Regular articles
APO X, Y
A discourse topicalization construction within Greek Twitter
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.
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
References (38)
References
Bortone, P.
(
2010)
Greek prepositions: From antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dik, S. C.
(
1997b) [
Hengeveld, K. (Ed.)].
The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 21:
Complex and derived constructions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(
2002)
The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.
(
1995)
Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A.
(
2006)
Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
(
2004)
An introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd revised edition). London: Edward Arnold.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, L.
(
2008)
Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
(
1987)
Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1987)
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 11:
Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1991)
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 21:
Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1993)
Reference-point constructions.
Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
2001)
Discourse in Cognitive Grammar.
Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
2008)
Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McCracken, H.
(
2009)
What I know about Twitter. Available at:
[URL]
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
Nikiforidou, K.
(
1991)
The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change.
Cognitive Linguistics, 2(2), 149–205.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
(
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera, A.
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal, R.
(
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(
1995)
Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tachibana, T.
(
1994)
Spatial expressions in Modern Greek.
Studies in Greek Linguistics, 141, 525–39.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tzartzanos, A.
(
1991)
Neoelliniki sintaxis (tis kinis dimotikis). Thessaloniki: Kyriakides.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(
2012)
Explaining irony. In
D. Wilson, &
D. Sperber (Eds.),
Meaning and relevance (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zafeiriadou, K.
(
2010)
Εvent Structure: An instantiation with Από. PhD dissertation, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zappavigna, M.
(
2011)
Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter.
Journal of New Media and Society, 13(5), 788–806.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zappavigna, M.
(
2012)
Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London/New York: Continuum.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Peng, Bingzhuan
2024.
Subjectivity of Discourse Constructions in News Discourse by Integrating Construction Grammar and Critical Discourse Analysis.
Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences 9:1
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 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.