Cover not available
Part of
Perspectives on Linguistic Structure and Context: Studies in honor of Knud Lambrecht
Edited by Stacey Katz Bourns and Lindsy L. Myers
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 244] 2014
► pp. 87–108

Interactional frames and grammatical constructions

Construction grammarians analyze grammar in terms of conventional pairings of form and meaning (Fillmore et al. 1988; Goldberg 1995, 2006) that are largely limited to the sentence (Lambrecht 1994, 2004). Recently, construction grammarians have moved beyond sentential boundaries to consider grammatical structures in terms of interaction and discourse (Fried and Östman 2005; Fischer 2010; Fried 2010a, 2010b). Following Fleischman (1990), we argue that interactive frames are key to linking the concerns of grammarians with those of anthropological linguists, sociolinguists, and text linguists who call for richer analyses of the communicative context (Cook-Gumperz and Gumperz 2011; Park and Takanashi 2011). A frames-based approach to grammatical description situates language within a communicative context that includes factors such as the backgrounds of the speakers and hearers and the frames within which each participant places the interaction. Such contextualized descriptions demonstrate how interactive frames and grammatical constructions are implicated in the interpersonal function of language and the dynamics of meaning making.

Published online: 5 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.244.05bly
References
Baddeley, Alan
1990  Human Memory. Theory and Practice . Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory
1972  Steps to an Ecology of Mind . New York, NY: Ballentine.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2005 “Frames Revisited -- The Coherence-inducing Function of Frames.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 685–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blyth, Carl
1995 “‘C’est bon, ça!’ Conventionalized Displays of Affect in French.” In SALSA II, ed. by Pamela Silberman and Jonathan Loftin, 130–142. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Blyth, Carl, Jr., Sigrid Recktenwald, and Jenny Wang
1990 “I’m like, ‘say what?!’: A New Quotative in American Oral Narrative.” American Speech 65: 215–227. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Bobrow, Daniel, and Donald Norman
1975 “Some Principles of Memory Schemata. Representation and Understanding.” In Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, ed. by Daniel Bobrow and Allan M. Collins, 131–149. New York, NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert
1996  Using Language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Cook-Gumperz, Jenny, and John Gumperz
2011 “Frames and Contexts: Another Look at the Macro-micro Link.” Pragmatics 21 (2):283–286.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cukor-Avila, Patricia
2002 “‘She say, she go, she be like’: Verbs of Quotation Over Time in African American Vernacular English.” American Speech 77: 3–31. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Bryan
2011 “Nativelike Right-dislocation in Near-native French.” Second Language Research 27 (3):361–390. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John
2007 “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse , ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ensink, Titus
2003 “Transformational Frames: Interpretative Consequences of Frame Shifts and Frame Embeddings.” In Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse, ed. by Titus Ensink and Christoph Sauer, 63–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ensink, Titus, and Christoph Sauer
eds 2003  Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Eve Sweetser
eds 1996  Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar . Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Kathleen, and Barbara Bell
1995 “Sociolinguistic Variation and Discourse Function of Constructed Dialogue Introducers: The Case of be + like.” American Speech 70: 265–289. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1975 “An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning.” In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , ed. by Cathy Cogen et al., 123–132. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
1982 “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The LinguisticSociety of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
2008 “The Merging of Frames.” In Frames, Corpora and Knowledge Representation , ed. by R. Rossini Favretti, 1–12. Bononia, Italy: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and Mary O’Connor
1988 “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone.” Language 64 (3):501–538. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2010 “Beyond the Sentence: Constructions, Frames and Spoken Interaction.” Constructions and Frames 2 (2):185–207. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne
1990  Tense and Narrativity . Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Frake, Charles
1977 “Plying Frames Can Be Dangerous: Some Reflections on Methodology in Cognitive Anthropology.” The Quarterly Newsletter for the Institute for Comparative Human Cognition 1: 1–7.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2010a. “Constructions and Frames as Interpretive Clues.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24: 83–102. DOI logo.Google Scholar
2010b “Grammar and Interaction: New Directions in Constructional Research.” Constructions and Frames 2 (2):125–133. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam and Jan-Ola Östman
2005 “Construction Grammar and Spoken Language: The Case of Pragmatic Particles.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 1752–1778. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald
1994  The Pragmatics of Discourse Anaphora in English: Evidence from Conversational Repair . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1974  Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience . New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
1981  Forms of Talk . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
1995  Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006  Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon , ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 147–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H
Paul 1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics , vol 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John
1982  Discourse Strategies . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan
2011  Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language . New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and John Sinclair
2000 “A Local Grammar of Evaluation.” In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse , ed. by Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson, 74–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and Geoff Thompson
eds 2000  Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell
1974 “Ways of Speaking.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking , ed. by Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer, 433–451. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1990 “The Speech Event and the Functions of Language.” In On Language , ed. by Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston, 69–79. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Koike, Dale
2010 “Behind L2 Pragmatics: The Role of Expectations.” In Dialogue in Spanish: Studies in Functions and Contexts , ed. by Dale Koike and Lidia Rodríguez-Alfano, 257–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Variation in NS-learner Interactions: Frames and Expectations in Pragmatic Co-construction.” In Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues , ed. by César Félix-Brásdefer and Dale Koike, 175–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, Benjamin J
1975 “A Frame for Frames: Representing Knowledge for Recognition.” In Representation and Understanding. Studies in Cognitive Science , ed. by Daniel G. Bobrow and Allan Collins, 151–184. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1981  Topic, Antitopic and Verb Agreement in Non-standard French . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994  Information Structure and Sentence Form . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “On the Interaction of Information Structure and Formal Structure in Constructions.” In Construction Grammar in a Cross-language Perspective , ed. by Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman, 157–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James, and White, P.R.R
2005  The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English . London: Palgrave.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James, and David Rose
2007  Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause . London: Continuum.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Michael, and Ronald Carter
1997 “Grammar, Tails, and Affect: Constructing Expressive Choices in Discourse.” Text 17 (3):405–429. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Park, Joseph
Sung-Yul 2011 “Framing, Stance, and Affect in Korean Metalinguistic Discourse.” Pragmatics 21 (2):265–282.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Joseph Sung-Yul, and Hiroko Takanashi
2011 “Reframing Framing: Interaction and the Constitution of Culture and Society.” Pragmatics 21 (2):185–190.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures for Social Action , ed. by John Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne, and Deborah Lange
1991 “The Use of like as a Marker of Reported Speech and Thought: A Case of Grammaticalization in Progress. American Speech 66: 227–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1981 ”Tense Variation in Narrative.” Language 57: 45–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, and Rachel Hudson
1999 “Be like et al. Beyond America: The Quotative System in British and Canadian Youth.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 147–172. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, and Alex D’Arcy
2004 “He’s like, she’s like: The Quotative System in Canadian Youth.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 8: 493–514. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1986 “Introducing Constructed Dialogue in Greek and American Conversational and Literary Narrative.” In Direct and Indirect Speech , ed. by Florian Coulmas, 311–332. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, and Betty Birner
2001 “Discourse and Information Structure.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis , ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi Hamilton, 119–137. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa
1978 “A Feature of Performed Narrative: The Conversational Historical Present.” Language in Society 7: 215–237. DOI logo.Google Scholar
1979 “The Conversational Historical Present Alternation.” Language 55 (1):168–182 DOI logo.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 march 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.