Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Construction Grammar
- Part IThe Constructional View of Language
- Part IIMethodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research
- Part IIICase Studies in Constructional Morphosyntax
- Part IVMultimodality and Construction Grammar
- Part VConstructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation
- 17Constructions in Typological and Cross-Linguistic Context
- 18Constructions and Language Contact
- 19Constructions and Lectal Variation
- 20Construction Discourse
- Part VIConstructional Applications
- Index of Terms
- Index of Languages
- Index of Constructions
- References
20 - Construction Discourse
from Part V - Constructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2025
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Construction Grammar
- Part IThe Constructional View of Language
- Part IIMethodological and Empirical Foundations of Constructional Research
- Part IIICase Studies in Constructional Morphosyntax
- Part IVMultimodality and Construction Grammar
- Part VConstructions in Sociocultural and Typological Variation
- 17Constructions in Typological and Cross-Linguistic Context
- 18Constructions and Language Contact
- 19Constructions and Lectal Variation
- 20Construction Discourse
- Part VIConstructional Applications
- Index of Terms
- Index of Languages
- Index of Constructions
- References
Summary
The chapter gives a general overview of the approach to constructional analysis called Construction Discourse, where the term ‘discourse’ is implanted with the same rigor and systematicity as the term ‘grammar’ has in Construction Grammar. In Construction Discourse, constructions are not seen as form–meaning pairings, but as form–meaning–discourse constellations. A set of twelve discourse attributes is postulated and some of them are illustrated in more detail. Together, these twelve discourse attributes (and their respective values) are seen as being able to define aspects of ‘context’ that are necessary for a full description and analysis of the dynamicity of language. The intricacies of Construction Discourse are illustrated with a detailed analysis of the Wellerism construction in the Solv dialect of Swedish.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 519 - 540Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Ädel, A., Nyström Höög, C., & Östman, J.-O. (2023). From risk and responsibility to risk discourse. In Ädel, A. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Risk Discourse and Responsibility. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 2–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. & Pfänder, S., eds. (2017). Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1998). The emergent lexicon. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 34, 421–435.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (2014). Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2020). Form and Meaning in Language, Vol. III: Fillmore on Linguistic Theory and Constructions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.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, 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2004) Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. In Aske, J., Beery, N., Michaelis, L. A., & Filip, H., eds., Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 139–157. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1996). Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leino, J. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Constructions and variability. In Fried, M. & Boas, H. C., eds., Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P. (2001). Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction, and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nikanne, U. (2018). Conceptual Semantics: A Micro-Modular Approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (1981). You Know: A Discourse-Functional Approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2002). Sulvan kansan wellerismit konstruktiona [The Wellerisms of the residents in Solf expressed as a construction]. In Herlin, I., Kalliokoski, J., Kotilainen, L., & Onikki-Rantajääskö, T., eds., Äidinkielen merkitykset [Senses of the Mother Tongue]. Helsinki: SKS, pp. 75–97.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M., eds., Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2006). Ordstäv som en central del av språket. Om att få med “allt” i en grammatisk beskrivning [Wellerisms as part of the core of language. On including ‘everything’ in a grammatical description]. Svenskans beskrivning, 28, 389–401.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2015). From Construction Grammar to Construction Discourse … and back. In Bücker, J., Günthner, S., & Imo, W., eds., Konstruktionsgrammatik V: Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 15–44.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2021). Constructions as discourse-restrained flexible prototypes. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2022). Discourse, pragmatics and responsibility. In Peterson, E., Hiltunen, T., & Kern, J., eds., Discourse-Pragmatic Variation and Change. Theory, Innovation, Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xix–xxv.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (subm.). Construction Discourse as mediator between Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics: Focus on responsibility.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. & Mattfolk, L. (2021). Introducing the name-phrase construction. In Heikkola, L. M., Paulsen, G., Wojciechowicz, K., & Rosenberg, J., eds., Språkets Funktion [The Function of Language]. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, pp. 244–264.Google Scholar
Rosenholm, G. (1965). Solf sockens historia II [The History of the Solf Parish, Part 2], Solf: Solf kommuns förlag.Google Scholar
Segerståhl, S. (2011). Vaggvisor i Kvevlax. Språkliga Strukturer och Konstruktioner [Lullabies in Kvevlax. Linguistic Structures and Constructions]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Solin, A. & Östman, J.-O. (2016). The notion of responsibility in discourse studies. In Östman, J.-O. & Solin, A., eds., Discourse and Responsibility in Professional Settings. Sheffield: Equinox, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Tainio, L. (1999). Postikortti työpaikalle [Postcards to the workplace]. In Laakso, V. & Östman, J.-O., eds., Postikortti Diskurssina [The Postcard as Discourse]. Hämeenlinna: Korttien Talo, pp. 87–122.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (2019). Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation. In Ono, T., Laury, R., & Suzuki, R., eds., Usage-Based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 11–37.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.