Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Constructional approaches to genre model genre knowledge in terms of genre-based constructions. Like all constructions, these represent conventionalized pairings of meaning and form, of varying degrees of length and schematicity, whose pragmatic specifications include their association with a particular socio-cultural context. In this state-of-the-art article I review genre-related constructional work, discussing grammatical patterns that are licensed only in particular contexts, including conversational genres, as well as expressions that qualify as constructions simply on the basis of socio-cultural currency. The appropriateness of constructional analysis for the language of genre derives from the definitional incorporation of discourse-pragmatic information in constructional descriptions and the possibility of relating genre-bound, idiosyncratic patterns to the rest of the constructions in a language through relations of inheritance. I further highlight the compatibility of Frame Semantics with the notion of genre and critically discuss the concept of conventionality as it applies to genre language.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aarne, Antti & Stith Thompson
    1961The types of the folktale: A classification and bibliography. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, FFC 184.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adamson, Sylvia
    1995 From empathetic deixis to empathetic narrative: Stylisation and (de)subjectivization as processes of language change. InDieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 195–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010 [Google Scholar]
  3. Antonopoulou, Eleni & Kiki Nikiforidou
    2011 Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics43(10). 2594–2609. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ariel, Mira
    2008Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511777912
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1986Speech genres and other late essays (Translated byVern W. McGee). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bally, Charles
    1912 Le style indirect libre en francais modern. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift4. 549–556 and 597–606.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald
    (eds.) 2009Constructions and language change. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Berman, Ruth & Dan Slobin
    1994Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Berman, Ruth, Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir & Sven Strömqvist
    2002 Discourse stance. Written Language and Literacy5(2). 1–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad
    2009Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor & Thomas Upton
    2007Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28 [Google Scholar]
  13. Corbett, John
    2006 Genre and genre analysis. InKeith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 26–32. Boston: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00514‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00514-9 [Google Scholar]
  14. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2014 What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics24(3). 623–647. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  15. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra Thompson
    2000 Concessive patterns in conversation. InBernd Kortmann & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.4.381
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.381 [Google Scholar]
  16. Croft, William & Alan Cruse
    2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser
    (eds.) 2012Viewpoint in language: A multi-modal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727 [Google Scholar]
  18. Delarue, Paul & Marie-Louise Ténèze
    1957Le conte populaire français (4volumes). Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2006 Construction Grammar – Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion?InArnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion, 43–65. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprӓchsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Diewald, Gabriele
    2015 Modal particles in different communicative types. Constructions and Frames7(2), 218–257. 10.1075/cf.7.2.03die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.03die [Google Scholar]
  21. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1977 Topics in lexical semantics. InRoger Cole (ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory, 76–138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1981 Pragmatics and the description of discourse. InPeter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 143–166. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1982 Frame semantics. InThe Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1983 How to know whether you are coming or going. InGisa Rauh (ed.), Essays on deixis, 219–227. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1985 Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica6(2). 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 1986 Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. InKiki Nikiforidou, Mary Van Clay, Mary Niepokuj & Deborah Feder (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1988 The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistics Society14. 35–55. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2008 Merging frames. InRema Rossini Favretti (ed.), Frames, corpora and knowledge representation, 1–12. Bologna: Bologna University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’ Connor
    1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language64(3). 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  30. Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher Johnson & Miriam R. L. Petruck
    2003 Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography16(3). 235–250. 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  31. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’ Connor
    1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language64. 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fischer, Kerstin
    2010 Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames2(2). 185–207. 10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis [Google Scholar]
  33. 2015a Situation in grammar or in frames? Evidence from the so-called baby talk register. Constructions and Frames7(2). 258–288. 10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.04fis [Google Scholar]
