Cover not available

Article published In: On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar
Edited by Rita Finkbeiner
[Constructions and Frames 11:2] 2019
► pp. 193–219

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Or constructions

Code, inference and cue too

 | Tel Aviv University
Published online: 7 November 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00028.ari
Abstract
Utterance interpretation involves semantically specified codes and context-based pragmatic inferences, which complement each other. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the very complex relation between a subset of codes, Goldbergian constructions, specifically ones centering around ‘alternativity’, and pragmatic inferences. I analyze a variety of or constructions and sub-constructions, emphasizing not only the role of coded constructions on the one hand, and of inferences, on the other hand, but also of cues, namely, linguistic forms that bias towards a specific interpretation, although they do not encode that interpretation. The synchronic variability with respect to the relative contribution of code, inference and cue reflects a grammaticization cycle whereby codes (here constructions) are routinely enriched by inferences, often supported by cues, which in turn may evolve into new codes (here sub-constructions).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Inferring alternativity
  • 3.The core or construction and its inferred readings
  • 4.Complex core constructions
  • 5.Specialized sub-constructions
    • 5.1Or something like that
    • 5.2The ascending consecutive numeral sub-construction
    • 5.3Two Hamlet or sub-constructions
      • 5.3.1The Dilemma or sub-construction
      • 5.3.2The hybrid or not to be sub-construction
  • 6.Constructions: Code, inference and cue too
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O. (1976). L’argumentation dans la langue. Langages, 421, 5–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Higher-level category or constructions: When many is one. Studies in Pragmatics, 171, 42–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, M., & Mauri, C. (2018). Why use or? Linguistics, 561, 939–994. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). An ‘alternative’ core for or. Journal of Pragmatics, 1491, 40–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S. (Eds.). 2015. Diachronic construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bod, R. (2006). Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples? The Linguistic Review: Special issue on exemplar-based models of language, 231, 291–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givón & B. F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 109–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dattner, E. (2015). Mapping the Hebrew dative constructions. Ph.D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N. (2000–2005). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, Parts 1–4: Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giora, R. (submitted). Defaultness vs. Constructionism: The case of default constructional sarcasm and default non-constructional literalness. In H. Colston, G. Steen, & T. Matlock (Eds.), Metaphor in language, cognition, and communication (MiLCC). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O. (2015). Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol, 301, 290–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1972). Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 269–320.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2016). A geometric exemplar-based model of semantic structure: The Dutch causative construction with laten. In J. Yoon & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to construction grammar (pp. 241–262). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauri, C. (2008). Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauri, C., & Van der Auwera, J. (2012). Connectives. In A. Keith & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 377–401). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1976). The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French. Language, 521, 404–426. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1978). A comparison of WH-clefts and IT-clefts in discourse. Language, 541, 883–906. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 81, 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constructions and conversation. Unpublished MS., UC Santa Barbara.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
2020. On the polysemy of motion verbs in Ancient Greek and Coptic. Studies in Language 44:1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Discourse Structuring Markers in English [Constructional Approaches to Language, 33], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue