Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructional Approach(es) to Discourse-Level Phenomena: Theoretical challenges and empirical advances
Edited by Renata Enghels and María Sol Sansiñena
[Constructions and Frames 13:1] 2021
► pp. 21–54

Discourse-referential patterns as a network of grammatical constructions

| Charles University
Grammatical organization of conversational language presents us with the challenge of incorporating recurrent contextual and discourse-relevant properties in grammatical descriptions, as part of speakers’ conventional knowledge. Using data from conversational Czech extracted from the Czech National Corpus, I address this issue by tracing the relationships among a set of dative-marked expressions of interpersonal relations (traditionally labeled ‘ethical datives’) and their connection to argument-expressing dative NPs. The discourse-referential expressions form a family of distinct patterns, the differences having to do with person (1st, 2nd) and number (sg. vs. pl.); functionally, they range from marking subjectively assessed newsworthiness to signaling evidentiality and solidarity to expressing the speaker’s emotional state. The attendant reorganization of formal, semantic, and discourse features that define these dative-marked items amounts to several patterns – ‘interactional datives’ – and I show that they have the status of grammatical constructions, which are conventionally tied to certain types of discourse settings and speaker-hearer expectations. In order to represent these constructions and their relationship to other, partially related, patterns, I propose a network representation in the form of contiguous functional spaces that overlap at the boundary between argument-expression and interactional markers.
Keywords: constructional network, construction grammar, interactional dative, ethical dative, discourse pattern, implicit anchoring
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background
  • 2.Sematic and functional spectrum of Czech datives – a baseline
  • 3.A brief survey of Czech interactional datives
    • 3.1Explicit Addressee Reference – ‘contact’ ID
    • 3.2Implicit Addressee Reference – speaker-centered ‘emotional reaction’ ID
      • 3.2.1Ironic commentary context
      • 3.2.2Speaker’s emotional state
    • 3.3Collective Reference – speaker’s ‘witness’ commentary ID
  • 4.Interactional datives as constructions
    • 4.1Emergence of a new ‘interactional’ construction
    • 4.2Family of dative constructions in a constructional map
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Source of data
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00046.fri
References (61)
Source of data
Czech National Corpus, [URL]
PMK (2001); ORAL v. 11 (2017); SYN v. 71 (2018)Google Scholar
References
Antonopoulo, E., & Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Construction Grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 2594–2609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. (2009). On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences, 311, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Authier, J.-M., & Reed, L. (1992). Case theory, Theta theory, and the distribution of French affected datives. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 101, 27–39. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1982). Dative marking of the affectee role: Data from Modern Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review, 61, 35–59.Google Scholar
Borer, H., & Grodzinski, Y. (1986). Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics. In H. Borer (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 191 (pp. 175–217). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., & Zima, E. (2014). Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation. In R. Giora & J. W. Du Bois (Eds.), special issue of Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 457–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1992). Voice: beyond control and affectedness. In B. Fox & P. Hopper (Eds.), Voice: form and function (pp. 89–117). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2001). Radical Construction Grammar . Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa. (1997). Cognitive semantics and the Polish dative. Cognitive Linguistics Research Vol. 9. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. (2001). The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evola, V., & Raineri, S. (2011). A comparative analysis of narrative datives in French and Italian. Paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of SLE, Logroño, Spain.
