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. 

Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Ariel, M. (2010). Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Ariel, M. (2015). Higher-level category or constructions: When many is one. Studies in Pragmatics, 171, 42–60.
Ariel, M., & Mauri, C. (2018). Why use or? Linguistics, 561, 939–994. 

Ariel, M., & Mauri, C. (2019). An ‘alternative’ core for or
. Journal of Pragmatics, 1491, 40–59. 

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. 

Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and language use [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Dattner, E. (2015). Mapping the Hebrew dative constructions. Ph.D. Thesis, Tel Aviv University.
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.
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. 

Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.
Kuno, S. (1972). Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 269–320.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Mauri, C. (2008). Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 

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. 

Prince, E. F. (1976). The syntax and semantics of Neg-Raising, with evidence from French. Language, 521, 404–426. 

Prince, E. F. (1978). A comparison of WH-clefts and IT-clefts in discourse. Language, 541, 883–906. 

Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constructions and conversation. Unpublished MS., UC Santa Barbara.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis, Eliese-Sophia Lincke, Kiki Nikiforidou & Anna Piata
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 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.