Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:41:43.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a Construction-Based Theory of Language Function: The Case of Nominal Extraposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Laura A. Michaelis  and
Knud Lambrecht
Laura A. Michaelis*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder
Knud Lambrecht*
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
*
Laura A. Michaelis, Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 295, Boulder, CO 80309-0295 [michaeli@ spot.colorado.edu]
Knud Lambrecht, Department of French and Italian, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78714 [lambrec@uts.cc.utexas.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Through a detailed examination of a particular sentence type, we outline a formal model in which grammatical description includes the description of use conditions on form-meaning pairs. The sentence type at issue is an exclamative construction we refer to as Nominal Extraposition (NE). This construction, exemplified by the sentence It's AMAZING the DIFFERENCE, bears a superficial resemblance to Right Dislocation (RD). However, NE must be distinguished from RD on syntactic, semantic and discourse-pragmatic grounds. The postpredicate NP represents a TOPIC in the case of RD, a FOCUS in the case of NE; this NP receives a metonymic scalar interpretation in the case of NE, but not in RD. We employ the framework of Construction Grammar and seek to demonstrate that it is uniquely suited to grammatical description of the type required here: NE represents a gestaltlike interaction of formal, semantic and pragmatic constraints. We argue for a compatible formalism akin to that found in recent versions of Lexical-Functional Grammar in which argument structure and syntactic constituency parallel a level of representation incorporating categories of INFORMATION STRUCTURE. In addition, we seek to validate the notion—central to Construction Grammar—that sentence types are a crucial basis for syntactic description. In particular, we argue that NE is an instance of the exclamative sentence type and that basic formal and semantic properties of NE follow from this categorization. We suggest that the relationship between NE and like exclamatives can be represented in an INHERITANCE NETWORK.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 215 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Birner, Betty J. 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70. 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative inversion and the architecture of Universal Grammar. Language 70. 72–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam. 1987. Topics, pronouns and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63. 741–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. by Tomlin, R., 21–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. The minimalist program 167–218. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Toward a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. Speech, place and action, ed. by Jarvella, J. and Klein, W., 31–59. London: J. Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles and Kay, Paul. 1993. Construction Grammar. Unpublished ms, Berkeley, CA: University of California, ms.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles and Kay, Paul. 1994. The What's x doing y construction. Berkeley, CA: University of California, ms.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, M. C. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel, Pollard, Carl; and Wasow, Thomas. 1985. Structure sharing in lexical representation. Paper presented at the Twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive. Cognitive Linguistics 3. 37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jacob, and Napoli, Donna Jo. 1993. Paratactic and subordinative so. Journal of Linguistics 29. 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1933. (1964). Essentials of English grammar. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1992. An on-line model of human sentence interpretation. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1993. Linking constructions vs. linking rules: Evidence from French. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast, neutralization and overlap. On Conditionals, ed. by Traugott, E. et al., 229–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1981. Topic, antitopic and verb agreement in nonstandard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1990. What, me, worry?: Mad magazine sentences revisited. Berkeley Linguistics Society 16.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, Geraldine, Raymond, William; and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. An optimality-theoretic typology of case and grammatical voice systems. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 1994a. A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language 18. 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 1994b. Expectation contravention and use ambiguity: The Vietnamese connective cung. Journal of Pragmatics 21. 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura, and Lambrecht, Knud. 1994a. The exclamative sentence type in English. Paper presented at the First Annual Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, UC San Diego.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura, and Lambrecht, Knud. 1994b. On nominal extraposition: A constructional analysis. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 363–73.Google Scholar
Milner, Jean-Claude. 1978. De la syntaxe à l'interprétation. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan; and Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Prince, Alan. 1991. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey, and Zwicky, Arnold. 1991. Condition duplication, paradigm homonymy and transconstructional constraints. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold, and Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1, ed. by Shopen, T., 155–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan, and Aksu, Ayhan. 1982. Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. Tense aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, ed. by Hopper, P. J., 185–200. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. Topics in Cognitive Grammar, ed. by Rudzka-Östyn, B., 165–205. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell. 1995. Focal attention, voice and word order: An experimental, crosslinguistic study. Word order in discourse, ed. by Downing, P. and Noonan, M., 517–54. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oosten, Jeanne. 1984. The nature of subjects, topics and agents: A cognitive explanation. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1994. Dealing out meaning: Fundamentals of syntactic constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 611–25.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1995. Exceptional degree markers: A puzzle in internal and external syntax. Columbus, OH and Stanford, CA: Ohio State University and Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar