Theme sessions

Theme session organizers: Nathalie Bauer, Jens Lanwer, Timo Schürmann

One of the core ideas of Construction Grammar (CxG) is that linguistic structure is abstracted from what Langacker (1987: 376) calls usage events. The abstracted patterns can be of any degree of complexity and specificity. The object of traditional linguistic inquiry are structures that combine minimal complexity with a maximum of specificity or the other way round. However, there is growing empirical evidence that the cognitive architecture of grammar favors the entrenchment of structures in between (Bybee 2010: 33-56; Schmid 2020: 24). Complex but (semi-)specific linguistic units become entrenched in a usage history of redundant patterning of utterances. Simultaneously, it is well known that those chunks or “prefabricated unit[s]” (Bybee 2001: 60) are an important structural resource for handling the temporal pressure coming along with the intricate contingencies and the inherent progressivity of spoken interaction (Auer 2009; Hopper 2011; Deppermann/Günthner 2015; Stivers/Robinson 2006; Bauer/Lanwer in prep.). Therefore, studies, especially from the field of Interactional Linguistics (IL), support the view already coined by Pawley/Sider (1983) that structures of spoken utterances are very likely of a high degree of redundancy in grammatical patterning, which leads to the routinization of very specific grammatical constructions (Bauer/Lanwer in prep.; Bücker 2014; Deppermann 2011a; Günthner 2011; Imo 2007). Furthermore, fragments of spoken utterances seem to consist vastly of recycled material – as Hopper (2011: 23) puts it –, i.e. they show a recurring phonological form. Bybee (2001: 137-166) in particular discusses patterns of phonological reorganization on the one hand as a significant effect of chunking in language and on the other hand as empirical evidence for the entrenchment of complex but specific units. Despite the evidence for prefabricated chunks in spoken interaction, within CxG still little is known about the effects of chunking phenomena on the phonological patterning of the form side of grammatical constructions. One reason might be that phonological form features are largely ignored within CxG, especially with respect to everyday language use. Within IL, one field of inquiry where aspects of chunking sometimes come into focus are discourse functional units, such as discourse or pragmatic markers. But here, too, dedicated descriptions of the phonological form are still rare (but see Bergmann 2014, forthcoming; Pekarek Doehler 2016; Maschler 2017; Zeschel/Brackhane/Knöbl 2019). Additionally, studying only chunks bearing specific discourse functions falls short of providing a complete picture of the cognitive and interactional mechanisms that control chunking processes in spoken interaction in general, especially regarding frequency-driven effects of phonological reorganization. Empirical observations suggest that (a) we find phenomena of chunking and phonological reorganization in all areas of structural patterning and (b) that structural reorganization of phonological form often paves the way for the assignment of new functions to these new forms (Bybee/Schreiber 1999). In our session the forementioned desiderata will be addressed in an empirically informed way, combining approaches from Cognitive Linguistics with IL methodology. The session thus attempts to broaden the scope of Interactional CxG (Deppermann 2006; 2011b; Fischer 2017; Günthner 2009; Imo 2007; 2015; 2018; Lanwer 2020) to the field of (lexical) phonology.

References

Auer, Peter. 2009. Online syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31, 1–13.
Bergmann, Pia. 2014. Hauptsei bin dick und fett: Konstruktionen mit Hauptsache im gesprochenen Deutsch. In Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Peter Gilles, Helmut Spiekermann & Tobias Streck (eds.), Sprache im Gebrauch: Räumlich, zeitlich, interaktional; Festschrift für Peter Auer (OraLingua 9), 211–229. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
Bergmann, Pia. forthcoming. Discourse influences on the prosody and phonetics of ‘auf jeden Fall’ and ‘jedenfalls’ in German spontaneous speech. In: Schlechtweg, Marcel (ed.), Interfaces of phonet-ics. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Bücker, Jörg. 2014. Konstruktionen und Konstruktionscluster. Die Zirkumposition von XP her im gesprochenen Deutsch. In Alexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Grammatik als Inventar von Kon-struktionen? Sprachwissen im Fokus der Konstruktionsgrammatik, 117–135. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and language use (Cambridge studies in linguistics 94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan L. & Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the re-duction of don't in English. Linguistics 37 (4), 575–596.
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2006. Construction Grammar – Eine Grammatik für die Interaktion? In Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Grammatik und Interaktion. Zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen, 43–65. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2011a. Constructions vs. lexical items as sources of complex meanings. A comparative study of constructions with German verstehen. In: Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.): Constructions: emerging and emergent, 88–126. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2011b. Konstruktionsgrammatik und Interaktionale Linguistik. In Alexander Lasch & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze, 205–238. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Deppermann, Arnulf & Susanne Günthner. 2015. Introduction: Temporality in Interaction. In Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (eds.), Temporality in Interaction (Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27), 1–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fischer, Kerstin. 2017. Cognitive linguistics and pragmatics. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cam-bridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics), 330–346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Günthner, Susanne. 2011. Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in Ger-man interactions. In: Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.): Constructions: emerging and emergent, 156–185. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Günthner, Susanne. 2009. Konstruktionen in der kommunikativen Praxis. Zur Notwendigkeit einer interaktionalen Anreicherung konstruktionsgrammatischer Ansätze. Zeitschrift Für Germanistische Lin-guistik 37 (3), 402–26.
Hopper, Paul J. 2011. Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics. In Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds.), Constructions: Emerging and Emergent (Linguae & litterae 6), 22–44. Ber-lin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Imo, Wolfgang. 2007. Construction Grammar und Gesprochene-Sprache-Forschung: Konstruktionen mit zehn matrixsatzfähigen Verben im gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer
Imo, Wolfgang. 2015. Interactional Construction Grammar. Linguistics Vanguard 1 (1), 69–77.
Imo, Wolfgang. 2018. Valence patterns, constructions and interaction: Constructs with the German verb erinnern (remember). In: Hans Boas & Alexander Ziem (eds.), Constructional approaches to argu-ment structure in German, 131–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Lanwer, Jens. 2020. Appositive Syntax oder appositive Prosodie? In Wolfgang Imo & Jens Lanwer (eds.), Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik, 233–281. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Maschler, Yael. 2017. The emergence of Hebrew loydea/loydat (‘I dunno MASC/FEM’) from interac-tion. Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle. In Chiara Fedriani & Andrea Sansó (eds.), Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New perspectives (Studies in Language Companion Series 186), 37–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pawley, Andrew & Frances Hodgetts Syder. 1983. Natural selection in syntax: Notes on adaptive variation and change in vernacular and literary grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 7 (5), 551–579.
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2016. More than an epistemic hedge: French je sais pas 'I don’t know' as a resource for the sequential organization of turns and actions. Journal of Pragmatics 106, 148–162.
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stivers, Tanya & Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2006. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society 35, 367–392.
Zeschel, Arne, Fabian Brackhane & Ralf Knöbl. 2019. Reanalyse und phonetische Reduktion pragmatischer Marker mit sagen. In Ludwig M. Eichinger & Albrecht Plewnia (eds.), Neues vom heutigen Deutsch. Empirisch – methodisch – theoretisch. (Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 2018), 81–98. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.

Theme session organizers: Stefan Hartmann, Dimitrios Meletis, Jessica Nowak, Kristian Berg

Current approaches to cognitive linguistics emphasize that language is an inherently multimodal phenomenon. For example, spoken language is usually accompanied by co-speech gesture, which has given rise to extensive research from a cognitive-linguistic point of view. Another aspect of multimodality has arguably been neglected so far: writing. Linguistics in general has, for a long time, suffered from what Berg (2016) calls a “spoken language bias”, and only recently has written language received more attention in the emerging field of grapholinguistics (see Meletis & Dürscheid 2022). This theme session sets out to demonstrate that cognitive linguistics and the study of written language can cross-fertilize each other. In particular, we invite papers that discuss how the study of writing can inform our understanding of the relationship between language and cognition. There are numerous good reasons for assuming that written language offers an excellent window to the mental representation of language. For one thing, it has been shown that learning to write entails a “rewiring” of the brain (Dehaene 2009) that is so significant that it has been linked to major cultural developments (Henrich 2021). For another, written language gives valuable clues about how language users segment linguistic items into words and larger units (especially so in alphabetic writing systems that have over time developed segmentation markers for words and sentences; see e.g. Hartmann & Szczepaniak 2023).

Bringing together cognitive linguistics and grapholinguistics, this theme session invites papers addressing relevant questions relating to the implications of written language for understanding the cognitive organization and the cognitive underpinnings of language, including, but not limited to, the following:

• What exactly can written language tell us about the mental representation of language(s), and what are potential limitations?
• How does literacy change the way we learn and think about language(s)?
• To what extent do writing tools affect the way we think and write?
• How does written language reflect linguistic change, and what does this in turn tell us about the cognitive processes underlying language change? What does the change of written language over the centuries tell us about cognitive processes involved in reading and writing?
• How does the knowledge of multiple writing systems affect multilingual language users’ linguistic knowledge?

References

Berg, Kristian. 2016. Graphemic Analysis and the Spoken Language Bias. Frontiers in Psychology 7. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00388.
Dehaene, Stanislas. 2009. Reading in the brain: the science and evolution of a human invention. New York: Viking.
Hartmann, Stefan & Renata Szczepaniak. 2023. Elements of writing systems. In Marco Condorelli & Hanna Rutkowska (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography, 50–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henrich, Joseph. 2021. The weirdest people in the world: how the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous (Penguin Psychology). London: Penguin Books.
Meletis, Dimitrios & Christa Dürscheid. 2022. Writing systems and their use (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TILSM] 369). An overview of grapholinguistics. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Theme session organizers: Jörg Bücker, Sascha Michel

Die Wortbildung ist in den letzten Jahren vermehrt in den Fokus konstruktionsgrammatischer Untersuchungen gerückt (vgl. Booij 2018; Hein/Michel 2023). Wie Konstruktionen auf anderen sprachanalytischen Ebenen können auch Wortbildungskonstruktionen als Schemata rekonstruiert werden, die eine Form- und eine Inhaltsseite umfassen (Booij 2010). Ungeklärt ist jedoch, was genau zur Inhaltsseite von Wortbildungskonstruktionen zu zählen ist und wie sie sich im Rahmen einer gebrauchsbasierten kognitionslinguistischen Theorie angemessen rekonstruieren und modellieren lässt. Während etwa Croft (2001) der Inhaltsseite von Konstruktionen ausdrücklich nicht nur semantische, sondern auch pragmatische und diskursive Merkmale bzw. Spezifikationen zuordnet (vgl. auch Östman 2005), haben sich viele Ansätze in der konstruktionsgrammatisch orientierten Wortbildungsforschung lange Zeit vor allem auf die semantische Ebene konzentriert. Pragmatische, diskursive und interaktionale Bedeutungsdimensionen von Wortbildungskonstruktionen sind demgegenüber erst in jüngerer Zeit in den Mittelpunkt der Forschung gerückt (vgl. Wolfer/Hein 2022; Finkbeiner 2023; Michel 2023; Stumpf 2023; Stumpf/Merten 2023). Ein weiteres aktuelles Problemfeld der Untersuchung der Bedeutung von Wortbildungskonstruktionen betrifft die Frage, wie mit der Unterscheidung und dem Wechselspiel zwischen lexikalischer Bedeutung (Bedeutung der beteiligten Morpheme) einerseits und konstruktioneller Bedeutung andererseits methodologisch und theoretisch angemessen umgegangen werden kann (vgl. Willich 2022).

