Cover not available

Article published In: Corpus Approaches to Language, Thought and Communication
Edited by Wei-lun Lu, Naděžda Kudrnáčová and Laura A. Janda
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:1] 2019
► pp. 187–218

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

APO X, Y

A discourse topicalization construction within Greek Twitter

 | Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
 | Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Published online: 20 August 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00031.kef
Abstract
The paper accounts for the Greek discourse topicalization construction APO X, Y and the sarcastic and humorous effects that arise in the context of Twitter exchanges. Our analysis is based on the analytical tools of the Lexical Constructional Model (henceforth LCM) as formulated in Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, and Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar. For this purpose we have created a corpus of over 1300 real use tweets. The LCM enables us to treat the patricular uses of the APO X, Y construction. It is shown to be very useful in capturing emergent uses of an already established construction.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus and data
  • 3.Theoretical framework: The Lexical Constructional Model (LCM)
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
  • 5.Some concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (38)
References
Bortone, P. (2010). Greek prepositions: From antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Vandelanotte, L. (2009). Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 319–369). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1997a). [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)] The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 11: The structure of the clause. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997b). [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)]. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 21: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.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: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd revised edition). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Katis, D., & Nikiforidou, K. (2017). Spatial prepositions in early child Greek: Implications for acquisition, polysemy and historical change. In Proceedings of the 12th ICGL (pp. 525–537).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 11: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 21: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. 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
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCracken, H. (2009). What I know about Twitter. Available at: [URL]
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (1991). The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(2), 149–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2002). From semantic underdetermination, via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum: An International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(6), 107–143.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). London, UK/Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skopeteas, S. (1999). NE sisxetistes tou topou me tis kiries prothesis se kai apo. In A. Mozer (Ed.), Greek Linguistics ’97: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 249–57). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tachibana, T. (1994). Spatial expressions in Modern Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 141, 525–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1988). The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165–205). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tzartzanos, A. (1991). Neoelliniki sintaxis (tis kinis dimotikis). Thessaloniki: Kyriakides.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, L. (2012). “Wait till you get started”: How to submerge another’s discourse in your own. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint In language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 198–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zafeiriadou, K. (2010). Εvent Structure: An instantiation with Από. PhD dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. Journal of New Media and Society, 13(5), 788–806. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Kefalidou, Sophia
2025. Irony, intersubjectivity and construal. In What makes a Figure [Figurative Thought and Language, 19], ► pp. 271 ff. DOI logo
Peng, Bingzhuan
2024. Subjectivity of Discourse Constructions in News Discourse by Integrating Construction Grammar and Critical Discourse Analysis. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 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