Or constructions
Code, inference and cue too
Utterance interpretation involves semantically specified codes and context-based pragmatic inferences, which
complement each other. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the very complex relation between a subset of codes, Goldbergian
constructions, specifically ones centering around ‘alternativity’, and pragmatic inferences. I analyze a variety of
or constructions and sub-constructions, emphasizing not only the role of coded constructions on the one hand,
and of inferences, on the other hand, but also of cues, namely, linguistic forms that bias towards a specific interpretation,
although they do not encode that interpretation. The synchronic variability with respect to the relative contribution of code,
inference and cue reflects a grammaticization cycle whereby codes (here constructions) are routinely enriched by inferences, often
supported by cues, which in turn may evolve into new codes (here sub-constructions).
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Inferring alternativity
- 3.The core or construction and its inferred readings
- 4.Complex core constructions
- 5.Specialized sub-constructions
- 5.1
Or something like that
- 5.2The ascending consecutive numeral sub-construction
- 5.3Two Hamlet or sub-constructions
- 5.3.1
The Dilemma or sub-construction
- 5.3.2
The hybrid or not to be sub-construction
- 6.Constructions: Code, inference and cue too
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (35)
References
Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O.
(
1976)
L’argumentation dans la langue.
Langages, 421, 5–27.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M.
(
2008)
Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M.
(
2010)
Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M.
(
2015)
Higher-level category or constructions: When many is one.
Studies in Pragmatics, 171, 42–60.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M., & Mauri, C.
(
2018)
Why use or? Linguistics, 561, 939–994.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M., & Mauri, C.
(
2019)
An ‘alternative’ core for or
.
Journal of Pragmatics, 1491, 40–59.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
Bod, R.
(
2006)
Exemplar-based syntax: How to get productivity from examples? The Linguistic Review: Special issue on exemplar-based models of language, 231, 291–320.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J.
(
2001)
Phonology and language use [
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J.
(
2010)
Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Croft, W.
(
2001)
Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dattner, E.
(
2015)
Mapping the Hebrew dative constructions. Ph.D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N.
(
2000–2005)
Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English,
Parts 1–4: Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Giora, R.
submitted).
Defaultness vs. Constructionism: The case of default constructional sarcasm and default non-constructional literalness. In
H. Colston,
G. Steen, &
T. Matlock Eds.
Metaphor in language, cognition, and communication (MiLCC) Amsterdam John Benjamins
Giora, R., Givoni, S., & Fein, O.
(
2015)
Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm.
Metaphor and Symbol, 301, 290–313.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, T.
(
1979)
On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.
(
1995)
Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.
(
2006)
Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, H. P.
(
1989)
Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, M.
(
2014)
Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kuno, S.
(
1972)
Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English.
Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 269–320.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1987)
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauri, C.
(
2008)
Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauri, C., & Van der Auwera, J.
(
2012)
Connectives. In
A. Keith &
K. Jaszczolt (Eds.),
The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 377–401). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prince, E. F.
(
1976)
The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French.
Language, 521, 404–426.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prince, E. F.
(
1978)
A comparison of WH-clefts and IT-clefts in discourse.
Language, 541, 883–906.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sinclair, J. M.
(
1991)
Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(
1986/1995)
Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. Th.
Thompson, S. A.
(
2002)
Constructions and conversation. Unpublished MS., UC Santa Barbara.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
(
2002)
Regularity in semantic change [
Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(
2013)
Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. 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.