Cover not available
Part of
Building Categories in Interaction: Linguistic resources at work
Edited by Caterina Mauri, Ilaria Fiorentini and Eugenio Goria
[Studies in Language Companion Series 220] 2021
► pp. 73–110

Chapter 4
Category-building lists between grammar and interaction

A constructionist view

 | University of Turin
 | University of Bologna
Lists are one of the most common devices that are used in interaction to refer to a category. Yet, there are only few studies that analyze the relationship between lists and categorization. Our paper aims at advancing our knowledge of this relationship, and of lists in general. From a theoretical point of view, we discuss the benefits of integrating the Construction Grammar approach to lists adopted in Masini et al. (2018) with some of the basic assumptions of Interactional Linguistics. From an empirical point of view, we offer a qualitative analysis of lists based on data from two corpora of spoken Italian: the LIP corpus (De Mauro et al. 1993) and the KIParla corpus (Mauri et al. 2019a). In particular, we discuss a case study on the use of the Italian discourse marker insomma within list constructions: while it serves as a reformulation marker in most of its uses, insomma also proves to be used (more marginally) as a category introducer within category-building lists. Our findings provide useful insight to ultimately bridge the gap between denotation lists as a reference-oriented phenomenon and other types of mechanisms that are relevant at the discourse level, including conversational repair.
Keywords: list, categorization, construction grammar, interactional linguistics, spoken Italian, reformulation, discourse marker
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1What is a list?
    • 1.2Lists and categorization
  • 2.Lists between grammar and discourse
    • 2.1Lists as constructions
    • 2.2Lists in interaction
      • 2.2.1Lists and spoken syntax
      • 2.2.2The temporal organization of lists
        • 2.2.2.1Pre-detailing
        • 2.2.2.2Post-detailing
      • 2.2.3Dialogicity in list production
    • 2.3Interim summary: Bridging the gap between grammar and interaction
  • 3.Between categorization and reformulation: The case of insomma
    • 3.1Discourse markers and lists
    • 3.2Insomma and lists: Data
    • 3.3Theoretical discussion
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.220.04gor
References (77)
References
Ariel, Mira & Mauri, Caterina. 2018. Why use “or”? Linguistics 56(5): 939–993. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2000. On-line syntax—Oder: Was es bedeuten könnte die Zeitlichkeit der mündlischen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur 85(31): 43–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes 46(2–3): 180–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In Deppermann & Günthner (eds), 27–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan. 2007. Multiple retractions in spoken French and spoken German. A contrastive study in oral performance styles. Cahiers de Praxématique 48: 57–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barotto, Allessandra. 2018. The role of exemplification in the construction of categories: The case of Japanese. Folia Linguistica 52: 37–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barotto, Allessandra & Mauri, Caterina. 2018. Constructing lists to construct categories. Rivista di Linguistica 30: 95–134.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory & Cognition 11(3): 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Couper-Kuhlen, Elisabeth. 2011. Action, prosody and emergent constructions: The case of “and.” In Auer & Pfänder (eds), 263–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, Carla. 1995. I segnali discorsivi. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Vol. III: Tipi di frase, deissi, formazione delle parole, Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi, & Anna Cardinaletti (eds), 225–257. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 1990. Un modèle d’analyse syntaxique “en grilles” pour les productions orales. Anuario de Psicología 47: 11–28.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 46–49. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bonvino, Elisabetta, Cortés Velásquez, Diego & Fiorenza, Elisa. 2010. “Sopratavola soprammobile come dite voi”: Lists in L1 and L2. Italian Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 201–230.Google Scholar
Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Conte, Maria-Elisabeth. 1996. “Anaphoric encapsulation”. In Coherence and anaphora (= Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 10) Walter De Mulder & Liliane Tasmowski (eds.), 1–10.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective (Reprinted). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio, Mancini, Federico, Vedovelli, Massimo & Voghera, Miriam. 1993. Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato. Milano: Etaslibri.Google Scholar
De Mauro, Tullio. n.d. ‘Insomma’. In Il nuovo De Mauro. <[URL]> (24 March 2021).
Deppermann, Arnulf & Günthner, Susanne (eds). 2015. Temporality in Interaction [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, Eva Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds), 296–322. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2017. Usage-based linguistics. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Mark Aronoff (ed.). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, Jack. 2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3): 359–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles, Thompson, Sandra A., Englebretson, Robert & Martey, Nii. 2000–2005. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 1991. Categories are for talking. On the cognitive and discursive bases of categorization. Theory and Psychology 1(4): 515–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Discourse and Cognition. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul & O’ Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3): 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita. 2019. Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 11(2): 171–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2010. Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames 2(2): 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiorentini, Ilaria. 2018a. Eccetera eccetera e così via di seguito. I general extenders dell’italiano contemporaneo. In Club Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 2, Francesca Masini & Fabio Tamburini (eds), 20–39. Bologna: Circolo Linguistico dell’Università di Bologna (CLUB).Google Scholar
. 2018b. ‘E le rimanenti cose’. “Eccetera” tra reticenza e inferenza. In Spazi bianchi. Le espressioni letterarie, linguistiche e visive dell’assenza, Alfonsina Buoniconto, Gerardo Salvati & Raffaele Cesaro (eds), 249–260. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E. & Schrock, Josef C. 2002. Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics 34(6): 727–747. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2010. Grammar and interaction. New directions in constructional research. Constructions and Frames 2(2): 125–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara & Andorno, Cecilia. 2014. Vagueness markers as politeness strategies in an Italian radio phone-in show. Beiträge Zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung 20: 15–40.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Goria, Eugenio. 2020. The discursive construction of categories. Categorisation as a dynamic and co-operative process. Language Sciences 81: 101233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goria, Eugenio, & Mauri, Caterina. 2018. Il corpus KIParla: Una nuova risorsa per lo studio dell’italiano parlato. In Club Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 2, Francesca Masini & Fabio Tamburini (eds), 96–116. Bologna: Circolo Linguistico dell’Università di Bologna (CLUB).Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II: Complex Constructions, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 1–51. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2019. Construction Grammar and its Application to English, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. In Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13: General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition, Jon Aske, Natasha Berry, Laura A. Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds), 139–157. Berkeley CA: BLS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2015. Interactional Construction Grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 1: 69–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1990. List-construction as a task and resource. In Interactional Competence, George Psathas (ed.), 63–92. New York NY: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 125], Gene H. Lerner (ed.), 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahane, Sylvain & Pietrandrea, Paola. 2012. Types d’entassement en français. Actes du 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. SHS Web of Conferences 1: 1809–1828.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Baisa, Vit, Bušta, Jan, Jakubíček, Miloš, Kovář, Vojtĕch, Michelfeit, Jan, Rychlý, Pavel & Suchomel, Vit. 2014. The Sketch Engine. Ten years on. Lexicography 1(1): 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1991. On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lo Baido, Maria Cristina. 2018. Mitigation via exemplification in present-day Italian: A corpus-based study. ELUA. Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante, (ELUA-2018, Anexo 4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masaryk University, NLP Centre. 2011. enTenTen, LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, <[URL]> (24 March 2021).
Masini, Francesca. 2006. Binomial constructions: Inheritance, specification and subregularities. Lingue e Linguaggio 5(2): 207–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, Francesca & Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco. 2018. Listing between lexicon and syntax: Focus on frame-naming lists. Rivista di Linguistica 30: 135–172.Google Scholar
Masini, Francesca, Mauri, Caterina & Pietrandrea, Paola. 2018. List constructions: Towards a unified account. Italian Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 49–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, Francesca & Pietrandrea, Paola. 2010. Magari. Cognitive Linguistics 21(1): 75–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, Caterina. 2008. Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Building and interpreting ad hoc categories: A linguistic analysis. In Formal Models in the Study of Language, Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stehanie Durrleman-Tame & Christophe Laenzlinger (eds), 297–326. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, Caterina, Ballarè, Silvia, Goria, Eugenio, Cerruti, Massimo & Suriano, Francesco. 2019a. KIParla Corpus: A New Resource for Spoken Italian. In Proceedings of the Sixth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics. Bari, Italy, November 13–15, 2019, Raffaela Bernardi, Roberto Navigli & Giovanni Semeraro (eds). <[URL]> (24 March 2021).
Mauri, Caterina, Goria, Eugenio & Fiorentini, Ilaria. 2019b. Non-exhaustive lists in spoken language. Constructions and Frames 11(2): 290–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt. 1998b. The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104(3–4): 235–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1999. Coherence through understanding through discourse patterns: Focus on news reports. In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 63], Wolf Bublitz, Uta Lenk & Eija Ventola (eds), 77–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In Östman & Fried (eds), 121–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola & Fried, Mirjam (eds). 2005. Construction Grammars. Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions [Constructional Approaches to Language 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 1999. Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pekarek-Doehler, Simona. 2011. Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formatting of left- and right dislocations in French conversation. In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds), 45–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, Martin. 2017. The syntax of self-repair in German: An explanatory model. Journal of Pragmatics 119: 63–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 2007. Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics 39(3): 483–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds). 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, 12: Discourse and Syntax, Talmy Givón (ed.), 261–286. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Voghera, Miriam. 2013. Tipi di “tipo” nel parlato e nello scritto. In Di linguistica e di sociolinguistica. Studi offerti a Norbert Dittmar, Immacolato Tempesta & Massimo Vedovelli (eds), 185–195. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Voghera, Miriam, Iacobini, Claudio, Savy, Renata, Cutugno, Francesco, De Rosa, Aurelio & Alfano, Iolanda. 2014. VoLIP: A searchable Italian spoken corpus. In Complex Visibles Out There, Ludmila Veselovská & Markéta Janebová (eds), 628–640. Olomouc: Palacký University.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2006. The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 61–76. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Carston, Robyn. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Pragmatics, Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), 230–259. Houndmills: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Barotto, Alessandra & Caterina Mauri
2022. Non-exhaustive connectives. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 75:2 ► pp. 317 ff. DOI logo
Masini, Francesca & Simone Mattiola
2022. Wild words. In Extravagant Morphology [Studies in Language Companion Series, 223], ► pp. 234 ff. 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.