Cover not available

Article published In: Cognitive Perspectives on Genre
Edited by Carla Vergaro
[Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3] 2018
► pp. 543–575

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

Genre and constructional analysis

 | National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Published online: 10 January 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18022.nik
Abstract
Constructional approaches to genre model genre knowledge in terms of genre-based constructions. Like all constructions, these represent conventionalized pairings of meaning and form, of varying degrees of length and schematicity, whose pragmatic specifications include their association with a particular socio-cultural context. In this state-of-the-art article I review genre-related constructional work, discussing grammatical patterns that are licensed only in particular contexts, including conversational genres, as well as expressions that qualify as constructions simply on the basis of socio-cultural currency. The appropriateness of constructional analysis for the language of genre derives from the definitional incorporation of discourse-pragmatic information in constructional descriptions and the possibility of relating genre-bound, idiosyncratic patterns to the rest of the constructions in a language through relations of inheritance. I further highlight the compatibility of Frame Semantics with the notion of genre and critically discuss the concept of conventionality as it applies to genre language.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Foundational premises and earlier studies
  • 2.The influence of frame semantics; frames and genres
  • 3.The grammar of genre
    • 3.1The grammar of conversation
  • 4.Socio-cultural currency and constructional status
  • 5.Genre in a constructional perspective: Affinities, limits, conventionality
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (97)
References
Aarne, Antti & Stith Thompson. 1961. The types of the folktale: A classification and bibliography. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, FFC 184.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Adamson, Sylvia. 1995. From empathetic deixis to empathetic narrative: Stylisation and (de)subjectivization as processes of language change. In Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 195–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antonopoulou, Eleni & Kiki Nikiforidou. 2011. Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics 43(10). 2594–2609. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 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
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. Speech genres and other late essays (Translated by Vern W. McGee). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bally, Charles. 1912. Le style indirect libre en francais modern. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 41. 549–556 and 597–606.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald (eds.). 2009. Constructions and language change. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth & Dan Slobin. 1994. Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth, Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir & Sven Strömqvist. 2002. Discourse stance. Written Language and Literacy 5(2). 1–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corbett, John. 2006. Genre and genre analysis. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 26–32. Boston: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3). 623–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra Thompson. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. In Bernd Kortmann & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William & Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser (eds.). 2012. Viewpoint in language: A multi-modal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delarue, Paul & Marie-Louise Ténèze. 1957. Le conte populaire français (41 volumes). Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2006. Construction Grammar – Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion? In Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion, 43–65. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprӓchsforschung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2015. Modal particles in different communicative types. Constructions and Frames 7(2), 218–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. Topics in lexical semantics. In Roger Cole (ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory, 76–138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1981. Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 143–166. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1982. Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1983. How to know whether you are coming or going. In Gisa Rauh (ed.), Essays on deixis, 219–227. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2). 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Kiki Nikiforidou, Mary Van Clay, Mary Niepokuj & Deborah Feder (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1988. The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistics Society 141. 35–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Merging frames. In Rema Rossini Favretti (ed.), Frames, corpora and knowledge representation, 1–12. Bologna: Bologna University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’ Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64(3). 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher Johnson & Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3). 235–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’ Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 641. 501–538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015b. Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition 7(4). 563–588. [URL]
Fludernik, Monika. 1993. The fictions of language and the languages of fiction: The linguistic representation of speech and consciousness. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra Thompson. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Eleanor Ochs, Emmanuel Schegloff & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13], 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara Fox & Sandra Thompson. 1996. Practices in the construction of turns: The TCU revisited. Pragmatics 6(3). 427–454. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara & Sandra Thompson. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66(2). 297–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2009a. Representing contextual factors in language change. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 63–94. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Construction Grammar. In Artemis Alexiadou & Tibor Kiss (eds.), Handbook of syntax, vol. 21, 2nd edn. 974–1003. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective, 11–86. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1752–1778. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 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
. 2013. Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 29–40 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., Keith K. Millis & Rolf A. Zwaan. 1997. Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology 481(1). 163–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2015. Cognitive sociolinguistic aspects of football chants: The role of social and physical context in usage-bases construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 63(3). 273–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Alexander Bergs. 2018. A construction grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes 181 (open access version [URL]).