  34. 2015b Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition7(4). 563–588. journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S186698081500023X
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fludernik, Monika
    1993The fictions of language and the languages of fiction: The linguistic representation of speech and consciousness. London/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra Thompson
    1996 Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. InEleanor Ochs, Emmanuel Schegloff & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13], 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.003 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara Fox & Sandra Thompson
    1996 Practices in the construction of turns: The TCU revisited. Pragmatics6(3). 427–454. 10.1075/prag.6.3.07for
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.07for [Google Scholar]
  38. Fox, Barbara & Sandra Thompson
    1990 A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language66(2). 297–316. 10.2307/414888
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414888 [Google Scholar]
  39. Fried, Mirjam
    2009a Representing contextual factors in language change. InAlexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 63–94. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.04fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.04fri [Google Scholar]
  40. 2009b Construction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames1(2). 262–291. 10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.04fri [Google Scholar]
  41. 2015 Construction Grammar. InArtemis Alexiadou & Tibor Kiss (eds.), Handbook of syntax, vol.2, 2nd edn.974–1003. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
    2004 Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. InMirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective, 11–86. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  43. 2005 Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics37(11). 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  44. Goldberg, Adele
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 2013 Constructionist approaches. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 29–40 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Graesser, Arthur C., Keith K. Millis & Rolf A. Zwaan
    1997 Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology481(1). 163–189. 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hoffmann, Thomas
    2015 Cognitive sociolinguistic aspects of football chants: The role of social and physical context in usage-bases construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik63(3). 273–294. 10.1515/zaa‑2015‑0023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0023 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hoffmann, Thomas & Alexander Bergs
    2018 A construction grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes18 (open access versionhttps://journals.openedition.org/cognitextes/1032). 10.4000/cognitextes.1032
    https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.1032 [Google Scholar]
  50. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  51. Imo, Wolfgang
    2007 Der Zwang zur Kategorienbildung: Probleme der Anwendung der Construction Grammar bei der Analyse gesprochener Sprache. Gesprӓchsforschung8. 22–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kay, Paul
    2013 The limits of construction grammar. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 41–53 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore
    1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language75(1). 1–33. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kay, Paul & Laura Michaelis
    2012 Constructional meaning and compositionality. InClaudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol.3, 2271–2296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2017 Partial Inversion in English. InStefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Kentucky, Lexington, 212–216. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Lambrecht, Knud
    1994Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620607
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2004 On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions: The case of French right-detached comme-N. InMirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective, 157–199. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.05lam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.05lam [Google Scholar]
  59. Langacker, Ronald
    2001 Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics12(2). 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  60. Lindström, Jan & Anne-Marie Londen
    2008 Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. InJaakko Leino (ed.), Constructional reorganization, 105–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.5.06lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.5.06lin [Google Scholar]
  61. Linell, Per
    2009 Grammatical constructions in dialogue. InAlexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 97–110. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.05lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.05lin [Google Scholar]
  62. Martinez, Claudia B.
    2018 Cross-cultural analysis of turn-taking practices in English and Spanish conversations. Vernacular: New Connections in Language, Literature, & Culture, vol.3, article 5. Available at: trace.tennessee.edu/vernacular/vol3/iss1/5
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Matsumoto, Yoshiko
    2010 Interactional frames and grammatical descriptions: The case of Japanese noun-modifying constructions. Constructions and Frames2(2). 135–157. 10.1075/cf.2.2.01mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.01mat [Google Scholar]
  64. 2015 Partnership between grammatical construction and interactional frame: The stand-alone noun-modifying construction in invocatory discourse. Constructions and Frames7(2). 289–314. 10.1075/cf.7.2.05mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.05mat [Google Scholar]
  65. Megas, Georgios
    1978Το ελληνικό παραμύθι. Αναλυτικός κατάλογος τύπων και παραλλαγών κατά το σύστημα Aarne-Thompson (FFC 184). Aθήνα: Ακαδημία Αθηνών. Δημοσιεύματα του Κέντρου Ερεύνης της Ελληνικής Λαογραφίας, αρ.14.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Michaelis, Laura
    2004 Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. InJan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 45–88. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 2006 Tense in English. InBas Aarts & April MacMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 220–243. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  68. Michaelis, Laura & Hanbing Feng
    2015 What is this, sarcastic syntax?Constructions and Frames7(2). 148–180. 10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.01mic [Google Scholar]
  69. Michaelis, Laura & Knud Lambrecht
    1996 Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language72(2). 215–247. 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  70. Nikiforidou, Kiki
    2012 The constructional underpinnings of viewpoint blends: The past + now in language and literature. InBarbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 177–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.014 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2015 Grammatical constructions and cross-text generalizations. Empathetic narration as genre. Constructions and Frames7(2). 181–217. 10.1075/cf.7.2.02nik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.02nik [Google Scholar]
  72. 2016 ‘Genre knowledge’ in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in folk tales. InNinke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen (eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 331–359. Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. . to appear. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: The conventional vs. functional dichotomy in ‘stage directions’. InYoshiko Matsumoto & Shoichi Iwasaki eds. Multiplicity in grammar: Modes, genres and speaker’s knowledge. Special issue ofJournal of Pragmatics.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Nikiforidou, Kiki & Kerstin Fischer
    2015 On the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Constructions and Frames7(2). 137–147. 10.1075/cf.7.2.001int
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.001int [Google Scholar]
  75. Nikiforidou, Kiki, Sophia Marmaridou & George K. Mikros
    2014 What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics25(4). 655–699. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0060
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0060 [Google Scholar]
  76. Nir, Bracha
    2015 Frames for clause combining: Schematicity and formulaicity in discourse patterns. Constructions and Frames7(2). 348–379. 10.1075/cf.7.2.07nir
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.07nir [Google Scholar]
  77. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra Thompson
    1995 What can conversation tell us about syntax?InPhilip W. Davis (ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes, 213–271. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Östman, Jan-Ola
    2005 Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. InJan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 121–144. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  79. Östman, Jan-Ola & Graeme Trousdale
    2013 Dialects, discourse, and Construction Grammar. InThomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 476–490 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Petruck, Mirjam R. L.
    1996 Frame semantics. InJef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Ostman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Propp, Vladimir
    1968 [1927]Morphology of the folktale (translated byLaurence Scott, 2nd edn.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Quirk, Randolph, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura Michaelis
    2010 A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames2(2). 158–184. 10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.02rup [Google Scholar]
  84. Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson, Collin F. Baker & Jan Scheffczyk
    2016FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice (revised edn.). Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Sinclair, John & David Brazil
    1982Teacher talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Steen, Gerard
    2011 Genre between the humanities and the sciences. InMarcus Callies, Wolfram Keller & Astrid Lohöfer (eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences, 21–42. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.30.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.30.03ste [Google Scholar]
  87. Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico Rossano, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon & Stephen C. Levinson
    2009 Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10587–10592. 10.1073/pnas.0903616106
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106 [Google Scholar]
  88. Stubbs, Michael & Isabel Barth
    2003 Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings. Functions of Language10(1). 61–104. 10.1075/fol.10.1.04stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.10.1.04stu [Google Scholar]
  89. Stukker, Ninke, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen
    (eds.) 2016Genre in language, discourse and cognition. Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110469639
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110469639 [Google Scholar]
  90. Terkourafi, Marina
    2010Don’t go V-ing in Cypriot Greek: Semantic, pragmatic, and prosodic aspects of a prohibitive construction. Constructions and Frames2(2). 208–241. 10.1075/cf.2.2.04ter
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.04ter [Google Scholar]
  91. Thompson, Sandra & Paul J. Hopper
    2001 Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. InJoan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
  92. Tomasello, Michael
    2008Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  93. Traugott, Elizabeth
    2008 “All that he endeavoured to prove was …”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. InRobin Cooper & Ruth Kempson (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 2010 Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. InRobert A. Cloutier, Anne Marie Hamilton-Brehm & William A. Kretschmar (eds.), Variation and change in English grammar and lexicon, 11–27. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Trudgill, Peter
    2003A glossary of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Wide, Camilla
    2009 Interactional Construction Grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. InAlexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 111–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.06wid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.06wid [Google Scholar]
  97. Zwaan, Rolf A.
    1994 Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology20(4). 920–933.
    [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