Fillmore, Ch. J. (1974/1981). Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 143–166) (reprint of Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics, 1974). Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1982). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2010). Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition, 71, 563–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franks, S., & King, T. H. (2000). A handbook of Slavic clitics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fried, M. (1999). The ‘free’ datives in Czech as a linking problem. In K. Dziwirek, H. Coats, & C. Vakareliyska (Eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 71, 145–166. Michigan Slavica Publications.Google Scholar
(2007). Constructing grammatical meaning: Isomorphism and polysemy in Czech reflexivization. Studies in Language, 31(4), 721–764. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Constructions and constructs: Mapping a shift between predication and attribution. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Constructions and language change (pp. 47–79). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009). Plain vs. situated possession in a network of grammatical constructions. In W. McGregor (Ed.), Expression of possession (pp. 213–248). Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). The notion of affectedness in expressing interpersonal functions. In M. Grygiel & L. A. Janda (Eds.), Slavic linguistics in a cognitive framework, 121–14. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2014). From semantic to interactional dative: a preliminary investigation. In M. Martinková, M. Janebová, & J. Macháček (Eds.), Categories and categorial changes: The third syntactical plan and beyond, 12–20. Palacký University Press.Google Scholar
(2015). Construction Grammar. In A. Alexiadou & T. Kiss (Eds.), Syntax – theory and analysis. An international handbook. Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 421.1–3 (pp. 974–1003). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Interakční dativ v konverzační češtině [Interactional dative in conversational Czech]. In J. Hoffmannová et al. (Eds.), Syntax mluvené češtiny [Syntax of spoken Czech], 218–243. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J-O. (2004). Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J-O. Östman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: the case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, W. (2005). A Construction Grammar approach to the phrase “I mean” in Spoken English. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 421. [URL]
Janda, L. A. 1993. A geography of case semantics: The Czech dative and the Russian instrument. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S. (1993). The middle voice. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, K. P. (1997). The Czech dative of interest: The hierarchical organization of possession in discourse and pragmatics. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Lindström, J., & Londen, A-M. (2008). Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In J. Leino (Ed.), Constructional Reorganization (pp. 105–152). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Insertion concessive: An interactional practice as a discourse grammatical construction. Constructions, 1–3/2014, 1–11.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and the world dialogically. Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Maldonado, R. (2002). Objective and subjective datives. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 1–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michelioudakis, D., & Sitaridou, I. (2009). The ethic dative in Modern Greek and Romance. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 291, 355–370.Google Scholar
Molochieva, Z. (2011). Tense, aspect, and mood in Chechen. PhD Thesis. Leipzig University.Google Scholar
Nichols, J., & Molochieva, Z. (2015). The diachronic trajectory of ethical datives: Chechen and Ingush. Paper presented at the SLE conference, Logroño, Spain.
Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Grammar and discourse: A constructional approach to discourse-based conventionality. Parousia.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., & Fischer, K. (2015). On the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 137–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., & Morris, C. (2018). Derivation without category change: A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective. (pp. 47–90). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., & Thompson, S. (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J-O. (1986). Pragmatics as implicitness: An analysis of question particles in Solf Swedish, with implications for the study of passive clauses and the language of persuasion. Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley. [URL]
(2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, (pp. 121–144). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). From Construction Grammar to Construction Discourse … and back. In J. Bücker, S. Günthner, & W. Imo (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik V. Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten (pp. 15–43). Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Pavlidou, T.-S. (2014). Constructing collectivity with ‘we’. In T.-S. Pavlidou (Ed.), Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts (pp. 1–19). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poldauf, Ivan. (1962). Místo dativu ve výstavbě věty [The role of the dative in sentence structure]. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Slavica Pragensia IV1, 335–345.Google Scholar
Siegal, E. B.-A., & Boneh, N. (2016). Discourse update at the service of mirativity effects: The case of the Discursive Dative. In Proceedings of SALT 261, 103–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Su, D. (2016). Grammar emerges through reuse and modification of prior utterances. Discourse Studies, 18(3), 330–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. Closs, & Trousdale, G. (2010). Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valdmets, A. (2013). Modal particles, discourse markers, and adverbs with lt-suffix in Estonian. In L. Degand, B. Cornillie, & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: Categorization and description (pp. 107–131). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Goethem, K., Norde, M., Coussé, E., & Vanderbauwhede, G. (Eds.) (2018). Category change from a constructional perspective. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weydt, H. (2006). What are particles good for. [URL]
Whitt, R. J. (2014). Singular perception, multiple perspectives through ‘we’: Constructiong instersujective meaning in English and German. In T.-S. Pavlidou (Ed.), Constructing collectivity: ‘We’ across languages and contexts (pp. 83–104). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wide, C. (2009). Interactional construction grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp.111–144). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Foolen, Ad
2023. CONSTRUCTION PRAGMATICS IN A WIDER CONTEXT. AN ADDITION TO WEN (2022). Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, 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.