1887
Volume 17, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Although the Construction Grammar (CxG) model has yielded fruitful findings, the role that pragmatics plays in language has not yet been fully considered in this theoretical framework. The recent development of spoken corpora, however, enables construction grammarians to develop a new approach called Interactional Construction Grammar, which incorporates interactional factors into CxG analysis to account for patterns that involve interpersonal functions and global contexts. Adopting this approach, the present study attempts to examine the use of a complement-taking mental predicate in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and analyze the co-occurrence patterns of this cognitive verb with different subjects. We identify three sequential patterns in which most frequently occurs, including account-giving, contrast-projecting and involvement-constructing, and argue that only by taking into account the sequential context and interactional function can the distribution patterns of subjects and particles that recurrently collocate with be explained.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00029.hsi
2019-08-20
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonopoulou, E., & Nikiforidou, K.
    (2011) Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(10), 2594–2609. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnes, R., & Moss, D.
    (2007) Communicating a feeling: The social organization of private thoughts. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 123–148. 10.1177/1461445607075339
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075339 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biq, Y. O.
    (1991) The multiple uses of the second person singular pronoun ni in conversational Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(4), 307–321. 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90084‑B
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90084-B [Google Scholar]
  5. (2004) Construction, reanalysis, and stance: ‘V yi ge N’and variations in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1655–1672. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chang, M. H.
    (2015) Two counter-expectation markers in Chinese. InJ. E. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy across time and cultures (pp.141–170). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2007) Assessing and accounting. InE. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp.81–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D.
    (1993) Outline of discourse transcription. InJ. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp.45–89). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1988) The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. InProceedings of the Fourteen Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.35–55). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, B. A.
    (2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318. 10.1177/1461445607076201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fried, M., & Östman, J. O.
    (2005) Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hakulinen, A., & Selting, M.
    (Eds.) (2005) Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17 [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, J.
    (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. New York: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C.
    (2003) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hsieh, C. Y. C.
    (2011) Meaning in interaction: The use of abstract nouns and the co-construction of stance in conversation. Paper presented at theELSJ International Spring Forum 2011, Shizuoka University, Hamamatsu City.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hsieh, F., & Huang, S.
    (2005) Grammar, construction, and social action: A study of the qíshí construction. Language and Linguistics, 6(4), 599–634.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, S.
    (2003) Doubts about complementation: A functionalist analysis. Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 429–455.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Imo, W.
    (2015) Interactional construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 69–77. 10.1515/lingvan‑2015‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Iwasaki, S.
    (1993) Subjectivity in grammar and discourse: Theoretical considerations and a case study of Japanese spoken discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jefferson, G.
    (2004) “At first I thought”: A normalizing device for extraordinary events. InG. H. Learner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp.131–167). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.09jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.09jef [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, M. S.
    (2014) Reported thought as a stance-taking device in Korean conversation. Discourse Processes, 51(3), 230–263. 10.1080/0163853X.2013.862479
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.862479 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kärkkäinen, E.
    (2012) I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(15), 2194–2210. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, N., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lim, N. E.
    (2011) From subjectivity to intersubjectivity: Epistemic marker wo juede in Chinese. InY. Xiao, L. Tao, & H. L. Soh (Eds.), Current issues in Chinese linguistics (pp.265–300). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Linell, P.
    (2009) Grammatical constructions in dialogue. InA. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.97–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.05lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.05lin [Google Scholar]
  30. Norrick, N. R.
    (2004) Humor, tellability, and conarration in conversational storytelling. Text, 24(1), 79–112. 10.1515/text.2004.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2004.005 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sanders, R., & Uehara, S.
    (2006) Thinking about xiang 3 in Taiwan: Some native-speaker opinions. Paper presented at the17th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Scheibman, J.
    (2002) Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.11 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2004) Inclusive and exclusive patterning of the English first person plural: Evidence from conversation. InM. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp.377–396). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2007) Subjective and intersubjective usees of generalizations in Engilsh conversations. InR. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp.111–138). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.06sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.06sch [Google Scholar]
  35. Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2001) Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  36. Stirling, L., & Manderson, L.
    (2011) About you: Empathy, objectivity and authority. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1581–1602. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. Tao, H.
    (2000) Adverbs of absolute time and assertiveness in vernacular Chinese: A corpus-based study. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association, 35(2), 53–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Bogaer, J.
    (2011) I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics, 49(2), 295–332. 10.1515/ling.2011.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  39. Waring, H. Z.
    (2007) The multi-functionality of accounts in advice giving. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(3), 367–391. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2007.00328.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00328.x [Google Scholar]
  40. Wide, C.
    (2009) Interactional Construction Grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. InA. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.111–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.06wid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.06wid [Google Scholar]
  41. Zima, E., & Brône, G.
    (2015) Cognitive Linguistics and interactional discourse: Time to enter into dialogue. Language and Cognition, 7(4), 485–498. 10.1017/langcog.2015.19
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2015.19 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00029.hsi
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00029.hsi
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