.12057
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12057 [Google Scholar]
  21. Lewis, David
    1973 Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lichtenberk, Frantisek
    1995 Apprehensional epistemics. InJoan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.32.12lic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.12lic [Google Scholar]
  23. Nuyts, Jan
    2015 Subjectivity: Between discourse and conceptualization. Journal of Pragmatics. –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.015
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.015 [Google Scholar]
  24. Olguín Martínez, Jesús & Stefan Th. Gries
    2024 If not for — if it weren’t/wasn’t for counterfactual constructions: A multivariate extension of collostructional analysis. Cognitive Semantics. –. 10.1163/23526416‑bja10067
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10067 [Google Scholar]
  25. Palmer, Frank R.
    2001 Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  26. Pelletier, Jérôme
    2004 Analogical uses of the first person pronouns: A difficulty in philosophical semantics. The Journal of Cognitive Science. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Preston, Stephanie D. & Frans B. M. de Waal
    2002 Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. –. 10.1017/S0140525X02000018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02000018 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten
    2009 A typology of purpose clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Smith-Dennis, Ellen
    2021 Don’t feel obligated, lest it be undesirable: the relationship between prohibitives and apprehensives in Papapana and beyond. Linguistic Typology. –. 10.1515/lingty‑2020‑2070
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2070 [Google Scholar]
  30. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
    2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. –. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  31. 2005 Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. –. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sweetser, Eve
    1990 From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  33. Thomas, Guillaume
    2008 Proxy counterfactuals. Snippets. –.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Van linden, An
    2021 A usage-based approach to counterfactuality: Optionality of the apodosis. Theoretical Linguistics. –. 10.1515/tl‑2021‑2025
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2021-2025 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24101.olg
Loading
The link between syntax, semantics, discourse, and lexicon in counteridenticals
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.24101.olg
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24101.olg
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.24101.olg
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: counteridentical ; conditional ; counterfactual ; collexeme analysis

Most Cited

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