Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2020) ► pp.480–518

Dialogic constructions and discourse units:

The case of think again

| National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
| National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
| National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Adopting a constructionally-oriented analysis, the present paper examines the pattern ‘think again’ (i.e., an instance of a mental state verb + adverbial adjunct) in synchronic, corpus-derived data. On the basis of both qualitative and quantitative analyses we show that think again merits constructional status in language; while it inherits features of fully-compositional meaning from its constituents it has also developed its own idiosyncratic properties. We further argue that think again may ultimately function as a discourse marker of challenge that regulates the relationship between Speaker (S) and Addressee (A), correlating with certain contextual regularities and interdependencies. It thus qualifies as a discourse construction that imposes a dialogic construal on its context and contributes fundamentally to discourse unit delimitation.
Keywords: Construction Grammar, dialogicity, mental state/propositional attitude verbs, dialogic constructions, discourse marker, challenge, discourse unit delimitation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background: Mental state predicates and adverbial adjuncts; dialogicity and constructions
  • 2.Methodology and data
  • 3.From compositional to constructional think again
    • 3.1Compositional semantics and encoding properties
    • 3.2Constructional semantics/pragmatics and encoding features
  • 4.Frequency counts of the categories tagged
    • 4.1Compositional and constructional semantics
    • 4.2Distribution of think again in the dialogic-monologic and dialogual-monologual contexts
    • 4.3Distribution of intensifying elements
    • 4.4Distribution of morphosyntactic features
    • 4.5Positional distribution
  • 5.Reliability and validity statistics
    • 5.1The statistical significance of the data
    • 5.2The internal reliability of the data
    • 5.3Interim summary: The construction think again
  • 6. think again: Motivation as constructional inheritance
  • 7. think again and dialogicity
  • 8. think again and discourse unit delimitation
  • 9.Concluding remarks and implications
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00068.gek
References (75)
References
Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality: problems and challenges. In P. van Sterkenbourg (Ed.), Linguistics today: Facing a greater challenge (pp. 1–29). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anand, P., & Hacquard, V. (2013). Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6(8), 1–59.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1996). On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Εds.), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies (pp. 57–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. M. [1975] (1981). The dialogic imagination (Ed.), M. Holquist, trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
(1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Translated by V. W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bale, A. C. (2007). Quantifiers and verb phrases: An exploration of propositional complexity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25(3), 447–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2002). On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 345–631). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. (2006). Focus on ‘again’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(3), 277–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. & Heine, L. (2010). Mood in English. In R. Thieroff & B. Rothstein (Eds.), Mood in the European Languages (pp. 103–116). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertucelli Papi, M. (1998). Where Grice feared to thread: inferring attitudes and emotions. In G. Cosenza (Ed.), Paul Grice’s heritage (pp. 247–281). San Marino.Google Scholar
(2000). Implicitness in text and discourse. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bres, J., Nowakowska, A., & Sarale, J. M. (2016). Anticipative interlocutive dialogism: Sequential patterns and linguistic markers in French. Journal of Pragmatics, 961, 80–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse dunctions. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelli, G. (2005). Modulating attitudes via adverbs: A cognitive-pragmatic approach to the lexicalization of epistemological evaluation. In M. Bertuccelli Papi (Ed.), Studies in the semantics of lexical combinatory patterns (pp. 213–278). Pisa: Plus Pisa University Press.Google Scholar
(2007). “I reckon I know how Leonardo da Vinci must have felt…” Epistemicity, evidentiality and English verbs of cognitive attitude. Pari: Pari Publishing.Google Scholar
Degand, L. (2014). “So very fast very fast then”: Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Cross-linguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp. 151–178). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, L., & Simon, A. C. (2009). Mapping prosody and syntax as discourse strategies: How basic discourse units vary across genres. In A. Wichmann, D. Barth-Weingarten & N. Dehé (Εds.), Where prosody meets pragmatics: research at the interface (pp. 79–105). Emerald: Bingley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enghels, R. (2017). On the development of the interpersonal epistemic stance construction in Spanish: the case of sabes ‘you know’ and constructional variant. 15th international pragmatics conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 16–21 July 2017.Google Scholar
Ernst, T. (2002). The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (2010). Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J. O. (2005). Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geka, V. (forthcoming). The contribution of constructions to dialogicity and discourse unit delimitation: A corpus-based analysis of THINK AGAIN, BELIEVE (YOU) ME, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, and MIND YOU. PhD dissertation, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Faculty of English Language and Literature.
Geka, V., & Marmaridou, S. (2017). Mental state verbs in dialogic constructions. Online proceedings of UK-CLA meetings, 41, 88–110. Retrieved from: [URL]