Die Sektion möchte sich vor diesem Hintergrund mit der Inhaltsebene von Wortbildungskonstruktionen beschäftigen, wobei die die folgenden Themenblöcke und Fragestellungen im Mittelpunkt stehen sollen:

1. Umfang und Komplexität der Inhaltsseite von Wortbildungskonstruktionen

• Lässt sich die Inhaltsseite von Wortbildungskonstruktionen auf kontextunabhängige abstrakte Bedeutungsaspekte beschränken, oder ist die Bedeutung von Wortbildungskonstruktionen so eng mit kontextabhängigen diskursiven Dimensionen ihres Gebrauchs verknüpft, dass diese in der Inhaltsseite berücksichtigt werden müssen? Welche Rolle spielen dabei pragmatische Prozesse wie Implikaturen oder Inferenzen (vgl. Finkbeiner 2019) und kognitiv-funktionale Phänomene wie Metaphern (Lakoff/Johnson 1980)?
• Zu welchen interaktionalen und diskursiven Praktiken können Wortbildungskonstruktionen beitragen, und welche diskursmorphologischen Eigenschaften lassen sich ihnen vor diesem Hintergrund ggf. zuschreiben?
• Wie ist im Rahmen eines konstruktionsgrammatischen Zugangs zur Wortbildung der Beitrag interaktionaler und diskursiver Praktiken zur diachronen Herausbildung und Entwicklung der Bedeutung von Wortbildungskonstruktionen zu denken (vgl. Bücker eing.; s. zu einem diachron-konstruktionsgrammatischen Zugang zur Wortbildung auch Hartmann 2016)?
• Kann die Inhaltsseite von Wortbildungskonstruktionen auch diasystematisch differenziert sein (vgl. dazu u.a. Höder 2019)?

2. Erfassung und Modellierung der Inhaltsseite von Wortbildungskonstruktionen

• Was sind die Vor- und Nachteile unterschiedlicher semantischer Zugänge zur Inhaltsseite von Wortbildungskonstruktionen (z.B. Merkmalssemantik, Framesemantik, Prototypensemantik, Ereignissemantik? (Wie) Lassen sich die unterschiedlichen Ansätze miteinander kombinieren?
• Wie lassen sich kompositionelle und holistische Bedeutungsaspekte der Inhaltsseite von Wortbildungskonstruktionen datenbasiert identifizieren und in der Theoriebildung angemessen modellieren?
• Sind semantische, pragmatische und diskursive Merkmale, die auf der Inhaltsseite von Wortbildungskonstruktionen eine Rolle spielen, sprachsystematisch voneinander getrennt und durch Schnittstellen aufeinander bezogen (zum Beispiel im Sinne einer „Parallel Architecture“, vgl. Jackendoff 2002; Jackendoff/Audring 2019), oder ist ihre Separierung auf der Inhaltsseite von Wortbildungskonstruktionen aus gebrauchsbasierter kognitionslinguistischer Perspektive nicht notwendig?

3. Inhaltsbasierte Netzwerke von Wortbildungskonstruktionen

• Lassen sich Wortbildungskonstruktionen über semantische Relationen als Teile gebrauchsbasierter sprachlicher Netzwerke rekonstruieren (vgl. Bücker 2012; Diessel 2019; Hein 2023)?
• Welche besonderen empirischen und theoretischen Anforderungen sind mit einer konstruktikographischen Perspektive auf die Inhaltsseite von Wortbildungskonstruktionen verbunden (vgl. Lyngfelt et al. 2018; Ziem/Flick 2019)?

References

Booij, Geert (2010): Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Booij, Geert (Hrsg.) (2018): The construction of words. Advances in Construction Morphology. Cham: Springer.
Bücker, Jörg (2012): Sprachhandeln und Sprachwissen. Grammatische Konstruktionen im Spannungsfeld von Interaktion und Kognition. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Bücker, Jörg (eing.): Diskursmorphologie mündlich und diachron. Suffixderivation mit -mäßig im gesprochenen Gegenwartsdeutschen und in ihrer sprachgeschichtlichen Entwicklung. In: Laurent Gautier/Sascha Michel (Hrsg): Diskursmorphologie. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Croft, William (2001): Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diessel, Holger (2019): The grammar network. How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finkbeiner, Rita (2019): Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. In: Constructions and Frames 11/2, 171-192.
Finkbeiner, Rita (2023): Brilleria, Hipsteria, Schlamperia: Hybride Suffigierung, Expressivität und Konstruktionsmorphologie. In: Zeitschrift für Wortbildung 7/2, 150-190.
Hartmann, Stefan (2016): Wortbildungswandel. Eine diachrone Studie zu deutschen Nominalisierungsmustern. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Hein, Katrin (2023): Auf dem Weg zu einem Komposita-Konstruktikon? Ein empirischer Anwendungsversuch der Construction Morphology auf die Nominalkomposition im Deutschen. In: Fabio Mollica/Sören Stumpf (Hrsg.): Konstruktionsfamilien im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 103-135.
Hein, Katrin/Sascha Michel (2023) (Hrsg.): Wortbildung und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Sonderheft Zeitschrift für Wortbildung 7/2.
Höder, Steffen (2019): Mehrsprachige Äußerungen aus dem Blickwinkel der Diasystematischen Konstruktionsgrammatik. Eine Annäherung. In: Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 94, 27-50.
Jackendoff, Ray (2002): Foundations of language. Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray/Jenny Audring (2019): The texture of the lexicon. Relational morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, George P./Mark Johnson (1980): Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lyngfelt, Benjamin/Lars Borin/Kyoko Ohara/Tiago Timponi Torrent (Hrsg.) (2018): Constructicography. Constructicon development across languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Michel, Sascha (2023): Remotivierung und Wortbildung. Strukturell-morphologische, semantische und angewandt-linguistische Analysen am Beispiel der sogenannten „Konfixremotivierung“. In Igor Trost (Hrsg.): Remotivierung. Von der Morphologie bis zur Pragmatik. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter, 65-98.
Östman, Jan-Ola (2005): Construction Discourse. A prolegomenon. In: Jan-Ola Östman/Mirjam Fried (Hrsg.): Construction Grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. Amster-dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 121–144.
Stumpf, Sören (2023):  Wortbildung diamedial.  Korpusstudien zum geschriebenen und gesprochenen Deutsch. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter (= Germanistische Linguistik 329).
Stumpf, Sören/Marie-Luis Merten (2023): Wortbildung als Stance-Ressource im Online-Kommentieren: Theoretische Zusammenführung und empirische Einsichten am Beispiel zweier Konstruktionsfamilien. In: Zeitschrift für Wortbildung 7/2, 121-149.
Willich, Alexander (2022): Konstruktionssemantik. Frames in gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktionsgrammatik und Konstruktikographie. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
Wolfer, Sascha/Katrin Hein (2022): Konsequenzen der los-Suffigierung im Deutschen. Korpushäufigkeit, emotional-affektive Effekte und konstruktionsgrammatische Perspektiven. In: Zeitschrift für Wortbil-dung 6/2, 71-99.
Ziem, Alexander/Johanna Flick (2019): Constructicography at work. Implementation and application of the German Constructicon. In: Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 7/1, 201-214.

Theme session organizer: Martin Konvička

In order to express cause or reason, speakers of English have several constructions at their disposal: subordinate clauses such as (1), prepositional constructions such as (2), but also non-finite constructions known as because X (3) (Bergs 2018a) which will be the focus of attention of this thematic session.

(1) I can’t come out tonight because I’ll be playing Skyrim.

(2) I can’t come out tonight because of Skyrim.

