Abstract
In the process of compiling a new corpus of contemporary spoken British English, theLondon–Lund Corpus 2, we hit upon a construction used in the conversations recorded that had not previously been dealt with in the literature, namely the reactivewhat-xconstruction. Prompted by this discovery, we carried out a detailed analysis of its properties and constraints within the broad framework of Cognitive Linguistics, namely Construction Grammar, and found that the reactivewhat-xconstruction features the interrogativewhatdirectly followed by a phrasal or clausal complementx. Moreover,whatforms one tone unit with the complement and never carries a nuclear pitch accent. The core meaning is to signal an immediate reaction to something said by another speaker in the preceding turn, and the dialogic functions include questions proper as well as expressions of disagreement. The two contributions of this study are: (i) to provide a definition of the reactivewhat-xconstruction and (ii) to propose a crucial theoretical extension of Construction Grammar involving a broadening of the concept of construction to cover not only the lexical–semantic pairing but also prosodic properties and the role of the construction in the interactive dialogic space in speech.
Highlights
Everyday conversation is the most basic use of language in all societies and cultures in the world (Chafe 1994; Clark 1996; Tomasello 1999, 2003; Du Bois & Giora 2014)
Following Linell (2009a), we argue that it is the internal grammatical structure, the what-x element, which links the form of the construction to its meaning, but it is the combination of the what-x element and the sequential dialogic context in which it occurs that makes it a reactive what-x construction
We have carried out an investigation of the construction in a sample from LLC-2 in order to determine its frequency and distribution in the data and to describe the form–meaning and interactive functional properties that characterise and constrain its use in spoken dialogue
Summary
Everyday conversation is the most basic use of language in all societies and cultures in the world (Chafe 1994; Clark 1996; Tomasello 1999, 2003; Du Bois & Giora 2014). The only exception is a mention in passing in Stenström (1984), who gives an example of the reactive what-x construction – she does not refer to it as such – and treats it as a request for clarification (see section 2.1 below) She does not, define the construction on the basis of its distinct form–meaning and interactive functional characteristics in spoken dialogue. Define the construction on the basis of its distinct form–meaning and interactive functional characteristics in spoken dialogue This is exactly what this study sets out to do. Besides identifying and defining the reactive what-x construction, this study makes an important theoretical contribution to Construction Grammar by taking it to the level of interaction in spoken dialogue.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
