1887
Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18022.nik
2020-01-10
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18022.nik
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18022.nik
Loading

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