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



The paper accounts for the Greek discourse topicalization construction APO X, Y and the sarcastic and humorous effects that arise in the context of Twitter exchanges. Our analysis is based on the analytical tools of the Lexical Constructional Model (henceforth LCM) as formulated in Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal (2008)Ruiz de Mendoza (2013), and Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera (2014). For this purpose we have created a corpus of over 1300 real use tweets. The LCM enables us to treat the patricular uses of the APO X, Y construction. It is shown to be very useful in capturing emergent uses of an already established construction.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bortone, P.
    (2010) Greek prepositions: From antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556854.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199556854.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Dancygier, B., & Vandelanotte, L.
    (2009) Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. InG. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp.319–369). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Dik, S. C.
    (1997a) [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)] The theory of Functional Grammar. Part1: The structure of the clause. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (1997b) [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)]. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part2: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218374
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218374 [Google Scholar]
  5. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Grady, J.
    (1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. InR. W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp.79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.06gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.06gra [Google Scholar]
  9. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
    (2004) An introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd revised edition). London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, L.
    (2008) Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Herring, S. C.
    (2001) Computer-mediated discourse. InD. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp.612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Katis, D., & Nikiforidou, K.
    (2017) Spatial prepositions in early child Greek: Implications for acquisition, polysemy and historical change. InProceedings of the 12th ICGL (pp.525–537).
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. McCracken, H.
    (2009) What I know about Twitter. Available at: technologizer.com/2009/03/15/what-i-know-about-twitter/
  20. Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. InC. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  21. Nikiforidou, K.
    (1991) The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(2), 149–205. 10.1515/cogl.1991.2.2.149
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1991.2.2.149 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2002) From semantic underdetermination, via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum: An International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(6), 107–143.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. InB. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics (pp.231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2014) On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: towards settling some controversies. InJ. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp.143–166). London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2017) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. InB. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp.138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.45 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R.
    (2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2011) Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. InP. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp.62–82). London, UK/Oakville, CT: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Skopeteas, S.
    (1999) NE sisxetistes tou topou me tis kiries prothesis se kai apo. InA. Mozer (Ed.), Greek Linguistics ’97: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp.249–57). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tachibana, T.
    (1994) Spatial expressions in Modern Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 14, 525–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Talmy, L.
    (1988) The relation of grammar to cognition. InB. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp.165–205). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.50.08tal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.50.08tal [Google Scholar]
  33. Tzartzanos, A.
    (1991) Neoelliniki sintaxis (tis kinis dimotikis). Thessaloniki: Kyriakides.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Vandelanotte, L.
    (2012) “Wait till you get started”: How to submerge another’s discourse in your own. InB. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint In language: A multimodal perspective (pp.198–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.015 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
    (2012) Explaining irony. InD. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp.123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.008 [Google Scholar]
  36. Zafeiriadou, K.
    (2010) Εvent Structure: An instantiation with Από. PhD dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
  37. Zappavigna, M.
    (2011) Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. Journal of New Media and Society, 13(5), 788–806. 10.1177/1461444810385097
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385097 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2012) Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London/New York: Continuum.
    [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