Cover not available
Article published In:
Construction Grammar across Borders
Edited by Tiago Timponi Torrent, Ely Edison da Silva Matos and Natália Sathler Sigiliano
[Constructions and Frames 12:1] 2020
► pp. 96–120

Intersubjectification in constructional change

From confrontation to solidarity in the sarcastic much? construction

| Université de Neuchâtel
| Université de Neuchâtel

This paper addresses constructional change in a dialogical construction that is illustrated by utterances such as sarcastic much?, which typically serve the purpose of an interactional challenge. Drawing on web-based corpus data, we argue that this construction is currently undergoing a process of change that expands its range of possible uses. Specifically, we observe the emergence of uses with a different intersubjective function, in which the writer does not aim for confrontation but is rather seeking the solidarity and alignment of the addressee. We offer an account of this development in terms of constructional change, and we use this case study to explore how intersubjectification and the dialogic nature of language can be accommodated more thoroughly in a constructional theory of language change.

Keywords: intersubjectification, constructional change, constructionalization, sarcasm, solidarity, alignment, GloWbE corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Formal and functional characteristics of sarcastic much?
  • 3.Gradience and constructional change in sarcastic much?
    • 3.1Intersective gradience between questions and sarcastic much?
    • 3.2Variation in the anaphoric judgment of sarcastic much?
    • 3.3From dialogical to context-free
    • 3.4From confrontation to solidarity
  • 4.Constructional change in sarcastic much?
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00036.hil
References
Aarts, B.
(2007) Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Adams, M.
(2014) Slang in new media. A case study. In J. Coleman (Ed.), Global English slang. Methodologies and perspectives (pp. 175–186). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G.
(2015) On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brisard, F.
(Ed.) (2002) Grounding. The epistemic footing of deixis and reference. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., & Zima, E.
(2014) Towards a dialogic construction grammar. A corpus-based approach to ad hoc routines and resonance activation. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2010) Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
(2013) Corpus of global web-based English: 1.9 billion words from speakers in 20 countries (GloWbE). Available online at [URL]
Deppermann, A.
(2011) Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik: Affinitäten, Komplementaritäten und Diskrepanzen. In A. Lasch & A. Ziem (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze (pp. 205–238). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2015) Usage-based construction grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitivelinguistics (pp. 295–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, D., & Henderson, R.
(2019) Expressive updates, much? Language, 95(1), 107–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C.
(2004) An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Historical sociolinguistics and construction grammar: From mutual challenges to mutual benefits. In T. Säily, A. Nurmi, M. Palander-Collin, & A. Auer (Eds.), Exploring future paths for historical sociolinguistics (pp. 217–237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp. 21–39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Construction grammar and its application to English. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Imo, W.
(2015) Interactional construction grammar. Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 69–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G.
(2008) Style-shifting and shifting styles: A socio-cognitive approach to lectal variation. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics. Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 45–90). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G., & Geeraerts, D.
(2013) Contexts and usage in cognitive sociolinguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 521, 1–4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Vol. 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, M.
(2010) X much. [URL], date of access: 8.3.2018]
Michaelis, L. A., & Feng, H.
(2015) What is this, sarcastic syntax? Constructions and Frames, 71, 148–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs
(2010) Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification, and grammaticalization (pp. 27–70). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
(2010) Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization – how do they intersect? In E. Closs Traugott & G. Trousdale (Eds.), Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization (pp. 19–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, M.
(2012) Discourse of Twitter and social media. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Ziem, A.
(2015) Probleme und Desiderata einer Social Construction Grammar. In A. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik IV. Konstruktionenalssoziale Konventionen und kognitiveRoutinen (pp. 1–22). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Bourgeois, Samuel
2022. “Oh yeah, one more thing: It’s gonna be huge.”. In Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 105], ► pp. 196 ff. DOI logo
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2020. In search of constructions in writing process data. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 october 2022. 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.