Cover not available

Introduction published In: Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-Level Phenomena: Theoretical challenges and empirical advances
Edited by Renata Enghels and María Sol Sansiñena
[Constructions and Frames 13:1] 2021
► pp. 3–20

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

Discourse-level phenomena in construction grammars

 | Ghent University
 | University of Leuven


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00045.int
Article outline
  • 1.(Recent) advances in constructional research on discourse-level phenomena
  • 2.Overview of the chapters in this volume
  • 3.Implications and future directions
  • References
References (58)
References
Auer, P. (2011). ‘Online syntax and Construction Grammar: a perfect match? Some reflections on elliptical expansions.’ Paper Presented at the Workshop on Grammar and Interaction Revisited, Helsinki, March 10–12, 2011.
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional approach to resultatives (Stanford Monograph in Linguistics). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2005). Construction-dependent morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio, 41, 31–46.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2008). The comment clause in English. Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brône, G. & Zima, E. (2014). Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2017). What is pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line (pp. 115–151). Springer International. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Colleman, T. et al. (2020). The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, H. & Cuyckens, H. (2007). Diachronic aspects of complementation: Constructions, entrenchment, and the matching problem. In C. Cain & G. Russom (Eds.), Shaking the tree: Fresh perspectives on the genealogy of English (pp. 187–213). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enghels, R. (2018). Towards a constructional approach to discourse-level phenomena: The case of the Spanish interpersonal epistemic stance construction. Folia Linguistica, 52(1), 107–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elvira García, W., Roseano, P. & Fernández Planas, A. M. (2017). Prosody as a cue for syntactic dependency. Evidence from dependent and independent clauses with subordination marks in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 1091, 29–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2007). Insubordination and its uses. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations (pp. 366–431). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1974/1981). Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 143–166) (reprint of Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, 1974). Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1975). Santa Cruz lectures on deixis: 1971. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. [(1997). Lectures on deixis. CSLI Lecture Notes 65. CSLI Publications.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1982). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 71, 563–588. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, K. & Alm, M. (2013). A radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. In B. Cornillie, P. Pietrandrea & L. Degand (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description (pp. 47–87). [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 234]. John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1752–1778. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gras, P. & Sansiñena, M. S. (2015). An interactional account of discourse connective que-constructions in Spanish. Text & Talk 35(4), 505–529. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gras, P. (2016). Revisiting the functional typology of insubordination: que-initial sentences in Spanish. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds), Insubordination. [Typological Studies in Language 115] (pp. 113–144). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English. Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal?. In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 19–40). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2013). Abstract phrasal and clausal constructions. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 307–328). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and emergent (pp. 22–44). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. (2013). The development of comment clauses. In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. N. Leech & S. Wallis (Eds.), The Verb Phrase in English. Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp. 286–317). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P. (1997). Words and the grammar of context. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Argument Structure Constructions and the Argument-Adjunct Distinction. In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots [Constructional Approaches to Language 4] (pp. 71–98). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, J. & Londen, A-M. (2008). Constructing reasoning. The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional Reorganization [Constructional Approaches to Language 5] (pp. 105–152). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Constructions in dialogue. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds), Contexts and Constructions [Constructional Approaches to Language 9] (pp. 97–110). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marandin, J-M. (2006). Contours as constructions. Constructions, SV1-10/2006. [URL]
Nikiforidou, K., & Torres Cacoullos, R. (2010). Variably future-marked conditionals in Greek: Integrating discourse and grammar. Constructions and frames, 2(1), 90–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S. & Mikros, G. K. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. & Fischer, K. (2015). Introduction. On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre. In K. Nikiforidou & K. Fischer (Eds.), Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 137–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (1999). Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns: Focus on news reports. In W. Bublitz et al. (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it (pp. 77–100). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, J-O. (2005). Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. [Constructional Approaches to Language 3], 121–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, J-O. & M. Fried. (2005). The cognitive grounding of Construction Grammar. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. [Constructional Approaches to Language 3], 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, J-O. (2015). From Construction Grammar to Construction Discourse… and back. In J. Bücker, S. Günthner & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V. Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten (pp. 15–43). Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadat-Tehrani, N. (2008). An Intonational Construction. Constructions 3/2008. [URL]
Sansiñena, M. S. (2015). The multiple functional load of que. An interactional approach to insubordinate complement clauses in Spanish. University of Leuven dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sansiñena, M. S. & Elvira García, W. (2018). Using intonation to delimit grammatical constructions: the case of Chilean ‘que + indicative’. Paper presented at the ICCG10, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle and École Normale Supérieure, Paris, July 18th 2018.
Schwenter, S. A. (2016). Independent si-clauses in Spanish: Functions and Consequences for insubordination. In N. Evans & H. Watanabe (Eds), Insubordination. [Typological Studies in Language 115]. (pp. 89–112). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & G. Trousdale. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional change. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2018). Modeling language change with constructional networks. In S. Pons Bordería & Ó. Loureda Lamas (Eds.), Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers. [Studies in Pragmatics 18] (pp. 17–50). Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, J. (2009). The grammar of complement-taking mental predicate constructions in present-day spoken British English. Ghent University dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (Eds.), The extending scope of construction grammar, Vol. 54 (pp. 141–179). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, E. & Bergs, A. (2014). Multimodality and construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 3(s1). 20161006. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2025. What makes Construction Grammar relevant for contact linguistics — and vice versa?. In Constructions in Contact 3 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 40], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Masini, Francesca, Claudia Roberta Combei & Roberta Cicchirillo
2025. The prosody of list constructions. In Multimodal Communication from a Construction Grammar Perspective [Constructional Approaches to Language, 38], ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo
Mithun, Marianne
2025. Constructions and Language Contact. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 469 ff. DOI logo
Foolen, Ad
2023. CONSTRUCTION PRAGMATICS IN A WIDER CONTEXT. AN ADDITION TO WEN (2022). Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Atayan, Vahram & Bogdan Babych
2022. Translating Argumentation: Distributional Semantic Analysis of Argumentation Resources in Parallel Corpora. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 119:1 ► pp. 23 ff. 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