1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 18, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Adopting a constructionally-oriented analysis, the present paper examines the pattern ‘think again’ (i.e., an instance of a mental state verb + adverbial adjunct) in synchronic, corpus-derived data. On the basis of both qualitative and quantitative analyses we show that merits constructional status in language; while it inherits features of fully-compositional meaning from its constituents it has also developed its own idiosyncratic properties. We further argue that may ultimately function as a discourse marker of challenge that regulates the relationship between Speaker (S) and Addressee (A), correlating with certain contextual regularities and interdependencies. It thus qualifies as a discourse construction that imposes a dialogic construal on its context and contributes fundamentally to discourse unit delimitation.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00068.gek
2020-12-04
2023-09-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00068.gek
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K.
    (2002) English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2004) Evidentiality: problems and challenges. In P. van Sterkenbourg (Ed.), Linguistics today: Facing a greater challenge (pp.1–29). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.126.02aik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.126.02aik [Google Scholar]
  3. (2010) Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anand, P. , & Hacquard, V.
    (2013) Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(8), 1–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, P.
    (1996) On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Εds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp.57–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakhtin, M. M.
    [1975] (1981) The dialogic imagination (Ed.), M. Holquist , trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist ). Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (1986) Speech genres and other late essays. Translated by V. W. McGee . Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bale, A. C.
    (2007) Quantifiers and verb phrases: An exploration of propositional complexity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25(3), 447–483. 10.1007/s11049‑007‑9019‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9019-8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Barth-Weingarten, D. , & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2002) On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization?In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp.345–631). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.22bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.22bar [Google Scholar]
  10. Beck, S.
    (2006) Focus on ‘again’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(3), 277–314. 10.1007/s10988‑005‑5794‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-5794-z [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergs, A. & Heine, L.
    (2010) Mood in English. In R. Thieroff & B. Rothstein (Eds.), Mood in the European Languages (pp.103–116). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.120.06ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.120.06ber [Google Scholar]
  12. Bertucelli Papi, M.
    (1998) Where Grice feared to thread: inferring attitudes and emotions. In G. Cosenza (Ed.), Paul Grice’s heritage (pp.247–281). San Marino.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2000) Implicitness in text and discourse. Pisa: ETS.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber, D. , & Finegan, E.
    (1989) Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124. 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bres, J. , Nowakowska, A. , & Sarale, J. M.
    (2016) Anticipative interlocutive dialogism: Sequential patterns and linguistic markers in French. Journal of Pragmatics, 96, 80–95. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Brinton, L. J.
    (1996) Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse dunctions. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110907582
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cappelli, G.
    (2005) Modulating attitudes via adverbs: A cognitive-pragmatic approach to the lexicalization of epistemological evaluation. In M. Bertuccelli Papi (Ed.), Studies in the semantics of lexical combinatory patterns (pp.213–278). Pisa: Plus Pisa University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2007) “I reckon I know how Leonardo da Vinci must have felt…” Epistemicity, evidentiality and English verbs of cognitive attitude. Pari: Pari Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Degand, L.
    (2014) “So very fast very fast then”: Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Cross-linguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp.151–178). Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004274822_008
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822_008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Degand, L. , & Simon, A. C.
    (2009) Mapping prosody and syntax as discourse strategies: How basic discourse units vary across genres. In A. Wichmann , D. Barth-Weingarten & N. Dehé (Εds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics: research at the interface (pp.79–105). Emerald: Bingley. 10.1163/9789004253223_005
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253223_005 [Google Scholar]
  21. Du Bois, J. W.
    (2007) The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp.139–182). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  22. Enghels, R.
    (2017) On the development of the interpersonal epistemic stance construction in Spanish: the case of sabes ‘you know’ and constructional variant. 15th international pragmatics conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 16–21 July 2017.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ernst, T.
    (2002) The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Fischer, K.
    (2010) Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. 10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.2.2.03fis [Google Scholar]
  26. Fried, M. , & Östman, J. O.
    (2005) Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  27. Geka, V.
