Article published In:
On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Kiki Nikiforidou
[Constructions and Frames 7:2] 2015
► pp. 148180
References (29)
Arregi, K
(2007) Syntax and semantics of split questions. In J. Camacho, N. Flores Ferrán, L. Sánchez, V. Déprez, & M.J. Cabrera (Eds.), Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL) (pp. 15–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Bai, Y
(2014) A Usage-based study of the just me construction. In A. Stefanowitsch (Ed.), Yearbook of the German cognitive linguistics association, Vol. 21 (pp. 126–146). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M
(1986) Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D
(1995) Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T.A
Camp, E
(2012) Sarcasm, presence and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Nous, 461, 587–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cieri, C., Miller, D., & Walker, K
(2004) The Fisher corpus: A resource for the next generations of speech-to-text. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) (pp. 69–71), Lisbon.
Clark, H.C., & Fox Tree, J.E
(2002) Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 841, 73–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.C., & Gerrig, R
(1984) On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1131, 121–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupland, N
(2007) Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M
(2008) The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL].
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 641, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M.H
(1996) Shifting frame. In D. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo (Eds.), Social interaction, social context and language: Essays in honor of Susan Irvin-Tripp (pp. 71–83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P
(1975/1989) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 31. Academic press. Reprinted as ch. 2 of Grice 1989, Studies in the way of words (pp. 22-40). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P
(1997) Constructional modus tollens and level of conventionality. In P. Kay, Words and the grammar of context (pp. 171–188). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The ‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language, 751, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L.A
(2012) Constructional meaning and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An International handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 31 (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kumon-Nakamura, S., Glucksberg, S., & Brown, M
(1995) How about another piece of pie? The allusional pretense theory of discourse irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1241, 3–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K
(1994) Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K., & Michaelis, L.A
(1998) Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy, 211, 477–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López-Cortina, J
(2007) The Spanish left periphery: Questions and answers. Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.
Michaelis, L.A
(2012) Making the case for Construction Grammar. In H. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 31–69). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L.A., & Francis, H.S
(2007) Lexical subjects and the conflation strategy. In N. Hedberg & R. Zacharski (Eds.), Topics in the grammar-pragmatics interface: Papers in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel (pp. 19–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L.A., & Lambrecht, K
(1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 721, 215–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, J
(1978) Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 261–280). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Norrick, N
(1992) Wh-Questions with guesses in tag position. Journal of Pragmatics, 181, 85–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rampton, B
(1995) Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. New York & London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sag, I.A
(2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In H. Boas & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 69–202). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Thompson, S.A., & Hopper, P.J
(2001) Transitivity, clause structure and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 28–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (18)

Cited by 18 other publications

Seraku, Tohru
2024. I get off at ten past I'm never going out with you: A study on dissociative syntactic amalgams. Journal of Pragmatics 223  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lehmann, Claudia
2023. Chapter 9. Multimodal markers of irony in televised discourse. In Multimodal Im/politeness [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 333],  pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Matsumoto, Yoshiko & Shoichi Iwasaki
2022. Multiplicity in grammar: Modes, genres and Speaker's knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 198  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lehmann, Claudia & Alexander Bergs
2021. As if irony was in stock. Constructions and Frames 13:2  pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
2021. Flexibility and fluidity of grammar: Grammatical constructions in discourse and sociocultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 172  pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Tobin, Vera
2021. Where irony goes: routinization and the collapse of viewpoint configurations. Chinese Semiotic Studies 17:2  pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin & Samuel Bourgeois
2020. Intersubjectification in constructional change. Constructions and Frames 12:1  pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
Hilpert, Martin & Samuel Bourgeois
2022. Intersubjectification in constructional change. In Construction Grammar across Borders [Benjamins Current Topics, 122],  pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
MINO, TAKASHI
2020. A CONSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE <i>THERE SPEAK</i> EXPRESSION WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO CONTEXT. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 36:2  pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Dong, Chengru & Dawei Jin
2019. An Enthymematic Account of the Deduction of the Negative Meaning of the Chinese Shenme-based Rhetorical Question Construction. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 40:1  pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Põldvere, Nele & Carita Paradis
2019. Motivations and mechanisms for the development of the reactive what-x construction in spoken dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 143  pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
PÕLDVERE, NELE & CARITA PARADIS
2020. ‘What and then a little robot brings it to you?’ The reactivewhat-xconstruction in spoken dialogue. English Language and Linguistics 24:2  pp. 307 ff. DOI logo
Alm, Maria, Janina Behr & Kerstin Fischer
2018. Modal particles and sentence type restrictions: A construction grammar perspective. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 DOI logo
Celle, Agnès
2018. Chapter 10. Questions as indirect speech acts in surprise contexts. In Tense, Aspect, Modality, and Evidentiality [Studies in Language Companion Series, 197],  pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2018. Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3  pp. 543 ff. DOI logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2021. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in ‘stage directions’. Journal of Pragmatics 173  pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Vergaro, Carla
2018. A cognitive framework for understanding genre. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3  pp. 430 ff. DOI logo
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
2017. Chapter 1. Exploitingwh-questions for expressive purposes. In Studies in Figurative Thought and Language [Human Cognitive Processing, 56],  pp. 18 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 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.