Cover not available
Article published In:
Corpus Approaches to Language, Thought and Communication
Edited by Wei-lun Lu, Naděžda Kudrnáčová and Laura A. Janda
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:1] 2019
► pp. 187–218
Regular articles

APO X, Y

A discourse topicalization construction within Greek Twitter

| Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
| Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
The paper accounts for the Greek discourse topicalization construction APO X, Y and the sarcastic and humorous effects that arise in the context of Twitter exchanges. Our analysis is based on the analytical tools of the Lexical Constructional Model (henceforth LCM) as formulated in Ruiz de Mendoza and Mairal (2008), Ruiz de Mendoza (2013), and Ruiz de Mendoza and Galera (2014). For this purpose we have created a corpus of over 1300 real use tweets. The LCM enables us to treat the patricular uses of the APO X, Y construction. It is shown to be very useful in capturing emergent uses of an already established construction.
Keywords: discourse topicalization construction, humor, irony, Lexical Constructional Model (LCM), sarcasm, Twitter
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus and data
  • 3.Theoretical framework: The Lexical Constructional Model (LCM)
  • 4.Analysis and discussion
  • 5.Some concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00031.kef
References

References

Bortone, P.
(2010) Greek prepositions: From antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Vandelanotte, L.
(2009) Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 319–369). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C.
(1997a) [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)] The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 11: The structure of the clause. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1997b) [Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)]. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 21: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(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
Grady, J.
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
(2004) An introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd revised edition). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, L.
(2008) Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. C.
(2001) Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Katis, D., & Nikiforidou, K.
(2017) Spatial prepositions in early child Greek: Implications for acquisition, polysemy and historical change. In Proceedings of the 12th ICGL (pp. 525–537).Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 11: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 21: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCracken, H.
(2009) What I know about Twitter. Available at: [URL]
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K.
(1991) The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(2), 149–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(2002) From semantic underdetermination, via metaphor and metonymy to conceptual interaction. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum: An International Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(6), 107–143.Google Scholar
(2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics (pp. 231–270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) On the nature and scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: towards settling some controversies. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), Bloomsbury companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 143–166). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2017) Metaphor and other cognitive operations in interaction: From basicity to complexity. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition, and discourse (pp. 138–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
(2014) Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R.
(2008) Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
(2011) Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In P. Guerrero (Ed.), Morphosyntactic alternations in English: Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–82). London, UK/Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, S.
(1999) NE sisxetistes tou topou me tis kiries prothesis se kai apo. In A. Mozer (Ed.), Greek Linguistics ’97: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 249–57). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tachibana, T.
(1994) Spatial expressions in Modern Greek. Studies in Greek Linguistics, 141, 525–39.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1988) The relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 165–205). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tzartzanos, A.
(1991) Neoelliniki sintaxis (tis kinis dimotikis). Thessaloniki: Kyriakides.Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, L.
(2012) “Wait till you get started”: How to submerge another’s discourse in your own. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint In language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 198–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(2012) Explaining irony. In D. Wilson, & D. Sperber (Eds.), Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zafeiriadou, K.
(2010) Εvent Structure: An instantiation with Από. PhD dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M.
(2011) Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. Journal of New Media and Society, 13(5), 788–806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar