Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective
Edited by Alessandra Barotto and Simone Mattiola
[Studies in Language Companion Series 227] 2023
► pp. 35–63

Chapter 3
Towards pragmatic construction typology

The case of discourse formulae

| HSE University | University of Ljubljana
| HSE University | Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Science

This paper introduces discourse formulae, i.e. frequently used formulaic replies like No way! or You bet!, as an object for linguistic typology. It demonstrates that the frame methodology (Rakhilina & Reznikova 2016) could be applied to these multi-word pragmatic units. The method implies deducing typical situations of use (frames) for a group of synonymous units, and comparing the distributions of these units across frames in different languages. The pilot data includes discourse formulae of negation in Russian, Polish, Slovenian, and Serbian. Six major frames are established. The distributions are obtained with surveys, with Correspondence Analysis applied to the data. The pragmatic parameters influencing the distributions concern the illocutionary type of the preceding utterance, and the speaker’s role in the dialogue.

Keywords: discourse formulae, negative replies, lexical typology, frame-based approach, construction grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse formulae from the perspective of Construction Grammar
  • 3.On discourse formulae
  • 4.Pragmatic frame
  • 5.Case study: Discourse formulae of negation
    • 5.1Primary data
    • 5.2Frames of negation: Relevant parameters
    • 5.3Design
    • 5.4Results
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Polar question and hypothesis
    • 6.2Hypothesis and opinion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.227.03byc
References
Aijmer, Karin
2014 Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ameka, Felix
1987 A comparative analysis of linguistic routines in two languages: English and ewe. Journal of Pragmatics 11(3): 299–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Apresjan, Jurij D.
2005 O Moskovskoj semantičeskoj škole. Voprosy Jazykoznanija (1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Austin, John L.
1975 How to do Things with Words, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ziem, Alexander
2018 Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Lyngfelt, Borin, Ohara & Torrent (eds), 183–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter
2012 A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Byčkova, Polina
2020a The pragmaticalization sources of discourse formulae of negation from typological perspective: Russian and Slovene. Philological Studies 18(2): 187–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020b Discourse formulae of confirmation in typological perspective. Jezikoslovni zapiski, 26(2): 111–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capone, Alessandro
2005 Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics 37(9): 1355–1371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Pragmemes (again). Lingua 209: 89–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian
1981 Introduction: Conversational routine. In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech [Rasmus Rask Studies in Pragmatic Linguistics 2], Florian Coulmas (ed), 1–17. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
1994 Speech act classification, language typology and cognition. In Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed), 460–477. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola
(eds) 2013 Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2006 Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed), 403–426. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2011 Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49(2): 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckhoff, Hanne, Janda, Laura A. & Nesset, Tore
2014 Old Church Slavonic “Byti” part two: Constructional profiling analysis. The Slavic and East European Journal 58(3): 498–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara & Sansò, Andrea
(eds) 2017 Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives [Studies in Language Companion Series 186]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1979 On fluency. In Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, Charles J. Fillmore, Daniel Kempler & William S. Wong (eds), 85–101. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Frame semantics. In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, Dirk Geeraerts (ed), 373–400. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Atkins, Beryl T.
2000 Describing polysemy: The case of “Crawl”. In Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches, Yael Ravin & Claudia Leacock (eds), 91–110. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul & O’connor, Mary
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3): 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne & Yaguello, Marina
2004 Discourse markers across languages? Evidence from English and French. In Discourse across Languages and Cultures [Studies in Language Companion Series 68], Carol Lynn Moder & Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds), 129–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
François, Alexandre
2008 Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In From Polysemy to Semantic Change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations [Studies in Language Companion Series 106], Martine Vanhove (ed), 163–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerasimenko, Ekaterina, Puzhaeva, Svetlana, Zakharova, Elena & Rakhilina, Ekaterina
2019 Defining discourse formulae: computational approach. In Proceedings of Third Workshop “Computational Linguistics and Language Science”, Gerhard Wohlgenannt, Ruprecht von Waldenfels, Svetlana Toldova, Ekaterina Rakhilina, Denis Paperno, Olga Lyashevskaya, Natalia Loukachevitch et al. (eds), 61–69. Manchester: EasyChair.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2013 Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander
2013 Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2): 375–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2011 The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Trousdale, Graeme
2013 The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Endersen, Anna, Zhukova, Valentina, Mordashova, Daria & Rakhilina, Ekaterina
2021 How to build a constructicon in five years: The Russian example. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34: 161–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Lyashevskaya, Olga, Nesset, Tore, Rakhilina, Ekaterina & Tyers, Francis M.
2018 A constructicon for Russian. In Lyngfelt, Borin, Ohara & Torrent (eds), 165–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Endresen, Anna, Zhukova, Valentina, Mordashova, Daria & Rakhilina, Ekaterina
In print. From data to theory: An emergent semantic classification based on the large-scale Russian constructicon. Constructions and Frames.
Kecskes, Istvan
2010 Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics 42(11): 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail
2008 Locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(6): 1189–1202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Speech act classifications. In Pragmatics of Speech Actions, Marina Sbisà, & Ken Turner (eds), 173–202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, Rakhilina, Ekaterina & Vanhove, Martine
2016 The semantics of lexical typology. In Routledge Handbook of Semantics, Nick Riemer (ed), 434–454. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lander, Yurij, Maisak, Timur & Rakhilina, Ekaterina
2013 Verbs of aquamotion: Semantic domains and lexical systems. In Motion Encoding in Language and Space, Mila Vulchanova & Emile van der Zee (eds), 67–83. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Borin, Lars, Ohara, Kyoko & Torrent, Tiago Timponi
(eds) 2018 Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Torrent, Tiago Timpani, Laviola, Adrieli, Bäckström, Linnéa, Hannesdóttir, Anna Helga & da Silva Matos, Ely Edison
2018 Aligning constructicons across languages: A trilingual comparison between English, Swedish, and Brazilian Portuguese. In Lyngfelt, Borin, Ohara & Torrent (eds), 255–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, Asifa, Boster, James S. & Bowerman, Melissa
2008 The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 109(2): 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti
2005 Standard Negation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2015 Discourse and grammar. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 9–41. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ohara, Kyoko H.
2013 Toward Constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas-Revista de Estudos Linguísticos 17(1): 11–27.Google Scholar
Panov, Vladimir
2020 The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: Presenting the enimitive. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52(1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent & Patten, Amanda L.
2019 Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 354–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A.
2001 The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of pragmatics 33(3): 349–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, Ekaterina, Bychkova, Polina & Koziuk, Evgenia
forthcoming. At the borders of Constructicon: Discourse formulae. In Constructing Constructicons [Human Cognitive Processing 48], Alexander Ziem, Alexander Willich & Sascha Michel eds Amsterdam John Benjamins
Rakhilina, Ekaterina & Reznikova, Tatiana
2016 A frame-based methodology for lexical typology. In The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts, Päivi Juvonen & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), 95–129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, Ekaterina V., Bychkova, Polina A. & Zhukova, Svetlana Yu
2021 Speech acts as a linguistic category: The case of discourse formulae. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 2: 7–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. & Zwicky, Arnold M.
1985 Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy Shopen (ed), 155–196. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1975 A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Language, Mind and Knowledge, Keith Gunderson (ed), 344–369. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sköldberg, Emma, Bäckström, Linnea, Borin, Lars, Forsberg, Markus, Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Olsson, Leif-Jöran, Prentice, Julia, Rydstedt, Rudolf, Tingsell, Sofia & Uppström, Jonatan
2013 Between grammars and dictionaries: A Swedish Constructicon. In Electronic Lexicography in the 21st Century: Thinking Outside the Paper. Proceedings of the eLex 2013 Conference, 17–19 October 2013, Tallinn, Estonia, Iztok Kosem, Jelena Kallas, Polona Gantar, Simon Krek, Margit Langemets & Maria Tuulik (eds), 310–327. Ljubljana/Tallinn: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies/Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
2001 Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2000 Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timpani, Lage, Ludmila M., Sampaio, Thais F., da Silva Tavares, Tatiane & da Silva Matos, Ely E.
2014 Revisiting border conflicts between framenet and construction grammar: Annotation policies for the brazilian portuguese constructicon. Constructions and Frames 6(1): 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba
2014 The negative existential cycle revisited. Linguistics 52(6): 1327–1389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Cysouw, Michael
2012 Lexical typology through similarity semantics: Toward a semantic map of motion verbs. Linguistics 50(3): 671–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar