Construction

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Construction
Author(s):	Sandra A. Thompson (University of California, Santa Barbara, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7794-2042) & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (University of Helsinki, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2030-6018)
To cite:	Thompson, Sandra A. & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. (2023). Construction. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/5F2P7

Pre-theoretically the term construction is widely used to refer to a language-specific phrasal or clausal pattern (e.g., the ‘passive’ construction, the ‘copula’ construction, the ‘participial’ construction, etc.). But in recent years the term construction has come to be used theoretically in Construction Grammar (e.g., Croft 2001) as a way to refer to conventionalized “pairings of [linguistic] form with semantic or discourse function, including morphemes or words, idioms, partially lexically filled and fully general phrasal patterns” (Goldberg 2006: 5).

Early work on constructions was deeply influenced by Fillmore and colleagues, for whom constructions were non-compositional, their meaning not transparently derivable from the meanings of the parts; the notion thus primarily connoted lexicalized formulas and fixed expressions (Fillmore 1989, 1996; Fillmore, et al. 1988; Kay & Fillmore 1996).

This understanding of construction intentionally obscures the traditional distinction made in linguistic theory between lexicon and syntax. Thus, the expression let alone as in I barely got up in time to eat lunch, let alone cook breakfast (Fillmore, et al. 1988: 512) is at once a lexical idiom and a coordinating conjunction linking two grammatically equivalent constituents. Constructions such as this are “typically partially schematic, [...] with some fixed parts and some slots that can be filled with a category of semantically-defined items” (Bybee 2010: 36). They are argued to be learned and stored in the mind as units which become entrenched as ‘cognitive routines’ (Langacker 2013: 220) when they recur sufficiently frequently (Bybee 2006, 2007, 2010) Language is conceptualized as a vast network of such emergent patterns (Auer & Pfänder 2011: 9).

Constructions are sometimes invoked in CA/IL research, although without the theoretical and mechanistic framework underlying the Construction Grammar studies noted above. Consider, for instance, the use of periphrastic do in English to expand the verb in affirmative declarative utterances, which Raymond (2017) calls the ‘do-construction’. Raymond argues that this construction is used for indexing a contrast, as in the following excerpt where Shirley is accounting hypothetically for why her friend Karen is justified in being afraid to swim in the ocean:

[CallHome_6348] (Raymond 2017: 27)

10  Shi:   =An’ what if a shark came up,
11         whe-ye-m-n::, Yer in the waves. .hhh
12         (0.2)
13  Kar:   Yea[:h.
14  Shi:      [I know it sounds ridiculous,
15  Shi:   But it does happen her:e.
16         (.)
17  Kar:   O(h)h:[:. <Really:?>
18  Shi:         [( )
19  Shi:   ↑Oh ↑yea:h.

In studying talk in interaction, the CA/IL term format is often found to be more useful than construction because ‘format’ (i) does not carry the structural theoretical implications of ‘construction’, and (ii) is an (inter)action-related term, which ‘construction’ is not. Examples of actions whose routine implementation has been shown to involve specific linguistic formats include, e.g., retracting an overstatement (Couper-Kuhlen & Thompson 2005), offering assistance (Curl 2006), requesting a future action (Curl & Drew 2008), making a suggestion or giving advice (Thompson & Couper-Kuhlen 2020). When a particular format is routinely used to implement a specific social action such as making an assessment, an offer, or a request, it may be referred to as a social action format (Fox 2007; Fox & Heinemann 2014).

Additional Related Entries:

• Clause
• Phrase
• Social action
• Social action format

Cited References:

Auer, P. & Pfänder, S. (2011). Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. De Gruyter.

Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 529-551.

Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford University Press.

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. & S. A. Thompson (2005). A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: ‘Concessive repair’. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp. 257-288). John Benjamins.

Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press.

Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257-1280.

Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129-153.

Fillmore, C. J. (1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In R. Dietrich & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language Processing in Social Context (pp. 17-38). North Holland Linguistic Series.

Fillmore, C. J. (1996). The pragmatics of constructions. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O'Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of LET ALONE. Language, 64(3), 501-538.

Fox, B. A. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299-318.

Fox, B. & Heinemann, T. (2016). Rethinking format: An examination of requests. Language in Society, 45(4), 499-531.

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.

Kay, P. & C. J. Fillmore (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doingY? construction. Language, 75(1), 1-33.

Langacker, R. W. (2013). Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford University Press.

Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156.

Raymond, C. W. (2017). Indexing a contrast: The ‘do’-construction in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 118, 22-37.

Thompson, S. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2020). English ‘why don’t you X’ as a formulaic expression. In R. Laury & T. Ono. (Eds.), Fixed Expressions: Building Language Structure and Social Action (pp. 99-131). John Benjamins.

Additional References:

Bücker, J., Günthner, S., & Imo, W. (2015). Konstruktionsgrammatik V. Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von sequenziellen Mustern, kommunikativen Gattungen und Textsorten. Tübingen, Stauffenburg.

Günthner, S. (2011). Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In P. Auer & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (pp. 156-185). De Gruyter.

Günthner, S. & Imo, W. (2006). Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. De Gruyter.

Günthner, S. & Bücker, J. (2009). Grammatik im Gespräch. Konstruktionen der Selbst- und Fremdpositionierung. De Gruyter.

Imo, W. (2011). Clines of subordination - constructions with the German 'complement-taking predicate' glauben. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in Conversation (pp. 165-190). John Benjamins.

Imo, W. & Lanwer, J. P. (2020). Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. De Gruyter.