Introduction published in:
On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar
Edited by Rita Finkbeiner
[Constructions and Frames 11:2] 2019
► pp. 171192
References

References

Antonopoulou, E., & Nikiforidou, K.
(2011) Construction Grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2594–2609. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M.
(2008) Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Research paradigms in pragmatics. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 23–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Revisiting the typology of pragmatic interpretations. Intercultural Pragmatics, 13(1), 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K.
(1994) Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9, 124–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Standardization vs. Conventionalization. Linguistics and Philosophy, 18, 677–686. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M.
(1992) How performatives really work: A reply to Searle. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 93–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G.
(2009) Contexts and constructions. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bezuidenhout, A.
(2017) Contextualism and Semantic Minimalism. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 21–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2017) What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 115–151). Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carston, R.
(2002) Thoughts and utterances. The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Copestake, A., & Terkourafi, M.
(2010) Conventional speech act formulae: from corpus findings to formalization. In P. Kühnlein, A. Benz, & C. Sidner (Eds.), Constraints in Discourse 2 (pp. 125–140). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
(2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, I., & Salkie, R.
(Eds.) (2017) Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line. Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2011) Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics, 49(2), 365–390. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 190 ]
Fetzer, A.
(2012) Contexts in interaction: relating pragmatic wastebaskets. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer, & P. Schumacher (Eds.), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges (pp. 105–127). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.
(1981 [1976]) Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 143–166). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1996) The pragmatics of constructions. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language. Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 53–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. The case of ‘let alone’. Language, 64, 501–528. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, R.
(2017) ‘Argumente hin, Argumente her’. Regularity and idiomaticity in German ‘N hin, N her’. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 29(3), 205–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) ‘Bla(h), bla(h), bla(h)’. Usage and meaning of a repetitive all-rounder. In A. Urdze (Ed.), Non-prototypical reduplication (pp. 71–89). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K.
(2015) Situation in grammar or in frames? Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 258–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K., & Stefanowitsch, A.
(Eds.) (2008) Konstruktionsgrammatik I. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie. Second edition. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O.
(2005) Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1989) Logic and conversation. In H. P. Grice, Studies in the way of words (pp. 22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, D.
(2015) Use-conditional meaning. Studies in multidimensional semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
(Eds.) (2013) The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, K. M.
(2005) Default semantics: Foundations of a compositional theory of acts of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D.
(1999) The meaning of ouch and oops. Explorations in the theory of meaning as use. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kay, P.
(2004) Pragmatic aspects of constructions. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 675–700). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations. The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. A.
(2012) Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
[ p. 191 ]
Lakoff, G.
(1987) There-constructions. In G. Lakoff, Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind (pp. 462–585). Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(1990) “What, me worry?” – ‘Mad Magazine sentences’ revisited. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 215–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.
(2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liedtke, F.
(2017) Constructions, templates, and pragmatics: Response to Cappelle. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 153–162). Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
(2010) Interactional frames and grammatical descriptions: The case of Japanese noun-modifying constructions. Constructions & Frames, 2(2), 135–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, J.
(2015) On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach. Language Typology and Universals (STUF), 68(3), 241–261.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. L.
(1978) Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 261–280). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K.
(2009) Constructional analysis. In F. Brisard, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics (pp. 16–32). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Grammar and discourse: A constructional approach to discourse-based conventionality. Athens: Parousia.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., & Fischer, K.
(2015) On the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 137–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O.
(2005) Construction Discourse. A prolegomenon. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Paul, I., & Stainton, R.
(2006) Really intriguing, that Pred NP! Actes du congrès annuel de l’Association Canadienne de Linguistique 2006. Proceedings of the 2006 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 1–12.Google Scholar
Potts, C.
(2005) The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, F.
(2010) Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W.
(2015) Conversational implicatures, reference point constructions, and that noun thing . Linguistics, 53(3), 443–477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Savva, E.
(2017) Subsentential speech from a contextualist perspective. PhD diss., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
[ p. 192 ]
Searle, J. R.
(1979) Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance. Communication and cognition. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(2012) The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, M.
(2009) On de-limiting context. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 17–42). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

De Vaere, Hilde, Julia Kolkmann & Thomas Belligh
2020. Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 170  pp. 96 ff. Crossref logo
Goria, Eugenio & Francesca Masini
2021.  In Building Categories in Interaction [Studies in Language Companion Series, 220],  pp. 73 ff. Crossref logo
Kaltenböck, Gunther
2021.  Funny you should say that . Constructions and Frames 13:1  pp. 126 ff. Crossref logo
Kuzai, Einat
2020. Pragmatic information in constructions. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34  pp. 213 ff. Crossref logo
Leclercq, Benoît
2020. Semantics and pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34  pp. 225 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2021. 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.