(3) I can’t come out tonight because Skyrim. (Bailey 2012)

What formally distinguishes because X constructions (3) from canonical causal subordinate clauses with because (1), is primarily the absence of a finite verb form in the complement slot. While prepositional constructions (2) only allow nominal complements, because X constructions are characterised by a wider range of potential complements such as adjectives, adverbs, nouns, emojis or interjections (Bohmann 2016: 160). This distinct complementation pattern also raises the question of the category membership of the connector in these constructions and whether it is best analysed as a conjunction, as a preposition or as something else completely (Konvička 2018; 2023).

Although constructions of the type (3) can be found both in spoken and written contexts, social media seem to offer a particularly fruitful ground for their use. The context of conceptually spoken language is more tolerant towards deviations from standard norms (Bohmann 2016: 170) and more open to creative language use (Bergs 2018b: 286). For this reason, research on because X has so far focused on social media such as Twitter and more generally on computer-mediated communication.

Moreover, constructions formally and functionally equivalent to (3) are not only found in English, but also exist in other languages such as German (Wolfer, Müller-Spitzer & Ribeiro Silveira 2020; Konvička & Stöcker 2022), Dutch (Konvička 2018; 2019; Konvička & Stöcker 2022), Czech (Konvička 2020) or Finnish (Wessman 2017).

Against this backdrop, this thematic session aims at bringing together scholars interested in the study of non-finite causal constructions of the because X type from various methodological, empirical, theoretical, and comparative perspectives.

Research questions potentially addressed in this session might include, but are not limited to the following:

• How are because X constructions related to other ways of expressing causality and to other non-finite constructions?
• What role does context and register play for the use (and the spread) of because X?
• What mechanisms (e.g. ellipses, creativity, extravagance) can best account for the emergence of non-finite because X constructions?
• Given the existence of similar constructions in various languages, how can we tease apart the influence of language contact and independent, yet parallel developments in the languages other than English that also have constructional equivalents of because X?
• What methodological approaches are best suited to study these questions?

References

Bailey, Laura. 2012. Because reasons. linguistlaura. linguistlaura.blogspot.com/2012/07/because-reasons.html. (16 August, 2022).
Bergs, Alexander. 2018a. Because science! Notes on a variable conjunction. In Elena Seoane, Carlos Acuña-Fariña & Ignacio Palacios-Martínez (eds.), Subordination in English, 43–60. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bergs, Alexander. 2018b. Learn the Rules like a Pro, so you can Break them like an Artist (Picasso): Linguistic Aberrancy from a Constructional Perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3). 277–293.
Bohmann, Axel. 2016. Language change because Twitter? Factors motivating innovative uses of because across the English-speaking Twittersphere. In Lauren Squires (ed.), English in computer-mediated communication. Variation, representation, and change, 149–178. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Konvička, Martin. 2018. Want/omdat X en de vaagheid van de linguïstische categorieën. Neerlandica Wratislaviensia 28. 17–31.
Konvička, Martin. 2019. De verborgen complexiteit van want/omdat X. Internationale Neerlandistiek 57(2). 161–183.
Konvička, Martin. 2020. Protože změna: K české kauzální konstrukci protože X. Naše řeč 103(3). 243–263.
Konvička, Martin. 2023. Category membership and category potential: The case of vague because. Lexis. Journal in English lexicology (22). doi.org/10.4000/lexis.7418.
Konvička, Martin & Kristin Stöcker. 2022. (Non-)Ellipses in Dutch, English, and German: The case of because X. Nederlandse Taalkunde 27(3). 333–367.
Wessman, Kukka-Maaria. 2017. Rating the acceptability of non-standard language. How Finnish language users rate variants of the verbless koska X ‘because X’ internet meme construction? Poster presented at the 14th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Tartu, Estonia.
Wolfer, Sascha, Carolin Müller-Spitzer & Maria Ribeiro Silveira. 2020. Mit der Fähre nach Island, weil Flugangst. Textsortenspezifische Angemessenheit von weil mit Verbletztstellung, weil mit Verbzweitstellung und in elliptischen Konstruktionen empirisch untersucht. Deutsche Sprache (2). 174–192.

Theme session organizers: Ferran Suñer, Jörg Roche

The cognitive linguistic view suggests that our linguistic knowledge is predominantly shaped by our bodily interaction with the physical world, rather than being predetermined by fixed rules. It is constructed ad hoc based on situational constraints, allowing for different perspectives. This knowledge is acquired, stored, and retrieved through distributional processing (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006). In this context, the usage-based perspective has not only demonstrated its usefulness in better describing the dynamics of language development but has also inspired a substantial body of pedagogical proposals for language learning and teaching, including their empirical evaluation in authentic classroom settings.

The usage-based perspective on language development underscores the significance of considering the socio-communicative functions of constructions, aligning well with recent competence-oriented frameworks of reference. Research in this context has primarily focused on the emergence, entrenchment, and frequency of use of form-meaning pairs from a linguistic standpoint. However, insufficient attention has been given to the socio-cultural situatedness and pragmatic dimensions of language (Eskildsen & Kasper, 2019) as well as to the inquiry of the multiple complex causes underlying language development, particularly in the context of language learning and teaching (Larsen-Freeman, 2019). In order to broaden the horizon of applications of language teaching and learning, it is essential to adopt an integrated research approach combining theoretical, methodological, and empirical insights from cognitive linguistics, language acquisition, and educational research (Hiver et al. 2021).

The proposed thematic session, therefore, aims to explore and discuss new directions in Applied Cognitive Linguistics that enhance our understanding of the potential contribution of the usage-based perspective to language learning as a dynamic system with interacting and co-adapting sub-components (Hiver et al. 2021). We welcome empirical studies that deal with the implementation of the usage-based approach to language teaching and learning in various contexts of situated practice addressing (but not limited to) the following aspects:

1. Studies on the contribution of the usage-based approach to implementing concept-based instruction (prototype extensions, image schemas, force dynamics, etc.), and task-, action-or scenario-based language teaching.
2. Studies examining the usefulness of embodied learning and teaching practices in different modalities, including the use of serious games and virtual and augmented realities in language learning and teaching contexts.
3. Studies addressing methodological issues of data elicitation and analysis, emphasizing the importance of gathering authentic linguistic data in culturally rich and meaningful environments, such as authentic job application procedures, realistic communication settings involving professional tasks, or interactive serious game environments.
4. Studies employing methodologically innovative research designs to increase ecological validity and/or a more comprehensive understanding of the language learning complexity. This might include mixed-methods studies combining process-oriented and outcome-oriented measures, idiodynamic research techniques, and micro-longitudinal designs capturing intra- and interindividual variation, design-based research aimed at fostering teacher-researcher collaboration and fine-tuning pedagogical interventions, etc.
5. Studies exploring the relationship between a usage-based approach to language learning and teaching and the diversity of manifestations of agency at different levels: learners' attitudes, teachers' beliefs, and engagement during activities.

References

Ellis, N. C. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Kasper, G. (2019). Interactional usage-based L2 pragmatics: From form-meaning pairings to construction-action relations. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 176–191). Routledge.
Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A.H., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2021). Toward a transdisciplinary integration of research purposes and methods for complex dynamic systems theory: Beyond the quantitative–qualitative divide. International Review of Applied Linguistics to Language Teaching, 60, 7–22.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019). On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. Modern Language Journal, 103, 61–79.

Theme session organizers: Karin Madlener-Charpentier, Elsa Liste Lamas

Cross-linguistic variation is well documented in the spatial language domain (Slobin 2004). Language-specific encoding preferences have been described in terms of lexicalization or conceptualization patterns (Talmy 1985; Treffers-Daller/Tidball 2016) and degrees of manner/path salience (Slobin 2004). For spontaneous motion, a major distinction is typically made between verb-framed (V) and satellite-framed (S) languages (Talmy 1985).

In V-languages, path is typically expressed in the main verb (e.g., sortir ‘exit’), whereas manner is only expressed if highly salient; V-languages have smaller lexicons of manner-of-motion verbs (Slobin, 2004) and V-language speakers encode manner of motion less frequently than users of S-languages (Treffers-Daller/Tidball 2016). In S-languages, the root of the finite verb typically encodes manner of motion (e.g., jump, swim, march), while path is expressed in satellites, e.g., directional adverbs, verbal prefixes/ particles, prepositional phrases (Madlener-Charpentier/Liste Lamas 2022); more than one satellite can be attached to one motion verb, resulting in complex/dense path descriptions (Zlatev et al. 2021).

The language(s) speakers grow up with shape(s) these speakers’ information processing routines and their attention to specific components of event construal (Thinking for Speaking, Slobin 1996, or learned attention, Ellis 2006). Children respect and apply the main lexicalization patterns of their first language (L1) from early on (cf. Harr/Hickmann 2016). Processing routines established and strongly entrenched in the L1 may be difficult to restructure when learning additional languages (L2) later in life (so-called Re-Thinking for Speaking, Ellis & Cadierno 2009), if L1 and L2 categories or constructions diverge.

Speakers of V-languages learning an S-framed L2 may particularly struggle with adapting to higher degrees of manner salience (e.g., De Knop/Gallez 2013); yet, what is challenging for them is not to learn the large repertoire of manner verbs typical of S-languages, but to use these manner verbs together with path adverbials in compact, information-dense utterances (Yilmaz 2017). In contrast, speakers of S-languages learning a V-framed L2 may particularly struggle with the so-called boundary crossing constraint (Özçalışkan 2015), which excludes the use of manner verbs in translational bounded motion constructions (e.g., Muñoz & Cadierno 2019).

This panel brings together experts in second language acquisition research and second language pedagogy in order to discuss (1) cognitive linguistic and usage-based research in the domain of motion event encoding in L2 acquisition and use (e.g., constructional preferences, challenges, intra-individual variation, L2 gesture), and (2) corresponding implications and options for the L2 teaching of motion event constructions in different settings and for different target languages.

References

De Knop, S. & Gallez, F. (2013). Manner of motion: A privileged dimension of German expressions. Journal of Cognitive Linguistics 2 (1), 25–40.
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194.
Ellis, N. C. & T. Cadierno, (2009). Constructing a second language. Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139.
Harr, A.-K. & Hickmann,M. (2016). Static and dynamic location in French and German child language. In P. Guijarro-Fuentes, K. Schmitz, and N. Müller (Eds.), The Acquisition of French in Multilingual Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 118–144.
Madlener-Charpentier, K. & Liste Lamas, E. (2022). Path Under Construction: Challenges Beyond S-Framed Motion Event Construal in L2 German. Frontiers in Communication 7:859714.
Muñoz, M. & T. Cadierno (2019). Mr Bean exits the garage driving or does he drive out of the garage? Bidirectional transfer in the expression of Path. IRAL 57 (1), 45-69.
Özçalışkan, Ş. (2015). Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36 (2), 485–508.
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog. Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist and L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating Events in Narrative Volume 2: Typological and Contextual Perspectives. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 219–257.
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns. Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–149.
Treffers-Daller, J., and Tidball, F. (2016). Can L2 learners learn new ways to conceptualize events? A new approach to restructuring in motion event construal.  In P. Guijarro-Fuentes, K. Schmitz & N. Müller (Eds.), The Acquisition of French in Multilingual Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 145–184.
Zlatev, J., Blomberg, J., Devylder, S., Naidu, V. & van de Weijer, J. (2021). Motion event descriptions in Swedish, French, Thai and Telugu: a study in post-Talmian motion event typology. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 3, 58–90.