Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 30:1 (2017) ► pp.210–239

An exploratory study of complementary contrastive discourse constructions in English

| University of La Rioja
This paper studies the fundamental characteristics of a subgroup of members of the family of complementary-contrastive discourse constructions in English. Following Ruiz de Mendoza and Gómez-González (2014) by discourse constructions this article refers to form-meaning pairings capturing relational meaning such as addition, exemplification, contrast, etc. grounded in high-level cognitive models. A discourse construction (e.g., X Let Alone Y; cf. Fillmore, Kay, & O’Connor, 1988), generally consists of a fixed part and two variables, where the fixed part is a connector (a discourse marker or a conjunction). The constructions under scrutiny indicate a relation between two elements or situations in the world that are opposites but not exclusive of each other. Many of the members of this constructional family have frequently been treated as fully interchangeable in standard lexicographic practice. By contrast, this paper argues that each of these constructions introduces small but decisive changes in focal structure, resulting in important differences in meaning. Taking this evidence into account, the paper specifies the cases where one construction is used with preference over the others.
Keywords: discourse constructions, complementary contrast, construction grammar, active zone, profile
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Profiles and active zones in discourse constructions
  • 3.Complementary-contrastive constructions
  • 4.Concessive constructions
  • 5.Correcting constructions
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 23 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.30.1.09iza
References (32)
References
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baicchi, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoritecal perspective of the Lexical Constructional Model. Textus: English Studies in Italy, 31, 543–563.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning : The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, C. S., & Gonzálvez-García, F. (2014). Exploring functional-cognitive space. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Del Campo, N. (2011). Cognitive modelling in illocutionary meaning. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 392–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Illocutionary constructions in English : Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. Bern: Peter Lang.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
Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 189–204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(2010). The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. Baltic Journal of the English Language, Literature and Culture, 11, 29–35.Google Scholar
Galera, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2014). Cognitive modeling: A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80(3), 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic : The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hannay, M., Martínez Caro, E., & Mackenzie, J. L. (2014). Besides as a connective. In M. de los Á. Gómez González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. Gonzálvez-García, & A. Downing (Eds.), The functional perspective on language and discourse: Applications and implications (pp. 223–242). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iza Erviti, A. (2015). Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. IJES (International Journal of English Studies), 11, 71–96. Retrieved from DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2009). Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In C. S. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 153–198). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Thornburg, L. (2000). The effect for cause metonymy in English grammar. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads. A cognitive perspective (pp. 215–231). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pérez Hernández, L. (2001). The directive-commissive continuum. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 231, 77–98.Google Scholar
(2009). Análisis léxico-construccional de los verbos de habla. A lexical-constructional analysis of verbs of speech. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a La Comunicación, 401, 62–92.Google Scholar
(2012). Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA (Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada), 251, 189–210.Google Scholar
(2013). Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language & Communication, 33(2), 128–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Baicchi, A. (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In I. Kecskes & L. Horn (Eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive, and intercultural aspects (pp. 95–128). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Gómez-González, M. A. (2014). Constructing discourse and discourse constructions Francisco. In M. A. Gómez-González, F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, & F. Gonzálvez-García (Eds.), Theory and practice in runctional-cognitive space (pp. 295–314). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance : Communication and cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In K. -U. Panther & L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The British national corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: [URL]
Thesaurus.com. URL: [URL]
WebCorp. URL: [URL]
Wordreference.com. URL: [URL]