Cover not available
Article published In:
On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar
Edited by Rita Finkbeiner
[Constructions and Frames 11:2] 2019
► pp. 290–316

Non-exhaustive lists in spoken language

A construction grammatical perspective

| University of Bologna
| University of Turin
| University of Bologna
The aim of this paper is to analyze how speakers refer to non-exhaustive sets in spoken discourse, by means of open lists. We will propose an analysis of non-exhaustivity in terms of indexicality and we will therefore consider open lists as having an inherently pragmatic component. Based on corpus data of spoken Italian, we will identify three main types of non-exhaustive lists, showing different structural properties and non-compositional semantics. In order to account for the observed variation, we will take a construction grammatical perspective, arguing that what may appear as a heterogeneous set of strategies is instead an inheritance-based network of constructions sharing a schematic core (cf. Goldberg 1995). We will elaborate on the most recent approaches to list constructions, along the lines proposed by Masini, Mauri, & Pietrandrea (2018), and will identify three types of non-exhaustive list constructions, which inherit the core properties from the upper-level list construction, but at the same time show more specific features and constraints.
Keywords: list construction, non-exhaustivity, spoken language, indexical categorization, general extenders, context-dependency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Aims and methods
    • 1.1Aims and overview
    • 1.2Data and methodology
  • 2.The expression of non-exhaustivity in discourse
    • 2.1The semantics and pragmatics of non-exhaustivity
    • 2.2Non-exhaustive lists in discourse
  • 3.Towards a construction grammatical perspective
    • 3.1The list construction
    • 3.2Non-exhaustive list constructions
      • 3.2.1Maximally abstract non-exhaustive LCxns
      • 3.2.2Non-exhaustive LCxns with GE list completer
      • 3.2.3Non-exhaustive LCxns with dummy list completer
      • 3.2.4Non-exhaustive LCxns with non-lexical list completer
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00032.mau
References (58)
References
Anderson, J., & Keenan, E. (1985). Deixis. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 259–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2009). On-line syntax. Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences, 31(1), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (2007). Multiple retractions in spoken French and spoken German. A contrastive study in oral performance styles. Cahier de Praxématique, 481, 57–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barotto, A., & Mauri, C. (2018). Constructing lists to construct categories. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 95–134.Google Scholar
Bazzanella, C. (2011). Indeterminacy in dialogue. Language and Dialogue, 11, 21–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonvino, E., Masini, F., & Pietrandrea, P. (2009). List constructions: a semantic network. Talk given at the 3rd International AFLiCo Conference – Grammars in Construction(s). Paris, 27–29 May 2009.
Channell, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (2007). Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(2), 155–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. Structures and beyond, 31, 39–103.Google Scholar
(2006). Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic inquiry, 371, 535–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G., Fox, D., & Spector, B. (2009). Hurford’s constraint and the theory of scalar implicatures: Evidence for embedded implicatures. In P. Egré & G. Magri (Eds.), Presuppositions and implicatures. Proceedings of the MIT-Paris Workshop. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 601.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mauro, T., Mancini, F., Vedovelli, M., & Voghera, M. (1993). Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato. Milano: Etaslibri.Google Scholar
Dubois, S. (1992). Extension particles etc. Language Variation and Change, 41, 179–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–53.Google Scholar
Fiorentini, I. (2018). Eccetera eccetera e così via di seguito. I general extenders dell’italiano contemporaneo. In F. Masini & F. Tamburini (Eds.), CLUB Working Papers in Linguistics VOL. 21 (pp. 20–39). University of Bologna.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J. O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1752–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerdes, K., & Kahane, S. (2009). Speaking in piles: paradigmatic annotation of French spoken corpus. In M. Mahlberg, V. González-Díaz, & C. Smith (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL2009), article #309. [URL]
Giannakidou, A. (2016). The myth of exhaustivity for all NPIs. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 21–23, 2016.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goria, E., & Mauri, C. (2018). Il corpus Kiparla. Una nuova risorsa per lo studio dell’italiano parlato. In F. Masini & F. Tamburini (Eds.), CLUB Working Papers in Linguistics VOL. 21 (pp. 76–95). University of Bologna.Google Scholar
Goria, E. (forthcoming). The discursive construction of categories. Categorisation as a dynamic and cooperative process. Submitted to Language Sciences.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.) 2013. The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. 1990. List construction as a task and resource. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interactional competence (pp. 63–92). New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
(2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahane, S., Pietrandrea, P., & Gerdes, K. (2018). The annotation of list structures. In A. Lacheret, S. Kahane & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Rhapsodie: A prosodic syntactic treebank of spoken French (pp. 69–95). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kiss, K. (2010). Structural focus and exhaustivity. In M. Zimmermann & C. Féry (Eds.), Information structure. Theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives (pp. 64–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, J., & Giannakidou, A. (2015). No exhaustivity for the Mandarin NPI shenme . Retrieved from [URL]
