Towards a dialogic construction grammar: Ad hoc routines and resonance activation

Abstract

In this paper, we take a Construction Grammar approach to Du Bois' concept of resonance activation. We suggest that the structural mapping relations between juxtaposed utterances in discourse, described in terms of diagraphs in dialogic syntax, can acquire the status of ad hoc constructions or locally entrenched form-meaning pairings within the boundaries of an ongoing conversation. We argue that the local emergence of these ad hoc constructions involves the same cognitive mechanism described for the abstraction of conventional grammatical constructions from usage patterns. Accordingly, we propose to broaden the scope of Construction Grammar to include not only symbolic units that are conventionalized in a larger speech community, but also a dimension of online syntax, i.e. the emergence of grammatical patterns at the micro-level of a single conversation. Drawing on dialogic data from political talk shows and parliamentary debates, we illustrate the spectrum of these ad hoc constructional routines and show their local productivity, which we take as an indication of their (micro-)entrenchment within a given conversation.

Fictive interaction and the nature of linguistic meaning

“…As I noted at the very outset, the conversation frame is a frame of (Brône and Zima 2014), and, of course, Pascual's (2002Pascual's ( , 2006Pascual's ( , 2014 work on fictive interaction and the research program it has generated (as represented in this volume). To this, one should add studies focusing on the central role of intersubjectivity in human cognition, such as Zlatev et al (2008).…”

Language evolution and the emergence of constructions in interaction

“…

This talk explores the evolution of language from the perspective of dialogic construction grammar, dialogic syntax, emergent grammar and interactional usage-based approaches (Goldberg 2006;Du Bois 2014;Hopper 2015, Brône & Zima 2014Pleyer 2017). These approaches all focus on "the emergence of grammatical patterning in on-line production, dialogically, and as a cooperative achievement" (Fried & Östman 2005(Fried & Östman : 1756.

…”

“…These approaches all focus on "the emergence of grammatical patterning in on-line production, dialogically, and as a cooperative achievement" (Fried & Östman 2005(Fried & Östman : 1756. This talk argues that investigations of the evolutionary emergence of grammatical structure and constructions need to pay attention to this focus on the online, in-vivo interactional emergence of constructions and their subsequent conventionalization.As I argue, this process of interactive constructionalization also presents a way how the first protoconstructions could have emerged in protolinguistic hominin communities.In interaction, cognitive processes such as priming, conceptual pacts, intersubjective alignment, local schematization and routinization, microentrenchment and resonance activation can lead to the emergence of a temporary local network of constructions (Brône & Zima 2014). In the case of frequently recurring routines and practices, ad hoc constructions that are frequently microentrenched also acquire increasing degrees of entrenchment and conventionalization.…”

“…In interaction, cognitive processes such as priming, conceptual pacts, intersubjective alignment, local schematization and routinization, microentrenchment and resonance activation can lead to the emergence of a temporary local network of constructions (Brône & Zima 2014). In the case of frequently recurring routines and practices, ad hoc constructions that are frequently microentrenched also acquire increasing degrees of entrenchment and conventionalization.…”

Cognitive Linguistics and interactional discourse: time to enter into dialogue

“…Rather, they line up with recent developments within CL and neighboring research areas that have adopted a dialogic view on cognition and language use as well as the emergence and the nature of grammatical systems. There is a growing consensus that the prototypically interactive nature of language use as a negotiation process between two or more participants needs to be treated as an inherent part of cognitive models of language (Brône & Oben, 2013 ;Brône & Zima, 2014 ;Chafe, 1994 ;Clark, 1996 ;Deppermann, 2002Deppermann, , 2007Deppermann, , 2012Du Bois, 2007 ;Langacker, 2001Langacker, , 2008Langacker, , 2013Levinson, 2006 ;Pickering & Garrod, 2004 ;Verhagen, 2005 ;Zima, 2013 ).…”