Article published in:
Cognitive Perspectives on Genre
Edited by Carla Vergaro
[Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3] 2018
► pp. 543575
References

References

Aarne, Antti & Stith Thompson
1961The types of the folktale: A classification and bibliography. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, FFC 184.Google Scholar
Adamson, Sylvia
1995From empathetic deixis to empathetic narrative: Stylisation and (de)subjectivization as processes of language change. In Dieter Stein & Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 195–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antonopoulou, Eleni & Kiki Nikiforidou
2011Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics 43(10). 2594–2609. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira
2008Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1986Speech genres and other late essays (Translated by Vern W. McGee). Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 570 ]
Bally, Charles
1912Le style indirect libre en francais modern. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 4. 549–556 and 597–606.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald
(eds.) 2009Constructions and language change. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth & Dan Slobin
1994Relating events in narrative: A cross-linguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth, Hrafnhildur Ragnarsdóttir & Sven Strömqvist
2002Discourse stance. Written Language and Literacy 5(2). 1–43.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad
2009Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor & Thomas Upton
2007Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, John
2006Genre and genre analysis. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 26–32. Boston: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3). 623–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra Thompson
2000Concessive patterns in conversation. In Bernd Kortmann & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Alan Cruse
2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser
(eds.) 2012Viewpoint in language: A multi-modal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delarue, Paul & Marie-Louise Ténèze
1957Le conte populaire français (4 volumes). Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2006Construction Grammar – Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion? In Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion, 43–65. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprӓchsforschung.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2015Modal particles in different communicative types. Constructions and Frames 7(2), 218–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1977Topics in lexical semantics. In Roger Cole (ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory, 76–138. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
1981Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 143–166. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1982Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
1983How to know whether you are coming or going. In Gisa Rauh (ed.), Essays on deixis, 219–227. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
1985Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2). 222–254.Google Scholar
1986Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Kiki Nikiforidou, Mary Van Clay, Mary Niepokuj & Deborah Feder (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 95–107. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
[ p. 571 ]
1988The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 35–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Merging frames. In Rema Rossini Favretti (ed.), Frames, corpora and knowledge representation, 1–12. Bologna: Bologna University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’ Connor
1988Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64(3). 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher Johnson & Miriam R. L. Petruck
2003Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3). 235–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’ Connor
1988Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 64. 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2010Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames 2(2). 185–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015aSituation in grammar or in frames? Evidence from the so-called baby talk register. Constructions and Frames 7(2). 258–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015bConversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition. Language and Cognition 7(4). 563–588. http://​journals​.cambridge​.org​/abstract​_S186698081500023X
Fludernik, Monika
1993The fictions of language and the languages of fiction: The linguistic representation of speech and consciousness. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Sandra Thompson
1996Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Eleanor Ochs, Emmanuel Schegloff & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13], 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Barbara Fox & Sandra Thompson
1996Practices in the construction of turns: The TCU revisited. Pragmatics 6(3). 427–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara & Sandra Thompson
1990A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66(2). 297–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam
2009aRepresenting contextual factors in language change. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 63–94. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bConstruction Grammar as a tool for diachronic analysis. Constructions and Frames 1(2). 262–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Construction Grammar. In Artemis Alexiadou & Tibor Kiss (eds.), Handbook of syntax, vol. 2, 2nd edn. 974–1003. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman
2004Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective, 11–86. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11). 1752–1778. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 572 ]
2013Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 29–40 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., Keith K. Millis & Rolf A. Zwaan
1997Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology 481(1). 163–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2015Cognitive sociolinguistic aspects of football chants: The role of social and physical context in usage-bases construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 63(3). 273–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Alexander Bergs
2018A construction grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes 18 (open access version https://​journals​.openedition​.org​/cognitextes​/1032). Crossref
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang
2007Der Zwang zur Kategorienbildung: Probleme der Anwendung der Construction Grammar bei der Analyse gesprochener Sprache. Gesprӓchsforschung 8. 22–45.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul
2013The limits of construction grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 41–53 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore
1999Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75(1). 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Laura Michaelis
2012Constructional meaning and compositionality. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 3, 2271–2296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2017Partial Inversion in English. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Kentucky, Lexington, 212–216. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
1994Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004On the interaction of information structure and formal structure in constructions: The case of French right-detached comme-N. In Mirjam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective, 157–199. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
2001Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan & Anne-Marie Londen
2008Constructing reasoning: The connectives för att (causal), så att (consecutive) and men att (adversative) in Swedish conversations. In Jaakko Leino (ed.), Constructional reorganization, 105–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per
2009Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 97–110. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 573 ]
Martinez, Claudia B.
2018Cross-cultural analysis of turn-taking practices in English and Spanish conversations. Vernacular: New Connections in Language, Literature, & Culture, vol. 3, article 5. Available at: http://​trace​.tennessee​.edu​/vernacular​/vol3​/iss1​/5
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
2010Interactional frames and grammatical descriptions: The case of Japanese noun-modifying constructions. Constructions and Frames 2(2). 135–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Partnership between grammatical construction and interactional frame: The stand-alone noun-modifying construction in invocatory discourse. Constructions and Frames 7(2). 289–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Megas, Georgios
1978Το ελληνικό παραμύθι. Αναλυτικός κατάλογος τύπων και παραλλαγών κατά το σύστημα Aarne-Thompson (FFC 184). Aθήνα: Ακαδημία Αθηνών. Δημοσιεύματα του Κέντρου Ερεύνης της Ελληνικής Λαογραφίας, αρ. 14.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura
2004Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 45–88. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2006Tense in English. In Bas Aarts & April MacMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 220–243. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura & Hanbing Feng
2015What is this, sarcastic syntax? Constructions and Frames 7(2). 148–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura & Knud Lambrecht
1996Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72(2). 215–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2012The constructional underpinnings of viewpoint blends: The past + now in language and literature. In Barbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 177–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Grammatical constructions and cross-text generalizations. Empathetic narration as genre. Constructions and Frames 7(2). 181–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016‘Genre knowledge’ in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in folk tales. In Ninke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen (eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 331–359. Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
to appear. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: The conventional vs. functional dichotomy in ‘stage directions’. In Yoshiko Matsumoto & Shoichi Iwasaki eds. Multiplicity in grammar: Modes, genres and speaker’s knowledge Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics
Nikiforidou, Kiki & Kerstin Fischer
2015On the interaction of constructions with register and genre. Constructions and Frames 7(2). 137–147. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki, Sophia Marmaridou & George K. Mikros
2014What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics 25(4). 655–699. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nir, Bracha
2015Frames for clause combining: Schematicity and formulaicity in discourse patterns. Constructions and Frames 7(2). 348–379. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra Thompson
1995What can conversation tell us about syntax? In Philip W. Davis (ed.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes, 213–271. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
[ p. 574 ]
Östman, Jan-Ola
2005Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 121–144. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola & Graeme Trousdale
2013Dialects, discourse, and Construction Grammar. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 476–490 (electronic version). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Petruck, Mirjam R. L.
1996Frame semantics. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Ostman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Propp, Vladimir
1968 [1927]Morphology of the folktale (translated by Laurence Scott, 2nd edn.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Laura Michaelis
2010A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2(2). 158–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson, Collin F. Baker & Jan Scheffczyk
2016FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice (revised edn.). Berkeley, CA: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John & David Brazil
1982Teacher talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard
2011Genre between the humanities and the sciences. In Marcus Callies, Wolfram Keller & Astrid Lohöfer (eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences, 21–42. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, Federico Rossano, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Kyung-Eun Yoon & Stephen C. Levinson
2009Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10587–10592. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael & Isabel Barth
2003Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings. Functions of Language 10(1). 61–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen
(eds.) 2016Genre in language, discourse and cognition. Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2010 Don’t go V-ing in Cypriot Greek: Semantic, pragmatic, and prosodic aspects of a prohibitive construction. Constructions and Frames 2(2). 208–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra & Paul J. Hopper
2001Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 27–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2008Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth
2008“All that he endeavoured to prove was …”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. In Robin Cooper & Ruth Kempson (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
2010Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In Robert A. Cloutier, Anne Marie Hamilton-Brehm & William A. Kretschmar (eds.), Variation and change in English grammar and lexicon, 11–27. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
2003A glossary of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 575 ]
Wide, Camilla
2009Interactional Construction Grammar: Contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Contexts and constructions, 111–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf A.
1994Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology 20(4). 920–933.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Nikiforidou, Kiki
2021. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in ‘stage directions’. Journal of Pragmatics 173  pp. 189 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 july 2021. 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.