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2007. Der Zwang zur Kategorienbildung: Probleme der Anwendung der Construction Grammar bei der Analyse gesprochener Sprache. Gesprӓchsforschung 81. 22–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2013. The limits of construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 41–53 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Laura Michaelis. 2012. Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 31, 2271–2296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Partial Inversion in English. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Kentucky, Lexington, 212–216. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions: The case of French right-detached comme-N. In Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective, 157–199. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2001. Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 143–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan & Anne-Marie Londen. 2008. Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In Jaakko Leino (ed.), Constructional reorganization, 105–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2009. Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 97–110. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinez, Claudia B. 2018. Cross-cultural analysis of turn-taking practices in English and Spanish conversations. Vernacular: New Connections in Language, Literature, & Culture, vol. 31, article 5. Available at: [URL]
Megas, Georgios. 1978. Το ελληνικό παραμύθι. Αναλυτικός κατάλογος τύπων και παραλλαγών κατά το σύστημα Aarne-Thompson (FFC 184). Aθήνα: Ακαδημία Αθηνών. Δημοσιεύματα του Κέντρου Ερεύνης της Ελληνικής Λαογραφίας, αρ. 14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2004. Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 45–88. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Tense in English. In Bas Aarts & April MacMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 220–243. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura & Hanbing Feng. 2015. What is this, sarcastic syntax? Constructions and Frames 7(2). 148–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura & Knud Lambrecht. 1996. Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72(2). 215–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki. 2012. The constructional underpinnings of viewpoint blends: The past + now in language and literature. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 177–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. ‘Genre knowledge’ in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in folk tales. In Ninke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen (eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 331–359. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. to appear. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: The conventional vs. functional dichotomy in ‘stage directions’. In Yoshiko Matsumoto & Shoichi Iwasaki (eds.), Multiplicity in grammar: Modes, genres and speaker’s knowledge. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics.
Nikiforidou, Kiki & Kerstin Fischer. 2015. On the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Constructions and Frames 7(2). 137–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki, Sophia Marmaridou & George K. Mikros. 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
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra Thompson. 1995. What can conversation tell us about syntax? In Philip W. Davis (ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes, 213–271. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 2005. Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 121–144. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Dialects, discourse, and Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 476–490 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petruck, Mirjam R. L. 1996. Frame semantics. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Ostman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Propp, Vladimir. 1968 [1927]. Morphology of the folktale (translated by Laurence Scott, 2nd edn.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura Michaelis. 2010. A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2(2). 158–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson, Collin F. Baker & Jan Scheffczyk. 2016. FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice (revised edn.). Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, John & David Brazil. 1982. Teacher talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2011. Genre between the humanities and the sciences. In Marcus Callies, Wolfram Keller & Astrid Lohöfer (eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences, 21–42. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico Rossano, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10587–10592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen (eds.). 2016. Genre in language, discourse and cognition. Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra & Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth. 2008. “All that he endeavoured to prove was …”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. In Robin Cooper & Ruth Kempson (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In Robert A. Cloutier, Anne Marie Hamilton-Brehm & William A. Kretschmar (eds.), Variation and change in English grammar and lexicon, 11–27. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2003. A glossary of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wide, Camilla. 2009. Interactional Construction Grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 111–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf A. 1994. Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology 20(4). 920–933.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Bergs, Alexander
2025. Construction Grammar and Literature. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 623 ff. DOI logo
Ivorra Ordines, Pedro & Carmen Mellado Blanco
2025. 323Semi-Schematic Patterns and their Social Dimension: A Constructionist Study of the Proverb Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres in Spanish and German. In Dynamics at the Lexicon-Syntax Interface, ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo
Sari, Putu Dewi Novita, Arif Rahman, Lalu Mahsar & Barbara Arbaiza
2025. A Pragmatic Analysis of English Teachers’ Speech Acts in Language Teaching: A Case Study at Smart Mataram Private Course. Journal of Language and Literature Studies 5:2 ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Bouso, Tamara
2024. Towards a usage-based characterisation of the English Superlative Object Construction. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
Frost, Katie Hoogerheide
2024. Why Consider Local Genres in Translation?. Journal of Translation 20:1 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Marmaridou, Sophia
2023. Sociopragmatics and Context. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context, ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Leclercq, Benoît
2022. From modals to modal constructions. Constructions and Frames 14:2 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo
Yan, Hengbin
2022. Data-Driven Smart e-Learning for English for Specific Purposes. In Smart Education and e-Learning - Smart Pedagogy [Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 305], ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2021. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in ‘stage directions’. Journal of Pragmatics 173 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 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