Lo Baido, C. (2018). Categorization via exemplification: evidence from Italian. Folia Linguistica Historica, 52(s39–1), 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F. (2006). Binomial constructions: inheritance, specification and subregularities. Lingue e Linguaggio, V1, 207–232.Google Scholar
Masini, F., Mauri, C., & Pietrandrea, P. (2018). Lists: towards a unified account. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 30(1), 49–94.Google Scholar
Masini, F., & Pietrandrea, P. (2010). Magari. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(1), 75–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C. (2008). Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Building and interpreting ad hoc categories. In J. Blochowiak, C. Grisot, S. Durrleman-Tame, & C. Laenzlinger (Eds.), Formal models in the study of language (pp. 297–326). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, C., & Sansò, A. (2018a). Linguistic strategies for the construction of ad hoc categories: theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation. Folia Linguistica Historica, 52(s39–1), 1–35.Google Scholar
Mauri, C., & Sansò, A. (2018b). Un approccio tipologico ai general extenders . In M. Chini & P. Cuzzolin (Eds.), Tipologia, acquisizione, grammaticalizzazione ( Typology, acquisition, grammaticalization studies ) (pp. 63–72). Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Mauri, C., & Barotto, A. (in preparation). Non-exhaustive connectives.
Overstreet, M. (1999). Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that: General extenders in English discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1845–1864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 531, 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (2007). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list constructions as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 391, 483–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category – ELAN and ISO DCR. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, & D. Tapias (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), [URL]
Stolz, T. (2006). (Wort-)Iteration: (k)eine universelle Konstruktion. In K. Fischer & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (pp. 105–132). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2007). Das ist doch keine Reduplikation! Über falsche Freunde bei der Suche nach richtigen Beispielen. In A. Ammann & A. Urdze (Eds.), Wiederholung, Parallelismus, Reduplikation. Strategien der multiplen Strukturanwendung (pp. 47–80). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
(2009). Total reduplication: Syndetic vs. asyndetic patterns in Europe. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 711, 99–113.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2007). The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics, 181, 523–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In R. Eckardt, G. Jäger, & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Variation, selection, development. Probing the evolutionary model of language change (pp. 219–250). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. (2008). Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization. Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp. 33–67). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Issues in constructional approaches to grammaticalization. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 51–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voghera, M. (2012). Chitarre, violino, banjo e cose del genere. In A. Thornton & M. Voghera (Eds.), Per Tullio De Mauro. Studi offerti dalle allieve in occasione del suo 80° compleanno (pp. 341–364). Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
(2013). A case study on the relationship between grammatical change and synchronic variation: The emergence of tipo [-N] in Italian. In A. Giacalone Ramat, C. Mauri, & P. Molinelli (Eds.), Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface (pp. 283–312). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voghera, M., Iacobini, C., Savy, R., Cutugno, F., De Rosa, A., & Alfano, I. (2014). VoLIP: a searchable Italian spoken corpus. In L. Veselovská & M. Janebová (Eds.), Complex visibles out there, Proceedings of the Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium: Language Use and Linguistic Structure (pp. 628–640). Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar
Voghera, M., & Collu, L. (2017). Intentional vagueness: a corpus-based of Italian and German. In M. Napoli & M. Ravetto (Eds.), Intensity, intensification and intensifying modification across languages (pp. 371–389). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wälchli, B. (2005). Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiang, Y. (2016). Interpreting questions with non-exhaustive answers. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Fiorentini, Ilaria & Chiara Zanchi
2024. Chapter 7. Vague stuff. In Vagueness, Ambiguity, and All the Rest [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 347], ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Dressel, Dennis, Philipp Dankel & Alexander M. Teixeira Kalkhoff
2023. Chapter 13. What can collaboratively produced lists tell us about constructions?. In Constructions in Spanish [Constructional Approaches to Language, 34], ► pp. 340 ff. DOI logo
Barotto, Alessandra & Caterina Mauri
2022. Non-exhaustive connectives. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:2 ► pp. 317 ff. DOI logo
Masini, Francesca & Simone Mattiola
2022. Wild words. In Extravagant Morphology [Studies in Language Companion Series, 223], ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Goria, Eugenio & Francesca Masini
2021. Chapter 4. Category-building lists between grammar and interaction. In Building Categories in Interaction [Studies in Language Companion Series, 220], ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Mauri, Caterina
2021. Chapter 2. Ad hoc categorization in linguistic interaction. In Building Categories in Interaction [Studies in Language Companion Series, 220], ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Mauri, Caterina & Andrea Sansò
2020. Ad hoc categorization and languaging: the online construction of categories in discourse. Language Sciences 81 ► pp. 101312 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 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.