Gerard, P. D., Smith, D. R., & Weerakkody, G. (1998). Limits of retrospective power analysis. Journal of Wildlife Management, 621, 801–807. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & F. Meunier (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology. An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (1969). Studies in English adverbial usage. London & Harlow: Longmans.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2008). Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology. An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M. (1997). “’Alors’ and ‘donc’ in spoken French: a reanalysis”. Journal of Pragmatics, 281, 153–187. DOI logoGoogle 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 (pp. 2271–2296). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krawczak, K., Fabiszak, M., & Hilpert, M. (2016). A corpus-based, cross-linguistic approach to mental predicates and their complementation: Performativity and descriptivity vis-à-vis boundedness and picturability. Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 475–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1971). Presupposition and relative well-formedness. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology (pp. 329–340). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, E. L. (1999). Elements of large-sample theory. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, J., & Wide, C. (2005). Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles. Swedish particles of the type you know. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 61, 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Grammatical constructions in dialogue. In A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and constructions (pp. 97–110). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louw, B. (2000). Contextual prosodic theory: Bringing semantic prosodies to life. In C. Heffer, H. Sauntson, & G. Fox (Eds.), Words in context: A tribute to John Sinclair on his retirement. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Makkonen-Craig, H. (2014). Aspects of dialogicity: Exploring dynamic interrelations in written discourse. In A. M. Karlsson & H. Makkonen-Craig (Eds.), Analysing text AND talk, FUMS Rapport nr 233 (pp. 99–120). Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Mulder, J., & Thompson, S. A. (2008). The grammaticization of ‘but’ as a final particle in English conversation. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunction (pp. 179–204). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakagawa, S., & Foster, T. M. (2004). The case against retrospective statistical power analyses with an introduction to power analysis. Acta Ethologica, 71, 103–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, G. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 251, 655–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Novaković, J.Š. (2017). Imperative in English Proverbs. European Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 3(2), 75–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 5(3), 343–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J. O. (1981). You know: A discourse-functional approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pons Bordería, S., & Fischer, K. (2019). Using discourse segmentation to account for the polyfunctionality of discourse markers: The case of well. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Ritter, N. (2010). Understanding a widely misunderstood statistic: Cronbach’s alpha. Paper presented at Southwestern educational research association (SERA), Conference 2010, New Orleans, LA (ED526237).
Romero-Trillo, J. (2015). Understanding vagueness: a prosodic analysis of endocentric and exocentric general extenders in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 861, 54–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Prosodic modelling and position analysis of pragmatic markers in English conversation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 141, 169–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2015). Entrenching inferences in implicational and illocutionary constructions. Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 258–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Z. (2007). Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers”. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 417–443.Google Scholar
Schwenter, S. A. (2000). Viewpoints and polysemy: Linking adversative and causal meanings of discourse markers. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 257–281). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 291, 477–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2001). Constructing causation: A construction-grammar approach to analytic causatives. Doctoral dissertation, Rice University.Google Scholar
Strauss, S., & Xiang, X. (2009). Discourse particles: Where cognition and interaction intersect: The case of final particle ‘ey’ in Shishan dialect (Hainan Island, P.R. China). Journal of Pragmatics, 411, 1287–1312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tofiloski, M., Brooke, J., & Taboada, M. (2009). A syntactic and lexical-based discourse segmenter. In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 conference short papers (pp. 77–80). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and grammaticalization. In A. Cruse, F. Hundsnurscher, M. Job & P. R. Lutzeier (Eds.), Lexikologie/-Lexicology. Vol.21 (pp. 1702–1712). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2006). The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In A. van Kemenade & B. Los (Eds.), Handbook on the history of English (pp. 335–359). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Discussion article: Discourse markers, modal particles and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 61, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). ‘All that he endeavoured to prove was…’: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogic contexts”. In C. Robin & R. Kempson (Eds.), Language in Flux: Dialogue Coordination, Language Variation, Change and Evolution (pp. 143–177). London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
(2010). Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In R. A. Cloutier, A. M. Hamilton-Brehm & W. Kretzschmar (Eds.), Variation and Change in English Grammar and Lexicon (pp. 11–27). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, J. (2010). A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics, 14(3), 399–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Olmen, D. & Heinold, S. (2017). Imperatives and directive strategies from a functional-typological perspective: An introduction. In D. Van Olmen & S. Heinold (Eds.), Imperatives and directive strategies. Vol. 1841 (pp. 1–49). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, J. C. (2004). Initial and final position for adverbial clauses in English: the constructional basis of the discursive and syntactic differences. Linguistics, 42(4), 819–853. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, R. (2002). “Imperatives, interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda”. Linguistics, 40(5), 987–1010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.