Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 3:2 (2016) ► pp.177–206

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

Cross-domain variation in the X itself as a grammatical construction

 | Department of English , Germanic and Romance Studies, University of Copenhagen (Denmark)
Published online: 3 March 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.2.01ebe
The X itself
is a nominal construction that has not received much attention within cognitive linguistics despite it having a quite interesting function, as it serves to select a core part in a partonomy and thus specify lexical relations within a text. Apart from being mentioned in passing in Croft & Cruse (2004), one of the few treatments of this construction in cognitive linguistics is Jensen (2014) who builds on the comments in Croft & Cruse (2004) and proposes a hypothesis pertaining to the cognitive and discursive function of the construction. However, that hypothesis does not take into account an important aspect of the reality of language — namely, variation. This article investigates, within the framework of usage-based construction grammar, the X itself in the Open American National Corpus (OANC) to see whether the construction displays variation across the nine domains that the data in OANC are divided into. Applying quantitative techniques, including lexical diversity measures and multidimensional scaling, this article explores aspects of the discursive behavior of the X itself across these domains and addresses the extent to which the construction interacts with the registers associated with the domains. Focusing on use-based varieties (McArthur 1992, see also Quirk 1989 and Halliday et al. 1964: 77), the present article argues that the X itself is not a constructional monolith, but that it is characterized by register-sensitive functional variation and that its core selection function very likely serves a information-structural discourse-pragmatic purpose.
References (43)
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (v3.4.3w) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baayen, R.H. (2001). Word frequency distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bai, Y. (2014). A usage-based study of the just me construction. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 21, 127–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bick, E. (1996). VISL: Visual interactive syntax learning [Online]. Retrieved from [URL]. Accessed July 23, 2015.
Borgatti, S. (1997). Multidimensional scaling [Online]. Retrieved from [URL]. Accessed July 30, 2015.
Croft, W.A. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2005). Logical and typological arguments for radical construction grammar. In J.-O. Östman (Ed.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 273–314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W.A., & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W.A., & Wood, E.J. (2000). Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 51–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981 (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 641, 501–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gregory, M. (1967). Aspects of varieties differentiation. Journal of Linguistics, 3(2), 177–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. (1983). Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation. Language in Society, 12(2), 153–172. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K, McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harder, P. (2010). Meaning in mind and society: A functional contribution to the social turn in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2015, February). Substance(s) and the rise and imposition of structure(s). Paper presented at the Substance and Structure in Linguistics workshop , University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jensen, K.E. (2014). The semantics-pragmatics interplay in a partonomic construction: Construals, lexical relations, pragmatic points and ‘the construction itself’. Rask, 411, 3–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koizumi, R. (2012). Relationships between text length and lexical diversity measures: Can we use short texts of less than 100 tokens? Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 60–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar–Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levshina, N. (2014). Geographic variation of quite ADJ in twenty national varieties of English: A pilot study. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 21, 109–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McArthur, T. (1992). Variety. In T. McArthur (Ed.), The Oxford companion to the English language (pp. 1081–1082). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, P.M. (2011). Gramulator (v6.0) [Computer Software]. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, P.M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 421, 381–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patten, A.L. (2014). The historical development of the it-cleft: A comparison of two different approaches. In N. Gisborne & W.B. Hollmann (Eds.), Theory and data in cognitive linguistics (pp. 87–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pedersen, J. (2005). The Spanish impersonal se-construction: Constructional variation and change. Constructions, 11, 1–49.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R. (1989). Language varieties and standard language. JALT Journal 111, 1,14–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramm, W. (2000). Textual variation in travel guides. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Discourse and community: Doing functional linguistics (pp. 147–168). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, J.A. (2012). A gay paper: Why should sociolinguistics bother with semantics? English Today, 28(4), 38–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (2013). It is... quite common for theoretical predictions to go untested (BNC_CMH). A register-specific analysis of the English go un-V-en construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 521, 17–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shibuya, Y. (2015, July). Lexical and constructional richness of adjectives: A diachronic study. Paper presented at 13th International Conference on Cognitive Linguistics , Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Siewierska, A., & Hollmann, W.B. (2007). Ditransitive clauses in English with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In M. Hannay & G.J. Steen (Eds.), Structural-functional studies in English grammar: In honour of Lachlan Mackenzie (pp. 83–102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Torre, E. (2015). Language as an emergent construction network: A close-up on Italian idioms. Ecological Psychology, 27(3), 202–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Gijsel, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D. (2005). A variationist, corpus linguistic analysis of lexical richness. Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series, 1(1), 1–16.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue