Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition

  • KERSTIN FISCHER (a1)
Abstract

Recent developments in grammatical theory seem to invite an integration of grammar and interaction; nevertheless, there are reservations on both sides. While some of these reservations can be traced to misconceptions, others are deeply rooted in the theoretical premises of each approach. The differences are, however, not very well understood; especially theoretical premises regarding the role of cognition in language use have been hindering a fruitful collaboration. Reinterpreting the results of Conversation Analysis (CA; cf. Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Sacks, 1992) in terms of Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 1995, 2006; Croft, 2001, Langacker, 2008) recasts the discursive practices identified in CA in terms of participants’ cognitive construals of the communicative situation, making the speaking subjects apparent in their strategies and conceptualizations of the interaction.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Conversation, Construction Grammar, and cognition
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, 6400 Sonderborg, Denmark. e-mail: kerstin@sdu.dk
References
Hide All
Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. Linguistic Review, 23, 275290.
Allwood, J., Nivre, J., & Ahlsén, E. (1992). On the semantics and pragmatics of linguistic feedback. Journal of Semantics, 9, 126.
Auer, P. (2002). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 33.
Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25, 736.
Auer, P. (2009). On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences, 31, 113.
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (Eds.) (2011). Constructions: emerging and emergent. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2006). fuzzy boundaries – Überlegungen zu einer Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache nach konversationsanalytischen Kriterien. In Deppermann, A., Fiehler, R., & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (Eds), Grammatik und Interaktion (pp. 6794). Mannheim/Radolfszell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Bilmes, J. (2009). Taxonomies are for talking: reanalyzing a Sacks classic. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 16001610.
Birkner, K. (2008). Was X betrifft: Textsortenspezifische Aspekte einer Redewendung. In Stefanowitsch, A., & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 81101). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Bresnan, J. (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, S. & Sternefeld, W. (Eds.), Roots: linguistics in search of its evidential base (Studies in Generative Grammar) (pp. 7796). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bresnan, J., & Hay, J. (2007). Gradient grammar: an effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua, 118(2), 245259.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. R. (2007). Frequency of use and the organisation of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clark, Herbert H., & Fox Tree, Jean E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73111.
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cruse, D. A., & Croft, W. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dąbrowska, E. (2010). The mean lean grammar machine meets the human mind: empirical investigations of the mental status of linguistic rules. In Schmid, H.-J. & Handl, S. (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of linguistic usage patterns: empirical approaches (pp. 151170). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Deppermann, A. (2006). Construction Grammar – Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion? In Deppermann, A., Fiehler, R., & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (Eds.),Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen (pp. 4366). Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Deppermann, A. (2007). Grammatik und Semantik aus gesprächsanalytischer Sicht. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter.
Deppermann, A. (2008). Lexikalische Bedeutung oder Konstruktionsbedeutungen? Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel von Konstruktionen mit verstehen. In Stefanowitsch, A. & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 103133). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (2005). Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions. In te Molder, H. & Potter, J. (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 241259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, 280, 2032.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Towards a frame-based lexicon: the case of RISK. In Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E. F. (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. 75102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
Fillmore, C. J., & Kay, P. (1995). Construction Grammar: course materials. Available from Copy Central, Bancroft Avenue, Berkeley.
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501538.
Fischer, K. (2000). From cognitive semantics to lexical pragmatics: the functional polysemy of discourse particles. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fischer, K. (2006a). Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: the functional polysemy of discourse particles. In Fischer, K. (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 427448). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fischer, K. (2006b). Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktion. In Fischer, K. & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik: Von der Anwendung zur Theorie (pp. 133150). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Fischer, K. (2007). Grounding and common ground: modal particles and their translation equivalents. In Fetzer, A. & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Lexical markers of common grounds (Studies in Pragmatics 3) (pp. 4766). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fischer, K. (2010). Beyond the sentence: constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 185207.
Fischer, K. (2011). Interpersonal variation in understanding robots as social actors. In Proceedings of HRI'11, March 6-9th, 2011 (pp. 5360), Lausanne, ACM Digital Library.
Fischer, K. (forthcoming). Designing speech for a recipient: the roles of partner modeling, alignment and feedback in so-called ‘Simplified Registers’. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ford, C. (2004). Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies, 6(1), 2752.
Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Practices in the construction of turns: the ‘TCU’ revisited. Pragmatics, 6(3), 427454.
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken interaction: the case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 17521778.
Fuhs, S. (2010). The force dynamics of English complement clauses. In Glynn, D. & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: corpus-driven approaches (pp. 137154). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goffman, E. (1978). Response cries. Language, 54, 787815.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93127.
Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 3161.
Günthner, S. (2008). Die ‘die Sache/das Ding ist’-Konstruktion im gesprochenen Deutsch – eine interaktionale Perspektive auf Konstruktionen im Gebrauch. In Stefanowitsch, A. & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 157178). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts. In Antaki, C. (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: a casebook of methods (pp. 127144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 29, 291334.
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: a method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, C., Fox, B., & Thompson, S. (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 196224). New York: Oxford University Press.
Heritage, J. (2005). Cognition in discourse. In te Molder, H. & Potter, J. (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (184202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2008). Conversation Analysis as social theory. In Turner, B. (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 300320). Oxford: Blackwell.
Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: practices and methods. In Silverman, D. (Ed.). Qualitative sociology, 3rd ed. (pp. 208230). London: Sage.
Hopper, P. (2008). Die Bedeutsamkeit der mündlichen Interaktion für die Linguistik: Die Pseudocleft-Konstruktion im Englischen. In Stefanowitsch, A. & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 179188). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag Brigitte Narr.
Hopper, P. (2011). Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Auer, P. & Pfänder, S. (Eds.), Constructions: emerging and emergent (pp. 2244). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. (2008). Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Laury, R. (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: the multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 99123). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis: principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Imo, W. (2007). Der Zwang zur Kategorienbildung: Probleme de Anwendung der Construction Grammar bei der Analyse gesprochener Sprache. Gesprächsforschung, 8, 2245.
Imo, W. (2008). Individuelle Konstrukte oder Vorboten einer neuen Konstruktion? Stellungsvarianten der Modalpartikel halt im Vor- und Nachfeld. In Stefanowitsch, A. & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik (pp. 135156). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Kay, P. (1995). Construction Grammar. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J., Blommaert, J. & Bulcaen, C. (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 171177). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kay, P. (2006). Pragmatic aspects of grammatical constructions. In Horn, L. & Ward, G. (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 675700). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 133.
Kay, P., & Michaelis, L. A. (2012). Constructional meaning and compositionality. In von Heusinger, C. Maienborn K., & Portner, P. (Eds.), Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning (pp. 22712296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: a field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: theoretical prerequisites, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Local, J. (1996). Conversational phonetics: some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 177230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, M., & Bogen, D. (2005). ‘My memory has been shredded’: a non-cognitive investigation of ‘mental’ phenomena. In te Molder, H. & Potter, J. (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 226240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matsumoto, Y. (2010). Interactional frames and grammatical description. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 135157.
McClelland, J. L., & Bybee, J. (2007). Gradience of gradience: a reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Review, 24, 437455.
Michaelis, L. (2004). Type shifting in Construction Grammar: an integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 167.
Michaelis, L., & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based model of language function: the case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72, 215247.
Ono, T., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interaction and syntax in the structure of conversational discourse. In Hovy, E. & Scott, D. (Eds.), Discourse processing: an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 6796). Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag.
Pekarek-Döhler, S. (2011). Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: the on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversations. In Auer, P. & Pfänder, S. (Eds.), Constructions: emerging and emergent (pp. 4587). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Potter, J., & te Molder, H. (2005). Talking cognition: mapping and making the terrain. In te Molder, H. & Potter, J. (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in interaction: sound objects in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Roy, B., Frank, M., & Roy, D. (2009). Exploring word learning in a high-density longitudinal corpus. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Amsterdam.
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, John M. & Heritage, John (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 2127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 697735.
Sag, I. A. (2007). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: an informal synopsis. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 10751095.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: one intersection between grammar and interaction. In Ichs, E., Schegloff, E. A, & Thompson, S. (eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2005). On integrity in inquiry … of the investigated, not the investigator. Discourse Studies, 7(4/5), 455480.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 462482.
Selting, M. (1996). On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the constitution of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics, 6(3), 357388.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics 747753. (pp. 747753). ACM Digital Library.
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2005). Co-varying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 146.
Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (Eds.) (2011). Knowledge and morality in conversation: rights, responsibilities and accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based approach to child language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thompson, S., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The clause as a locus for grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies, 7(4/5), 481505.
te Molder, H., & Potter, J. (Eds.) (2005). Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wide, C. (2009). Interactional Construction Grammar: contextual features of determination in dialectal Swedish. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G. (eds.), Context and constructions (Constructional Approaches to Language 9) (pp. 111142). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Ann Arbor: Karona.
Wilkins, D. P. (1992). Interjections as deixis. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 119158.
Wonnacott, E., Boyd, J., Thomson, J., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Input effects on the acquisition of a novel phrasal construction in five year olds. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 458478.
Zeschel, A. (2010). Exemplars and analogy: semantic extension in constructional networks. In Glynn, D. & Fischer, K. (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: corpus-driven approaches (pp. 201219). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed