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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G.
(
2015)
On constructing a theory of grammatical change.
Transactions of the Philological Society, 113(3), 363–382.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brisard, F.
(Ed.) (
2002)
Grounding. The epistemic footing of deixis and reference. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, J. L.
(
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)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![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: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gutzmann, D., & Henderson, R.
(
2019)
Expressive updates, much? Language, 95(1), 107–135.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C.
(
2004)
An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd ed. London: Hodder Arnold.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, M.
(
2013)
Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word-formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, M.
(
2019)
Construction grammar and its application to English. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Imo, W.
(
2015)
Interactional construction grammar.
Linguistics Vanguard, 1(1), 69–78.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kristiansen, G., & Geeraerts, D.
(
2013)
Contexts and usage in cognitive sociolinguistics.
Journal of Pragmatics, 521, 1–4.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
(
1987)
Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1987)
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Vol. 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G.
Traugott, E. Closs, & 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)
Zappavigna, M.
(
2012)
Discourse of Twitter and social media. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.