    (forthcoming). The contribution of constructions to dialogicity and discourse unit delimitation: A corpus-based analysis of THINK AGAIN, BELIEVE (YOU) ME, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, and MIND YOU. PhD dissertation, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Faculty of English Language and Literature.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Geka, V. , & Marmaridou, S.
    (2017) Mental state verbs in dialogic constructions. Online proceedings of UK-CLA meetings, 4, 88–110. Retrieved from: www.uk-cla.org.uk/files/downloads/6_geka_marmaridou_88_110.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Gerard, P. D. , Smith, D. R. , & Weerakkody, G.
    (1998) Limits of retrospective power analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62, 801–807. 10.2307/3802357
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3802357 [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldberg, A.
    (2006) Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Granger, S. , & F. Meunier
    (Eds.) (2008) Phraseology. An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139 [Google Scholar]
  32. Greenbaum, S.
    (1969) Studies in English adverbial usage. London & Harlow: Longmans.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gries, S. Th.
    (2008) Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology. An interdisciplinary perspective (pp.3–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.139.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.139.06gri [Google Scholar]
  34. Hansen, M.
    (1997) “’Alors’ and ‘donc’ in spoken French: a reanalysis”. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 153–187. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(96)00086‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00086-0 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kay, P. , & Michaelis, L. A.
    (2012) Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maienborn , K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 3 (pp.2271–2296). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. König, E.
    (1991) The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London & New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Krawczak, K. , Fabiszak, M. , & Hilpert, M.
    (2016) A corpus-based, cross-linguistic approach to mental predicates and their complementation: Performativity and descriptivity vis-à-vis boundedness and picturability. Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 475–506. 10.1515/flin‑2016‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0018 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lakoff, G.
    (1971) Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp.329–340). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lavrakas, P. J.
    (2008) Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. doi:  10.4135/9781412963947
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963947 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lehmann, E. L.
    (1999) Elements of large-sample theory. New York: Springer-Verlag. 10.1007/b98855
     https://doi.org/10.1007/b98855 [Google Scholar]
  41. Levinson, S. C.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lindström, J. , & Wide, C.
    (2005) Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles. Swedish particles of the type you know. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 6, 211–236. 10.1075/jhp.6.2.04lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.6.2.04lin [Google Scholar]
  43. Linell, P.
    (1998) Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/impact.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2009) Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.97–110). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.9.05lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.9.05lin [Google Scholar]
  45. Louw, B.
    (2000) Contextual prosodic theory: Bringing semantic prosodies to life. In C. Heffer , H. Sauntson , & G. Fox (Eds.), Words in context: A tribute to John Sinclair on his retirement. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Makkonen-Craig, H.
    (2014) Aspects of dialogicity: Exploring dynamic interrelations in written discourse. In A. M. Karlsson & H. Makkonen-Craig (Eds.), Analysing text AND talk, FUMS Rapport nr 233 (pp.99–120). Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Mulder, J. , & Thompson, S. A.
    (2008) The grammaticization of ‘but’ as a final particle in English conversation. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunction (pp.179–204). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80.09mul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.09mul [Google Scholar]
  48. Nakagawa, S. , & Foster, T. M.
    (2004) The case against retrospective statistical power analyses with an introduction to power analysis. Acta Ethologica, 7, 103–108. 10.1007/s10211‑004‑0095‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-004-0095-z [Google Scholar]
  49. Nikiforidou, K. , Marmaridou, S. , & Mikros, G.
    (2014) What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 655–699. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0060
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0060 [Google Scholar]
  50. Novaković, J.Š.
    (2017) Imperative in English Proverbs. European Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 3(2), 75–78. 10.26417/ejls.v8i1.p75‑78
     https://doi.org/10.26417/ejls.v8i1.p75-78 [Google Scholar]
  51. Nuyts, J.
    (2001) Epistemic modality, language and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  52. Osburn, H. G.
    (2000) Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 5(3), 343–355. 10.1037/1082‑989X.5.3.343
     https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.3.343 [Google Scholar]
  53. Östman, J. O.
