Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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.
  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.
  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]

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