Intersubjectification in constructional change
From confrontation to solidarity in the sarcastic much? construction
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.
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
References
Aarts, B.
(
2007)
Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

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.

Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G.
(
2015)
On constructing a theory of grammatical change.
Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–382.


Brisard, F.
(Ed.) (
2002)
Grounding. The epistemic footing of deixis and reference. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.


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.


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


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.

Diessel, H.
(
2015)
Usage-based construction grammar. In
E. Dabrowska &
D. Divjak (Eds.),
Handbook of cognitivelinguistics (pp. 295–321). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

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.


Goldberg, A.
(
1995)
Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goldberg, A.
(
2006)
Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gutzmann, D., & Henderson, R.
(
2019)
Expressive updates, much? Language, 95(1), 107–135.


Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C.
(
2004)
An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.

Hilpert, M.
(
2013)
Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Hilpert, M.
(
2019)
Construction grammar and its application to English. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Imo, W.
(
2015)
Interactional construction grammar.
Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 69–78.


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.


Kristiansen, G., & Geeraerts, D.
(
2013)
Contexts and usage in cognitive sociolinguistics.
Journal of Pragmatics, 521, 1–4.


Lakoff, G.
(
1987)
Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Langacker, R. W.
(
1987)
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Vol. 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Liberman, M.
(
2010)
X much.
[URL], date of access: 8.3.2018]
Michaelis, L. A., & Feng, H.
Tomasello, M.
(
2003)
Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

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.

Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
(
2013)
Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Zappavigna, M.
(
2012)
Discourse of Twitter and social media. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

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.

Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
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.