Cover not available
Part of
Studies in Lexicogrammar: Theory and applications
Edited by Grzegorz Drożdż
[Human Cognitive Processing 54] 2016
► pp. 121–142

What? You and me get together? The place of the Incredulity Response Construction in the lexicon-syntax continuum

This study reviews the form and meaning of the Incredulity Response Construction (IRC), a closed-class form claimed by various cognitive linguists to evince fairly unusual properties justifying its special construction status. I will attempt to demonstrate that both the form and the function of the construction are consistent with traditional characterizations of items located on the syntactic side of the lexicon-syntax continuum. Additionally, I argue that the meaning in question is not exactly that of disbelief, but is instead more general, making it possible to express a wider range of emotional responses. The IRC is not an exceptional construction removed from broadly conceived core syntax. Therefore, at least this construction cannot be used to question the traditional lexicon-syntax division.
Keywords: closed-class forms, iconicity, idiosyncrasy, meaning
Published online: 4 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.54.06szc
References (34)
Akmajian, A. 1984. Sentence types and the form–function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, R. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bally, C. 1905. Précis de stylistique. Genève: Eggimann.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., & Eythórsson, T. 2012. Reconstructing syntax: Construction grammar and the comparative method. In H.C. Boas & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (257–308). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. 1996. Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M.F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (383–436). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Lexical and grammatical meaning. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann, & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation (257–263). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cruse, D.A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drożdż, G. 2012. Conceptualizing the present through construal aspects: The case of the English temporal constructions. In L. Filipović & K.M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Space and time in languages and cultures (305–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenough, J.B., Kittredge, G.L., Howard, A.A., & D’Ooge, B.L. (1903). Allen and Greenough’s new Latin grammar for schools and colleges. Boston: Ginn & Company.Google 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. 3 (2271–2296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 1990. What, me worry? – Mad Magazine sentences revisited. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 215–228.
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legallois, D. 2012. From grammaticalization to expressive constructions. In M. Bouveret & D. Legallois (Eds.), Constructions in French [Constructional Approaches to Language 13] (257–281). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum?. In R.J. Jarvella & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (101–124). Chichester & New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 1990. Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L.A. 2010. Sign-based construction grammar. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (155–176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morrow, D.G. 1986. Grammatical morphemes and conceptual structure in discourse processing. Cognitive Science, 10, 423–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. 1989. Language has a heart. Text, 9, 7–25.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1991. Representation and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Słoń, A. 2007. The ‘impersonal’ impersonal construction in Polish: A cognitive grammar analysis. In D. Divjak & A. Kochańska (Eds.), Cognitive paths into the slavic domain (257–290). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szcześniak, K. 2013. You can’t cry your way to candy: Motion events and paths in the x’s way construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24 (1), 159–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 1978. The relation of grammar to cognition. In D. Waltz (Ed.), Proceedings of TINLAP-2 (14–24). Urbana: University of Illinois Coordinated Science Laboratory.Google Scholar
. 2011. Cognitive Semantics: An overview. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 1 (622–642). Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.R. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. 2003. Lenneberg’s Dream: Learning, normal language development, and a specific language impairment. In Y. Levy & J.C. Schaeffer (Eds.), Language Competence across populations: Towards a definition of specific language impairment (11–62). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90(1/2), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar