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
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