Cover not available
Part of
Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages
Edited by Evie Coussé, Steffen Höder, Benjamin Lyngfelt and Julia Prentice
[Constructional Approaches to Language 37] 2023
► pp. 145–178

Chapter 6
Construction grammar in domain-specific discourse

A contrastive analysis of existential constructions in Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch weather reports

| Université de Bourgogne/HHU Düsseldorf
| Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3
| Leibniz Universität Hannover
Within various frameworks interested in domain-specific language, like language for specific purposes (LSP) research and discourse linguistics, the insights provided by CxG-theory have led to the question of whether constructions can have domain-specific manifestations. Even though many linguists would, intuitively, answer this question positively, little empirical research can be found to back up this hypothesis, which is especially true for Scandinavian linguistics. To this aim, we conducted a contrastive (Swedish – Norwegian – Dutch) corpus-based analysis of existential constructions (e.g., Eng., there are some books on the table) within the specialized domain of weather reports. The analysis sets out to uncover (a) what their contextual-constructional features are, (b) how these can be linked to the domain and (c) whether these features appear across different languages.
Keywords: contrastive linguistics, corpus-based linguistics, domain-specific discourse, existential constructions, LSP-research, weather reports
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constructions and domain-specific language
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1existential constructions
    • 3.2Corpus
    • 3.3Data analysis
  • 4.Text-linguistic and lexicological analysis
    • 4.1Swedish
      • 4.1.1Dominating speech act
      • 4.1.2Main topic
      • 4.1.3Information structure
      • 4.1.4Stylistic and formulative prototypical features
    • 4.2Norwegian
      • 4.2.1Dominating speech act
      • 4.2.2Main topic
      • 4.2.3Information structure
      • 4.2.4Stylistic and formulative prototypical features
    • 4.3Dutch
      • 4.3.1Dominating speech act
      • 4.3.2Main topic
      • 4.3.3Information structure
      • 4.3.4Stylistic and formulative prototypical features
    • 4.4Overview
  • 5.Constructional analysis
    • 5.1Swedish
      • 5.1.1Frequency
      • 5.1.2Formal features
      • 5.1.3Argument structure
    • 5.2Norwegian
      • 5.2.1Frequency
      • 5.2.2Formal features
      • 5.2.3Argument structure
    • 5.3Dutch
      • 5.3.1Frequency
      • 5.3.2Formal features
      • 5.3.3Argument structure
    • 5.4Comparison
  • 6.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.37.06lie
References (24)
References
Bamford, J. (2014). Rendering the dismal science more lively: Popularizing Economics in English and Italian. In G. Bongo & G. Caliendo (Eds.), The Language of Popularization – Die Sprache der Popularisierung: Theoretical and Descriptive Models – Theoretische und deskriptive Modelle (pp. 23–49). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Beaver, D., Francez I. & Levinson, D. (2005). Bad subject: (non)- canonicality and NP distribution in existentials. In G. Effi & J. Howell (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XV (pp. 19–43). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Bentley, D., Ciconte F. M. & Cruschina, S. (2013). Existential constructions in crosslinguistic perspective. Rivista di Linguistica, 25(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Berkeley FrameNet. URL: << [URL] >>. (last consulted on 8 June 2021)
Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control. Vol. 4: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brinker, K., Cölfen, H. & Pappert, S. ([1985] 2018). Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Factiva. URL: << [URL] >>. (last consulted on 20 june 2020)
FrameNet des Deutschen. URL: << [URL] >>. (last consulted on 8 june 2020)
Gautier, L. (2009). Nochmals zum (Fach-)Textmuster: Von der Kognition zur Beschreibung einzelner Exemplare. In H. Baldauf-Quilatre, J. Poitou & E. Prak-Derrington (Eds.), Histoires de textes: Mélanges en l’honneur de Marie-Hélène Pérennec (pp. 171–181). Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon.Google Scholar
Gautier, L. & Bach, M. (2019). Von Patterns zu fachspezifischen Konstruktionen im Fachdiskurs: Eine kontrastive Fallstudie (Deutsch-Französisch) zu Weinsprache. Paper presented at Europhras 2019, Santiago.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Pychlý, P., Smrž, P. & Tugwell, D. (2004). The sketch engine. Information Technology. URL: << [URL]. >>.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. & Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1, 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. & Oesterreicher, W. ([1990] 2011). Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch [Romanistische Arbeitshefte 31]. Berlin, NY: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liégeois, V. (2021). Die fachinterne und fachexterne Kommunikation des Wetters: Ein Quaestio-basierter, lexikalischer Vergleich. Germanistische Mitteilungen, 47, 199–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). La sintassi specialistica della previsione meteo. Analisi contrastiva di frasi nominali in previsioni italiane e tedesche. In U. Wienen, T. Reichmann & L. Sergo (Eds.), Syntax in Fachkommunikation (pp. 337–366). Berlin: Frank & Timme. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNally, L. (2011). Existential sentences. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (pp.1829–1848). Berlin, NY: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J. & Michaelis L. A. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2, 158–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sketch Engine. URL: << [URL] >>. (last consulted on 25 June 2021)
Teubert, W. (1996). Comparable or Parallel Corpora? International Journal of Lexicography, 9(3), 238–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Textométrie – TXM. URL: << [URL] >>. (last consulted on 13 January 2022)