    (1981) You know: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.ii.7
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.7 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pons Bordería, S. , & Fischer, K.
    (2019) Using discourse segmentation to account for the polyfunctionality of discourse markers: The case of well. Manuscript submitted for publication.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Ritter, N.
    (2010) Understanding a widely misunderstood statistic: Cronbach’s alpha. Paper presented atSouthwestern educational research association (SERA), Conference 2010, New Orleans, LA (ED526237).
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Romero-Trillo, J.
    (2015) Understanding vagueness: a prosodic analysis of endocentric and exocentric general extenders in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 54–62. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.011 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2018) Prosodic modelling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14, 169–195. 10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0026
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0026 [Google Scholar]
  58. Ruiz de Mendoza, F.
    (2015) Entrenching inferences in implicational and illocutionary constructions. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 258–274. 10.3844/jssp.2015.258.274
     https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2015.258.274 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schmidt, Z.
    (2007) Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers”. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 417–443.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Schwenter, S. A.
    (2000) Viewpoints and polysemy: Linking adversative and causal meanings of discourse markers. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp.257–281). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043.3.257
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.3.257 [Google Scholar]
  61. Selting, M.
    (2000) The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477–517. 10.1017/S0047404500004012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004012 [Google Scholar]
  62. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2001) Constructing causation: A construction-grammar approach to analytic causatives. Doctoral dissertation, Rice University.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Strauss, S. , & Xiang, X.
    (2009) Discourse particles: Where cognition and interaction intersect: The case of final particle ‘ey’ in Shishan dialect (Hainan Island, P.R. China). Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1287–1312. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  64. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Tofiloski, M. , Brooke, J. , & Taboada, M.
    (2009) A syntactic and lexical-based discourse segmenter. InProceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 conference short papers (pp.77–80). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/1667583.1667609
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1667583.1667609 [Google Scholar]
  66. Traugott, E. C.
    (2005) Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In A. Cruse , F. Hundsnurscher , M. Job & P. R. Lutzeier (Eds.), Lexikologie/-Lexicology. Vol.2 (pp.1702–1712). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. (2006) The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In A. van Kemenade & B. Los (Eds.), Handbook on the history of English (pp.335–359). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470757048.ch14
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757048.ch14 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2007) Discussion article: Discourse markers, modal particles and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6, 139–157. 10.5565/rev/catjl.128
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.128 [Google Scholar]
  69. (2008) ‘All that he endeavoured to prove was…’: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogic contexts”. In C. Robin & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution (pp.143–177). London: Kings College Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. (2010) Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In R. A. Cloutier , A. M. Hamilton-Brehm & W. Kretzschmar (Eds.), Variation and Change in English Grammar and Lexicon (pp.11–27). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Van Bogaert, J.
    (2010) A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 399–427. 10.1017/S1360674310000134
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674310000134 [Google Scholar]
  72. Van Olmen, D. & Heinold, S.
    (2017) Imperatives and directive strategies from a functional-typological perspective: An introduction. In D. Van Olmen & S. Heinold (Eds.), Imperatives and directive strategies. Vol.184 (pp.1–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.184.01van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.184.01van [Google Scholar]
  73. Vendler, Z.
    (1967) Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501743726
     https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501743726 [Google Scholar]
  74. Verstraete, J. C.
    (2004) Initial and final position for adverbial clauses in English: the constructional basis of the discursive and syntactic differences. Linguistics, 42(4), 819–853. 10.1515/ling.2004.027
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2004.027 [Google Scholar]
  75. Waltereit, R.
    (2002) “Imperatives, interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda”. Linguistics, 40(5), 987–1010. 10.1515/ling.2002.041
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.041 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00068.gek
Loading
Dialogic constructions and discourse units:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association 18, 480 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00068.gek
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00068.gek
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00068.gek
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): challenge; Construction Grammar; dialogic constructions; dialogicity; discourse marker; discourse unit delimitation; mental state/propositional attitude verbs

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