Cover not available
Article published In:
Grammar, usage and discourse: Functional studies offered to Kristin Davidse
Edited by Lieven Vandelanotte, Wout Van Praet and Lieselotte Brems
[English Text Construction 10:2] 2017
► pp. 199–232

There’s grammar and there’s grammar just as there’s usage and there’s usage

 | Aarhus University
Usage-based grammars have become increasingly prominent in recent years. In these theories usage is construed quantitatively and serves as a circumstance for the emergence and development of grammar. This paper argues that usage can go deeper than this, and may become a component of the semiotic resources of a language and a part of grammar. However, this semioticisation is restricted to interpersonal grammar, those semiotic resources of grammar that construe interpersonal meaning. Three apparently unrelated grammatical phenomena – optionality of grammatical markers, insubordination, and a range of repetition-based constructions – are shown to be unified by the notions of grammaticalised usage and interpersonal grammar. This has implications for the nature of interpersonal grammar: it represents the codification of the triadic actional frame, the basis of which is the idea that action on an interlocutor is effected via action on linguistic units.
Keywords: grammatical optionality, insubordination, interpersonal grammar, repetition, triadic actional frame, usage
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Three domains of grammar where usage may be fundamental
    • 2.1Optionality of grammatical markers
    • 2.2Insubordination
    • 2.3Repetition-based constructions
  • 3.Usage as a grammatical system
    • 3.1The limitations of unit and relational descriptions
    • 3.2Usage as interpersonal grammar
    • 3.3The range and extent of usage in grammar
  • 4.A reconsideration of interpersonal grammar
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.2.02mcg
References (85)
References
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2001. Register variation: A corpus approach. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics), Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds). Malden, MA, Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell, 175–197.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1973 [1933]. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa 21: 119–128.Google Scholar
. 1972. That’s That (Janua Lingarum Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata). The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1987. The remarkable double IS. English Today 91: 39–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1978. Universals of language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Esther Goody (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–310.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christie, Agatha. 1979 [1933]. Sad Cypress. London: Pan.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 2016. Depicting as a method of communication. Psychological Review 123 (3): 324–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 661: 764–805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. The Languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth & Laura Staum. 2004. Origin of the English double-is construction. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Available at: [URL] (Last accessed on 3 June 2017).
Coupe, Alexander R. 2011. On core case marking patterns in two Tibeto-Burman languages of Nagaland. Linguistics in the Tibeto-Burman Area 34 (2): 21–47.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2016. Routes to insubordination: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115), Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 393–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep. 2007. Repetició consecutiva i idiomaticitat. Zeitschrift für Katalanistik 201: 189–219.Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1931. A Grammar of the English Language: Syntax, Vol. 31. Boston, DC: Heath and Company.Google Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole. 2002. A construction grammar approach to transitivity in Spanish. In The Nominative & Accusative and their Counterparts (Case and Grammatical Relations across Languages 4), Kristin Davidse & Béatrice Lamiroy (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 81–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 366–431.Google Scholar
. 2009. Insubordination and the grammaticalisation of interactive presuppositions. Lecture given at the conference Methodologies in Determining Morphosyntactic Change , Osaka, March 2009.
Evans, Nicholas & Honoré Watanabe. 2016a. The dynamics of insubordination: An overview. In Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115), Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds). 2016b. Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistic Society 141: 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosen & Kevin Russell. 2004. Contrastive focus reduplication in English: The salad-salad paper. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 221: 307–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 41: 333–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gosden, Chris. 2003. Prehistory: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gras, Pedro. 2016. Revisiting the functional typology of insubordination: Insubordinate que-constructions in Spanish. In Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115), Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 113–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 561: 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Repetition and identity. Lingua 1001: 57–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1979. Modes of meaning and modes of expression: Types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions. In Function and Context in Linguistic Analysis: Essays offered to William Haas, D.J. Allerton, Edward Carney & David Holdcroft (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–79.Google Scholar
. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 1st ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hand, David J. 2016. Measurement: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck & Tania Kuteva. 2016. On insubordination and cooptation. In Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115), Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hobson, Peter. 2004. The Cradle of Thought: Exploring the Origins of Thinking. London: Pan Books.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 2031: 88–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, Minako. 1991. Iconicity in discourse: The case of repetition. Text 11 (4): 553–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2006. Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 611: 23–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara (ed.). 1994a. Repetition in Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 11 (Advances in Discourse Processes 47). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1994b. Repetition in Discourse: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Vol. 21 (Advances in Discourse Processes 48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics Research 1). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992 [1983]. Pragmatics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature (Language, Speech, and Communication). Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lilja, Niina. 2014. Partial repetitions as other-initiations of repair in second language talk: Re-establishing understanding and doing learning. Journal of Pragmatics 711: 98–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1999. Thing is constructions: The thing is, is what’s the right analysis? English Language and Linguistics 3 (2): 335–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConvell, Patrick. 1988. To be or double be? Current changes in the English copula. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8 (2): 287–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1989. Phrase fracturing in Gooniyandi. In Configurationality: The Typology of Asymmetries, László Marácz & Pieter Muysken (eds). Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 207–222.Google Scholar
. 1994. The grammar of reported speech and thought in Gooniyandi. Australian Journal of Linguistics 14 (1): 63–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Ja hear that didja?: Interrogative tags in Australian English. Te Reo 381: 3–35.Google Scholar
. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Optional” ergative marking in Gooniyandi revisited: Implications to the theory of marking. Leuvense Bijdragen 871: 491–534.Google Scholar
. 2006a. Repetition in Gooniyandi narrative. Paper presented at Second European Workshop on Australian Languages: Narrative and Grammar, Somlószöllös, 14-16 September 2006.
. 2006b. Focal and optional ergative marking in Warrwa (Kimberley, Western Australia). Lingua 116 (4): 393–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Ergative marking of intransitive subjects in Warrwa. Australian Journal of Linguistics 27 (2): 201–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 120 (7): 1610–1636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. Optionality in grammar and language use. Linguistics 51 (6): 1147–1204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. There are existential constructions and existential constructions: Presumption invoking existentials in English. Folia Linguistica 47 (1): 139–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013c. Some unusual clause types in Shua. Paper presented at Final KBA Meeting, Aarhus, 8-9 April 2013.
. 2015a. Four counter-presumption constructions in Shua (Khoe-Kwadi, Botswana). Lingua 1581: 54–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. Optional accusative marking in Shua. Paper presented at Variation and asymmetries in case-marking workshop, Canberra, 31 July 2015.
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extension of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 841: 69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Persson, Gunnar. 1974. Repetition in English. Part I: Sequential Repetition (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 21). Uppsala: Universitetsbiblioteket.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1959. Language as particle, wave, and field. The Texas Quarterly 2 (2): 37–54.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan L. 2010. ‘Optional’ ergativity and the framing of reported speech. Lingua 1201: 1652–1676. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2013. Is usage more than usage after all? The case of English not that. Linguistics 51 (1): 75–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. 2016. Independent si-clauses in Spanish: Functions and consequences for insubordination. In Insubordination (Typological Studies in Language 115), Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 89–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaumyan, Sebastian. 1987. A Semiotic Theory of Language. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Horst J. & Heike Wiese (eds). 2011. Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 216). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1987. Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk. Language 631: 574–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Anthony Mulac. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 151: 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Origins of Human Communication (The Jean Nicod Lectures). Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2014. A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & James A. Walker. 2009. On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study. Linguistics 47 (1): 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, Javier, Joseph Hilferty & Mar Garachana. 2005. On the reality of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 31: 201–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Voort, Hein. 2003. Reduplication of person markers in Kwaza. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 351: 65–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, Sarah D’Hertefelt & An Van linden. 2012. A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 36 (1): 123–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. Boys will be boys: ‘Radical semantics’ vs. ‘radical pragmatics’. Language 631: 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, Jan & Michael Cysouw (eds). 2010a. Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 45). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds). 2010b. Rara & Rarissima: Documenting the Fringes of Linguistic Diversity (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 46). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

McGregor, William B.
2019. Reported speech as a dedicated grammatical domain – and why defenestration should not be thrown out the window. Linguistic Typology 23:1 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
McGregor, William B.
2019. The evolutionary origins of interpersonal grammar. Functions of Language 26:1 ► pp. 112 ff. DOI logo
Vandelanotte, Lieven
2017. Favourite puzzles. English Text Construction 10:2 ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 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.