Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-69cd664f8f-84qt4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-13T10:02:03.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Construction Grammar and Literature

from Part VI - Constructional Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Alexander Bergs
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

This chapter explores the potential of Construction Grammar for analyzing literary texts. First, it investigates typical features of literary language from a constructional point of view. Fairy tales, for example, are characterized by their opening lines like “Once upon a time …,” analyzed as a concrete, complex construction. Similarly, many authors, styles, and genres are characterized by particular constructions, or the use of particular words and phrases. The second section deals with creative, innovative, and seemingly ‘rule-breaking’ language in a constructional framework, suggesting that Construction Grammar as a usage-based and cognitively plausible model offers the perfect toolkit to analyze seemingly unruly linguistic behavior. The third part deals with literary genres as linguistic units beyond the sentence, arguing that literary texts are also learned form–meaning pairings and can be treated as constructions. Genres as constructions may change dynamically over time and be subject to prototypeeffects. Drawing on numerous examples, this chapter thus demonstrates that literary language and texts can be productively analyzed using concepts and methods of Construction Grammar.

Keywords

literaturepoetryliterary languagecreativitycoerciongenremetaphorsnow clonelinguisticality
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 623 - 647
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antonopoulou, E. & Nikiforidou, K. (2011). Construction Grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2594–2609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appel, A. & Nabokov, V. (1967). An interview with Vladimir Nabokov. Wisconsin Studies in Contemporary Literature, 8(2), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, S., Braun, A., Moulin, C., & Winter-Froemel, E., eds. (2018). Expanding the Lexicon: Linguistic Innovation, Morphological Productivity, and Ludicity. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, S. (2012). On the distinctiveness of poetic language. New Literary History, 43(1), 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2004). The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language, 80(2), 290–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. & Kompa, N. (2020). Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. M. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive perspective. Written Communication, 10, 475–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blatt, B. (2017). Nabokov’s Favorite Word Is Mauve: The Literary Quirks and Oddities of Our Most-Loved Authors. London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börgerding, P., Benen, M.-C. & Bergs, A. (2020). Expecting the unexpected? Predictive coding, pattern recognition, and surprise in narratives. Anglistik, 31(1), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2020/1/10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (1995). Non-anaphoric reflexives in free indirect style: Expressing the subjectivity of the non-speaker. In Stein, D. & Wright, S., eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, G. L. (1970). The Language of Dickens. London: Andre Deutsch.Google Scholar
Budts, S. (2020). A connectionist approach to analogy. On the modal meaning of periphrastic do in Early Modern English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 18(2), 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatman, S. (1972). The Later Style of Henry James. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. (2012). Styles, registers, genres, text types. In Bergs, A. & Brinton, L. J., eds., English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 237–253.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2016). Labov, vernacularity and sociolinguistic change. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, C. E. (1997). Social meaning in Southern speech from an interactional sociolinguistic perspective: An integrative discourse analysis of terms of address. In Bernstein, C., Nunnally, T., & Sabino, R., eds., Language Variety in the South Revisited. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, pp. 225–241.Google Scholar
de Almeida, R., Riven, L., Manouilidou, C., Lungu, O., Dwivedi, V. D., Jarema, G., & Gillon, B. (2016). The neuronal correlates of indeterminate sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(614). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. (1987). Schemas for literary communication. In Halász, L., ed., Literary Discourse: Aspects of Cognitive and Social Psychological Approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 49–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2015). Usage-based Construction Grammar. In Dabrowska, E. & Divjak, D., eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 296–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eco, U. (1979). Narrative structures in Fleming. In Eco, U., ed., The Role of the Reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 144–172.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K. (2011). Textartenklassifikation. Ein Problemaufriss. In Habscheid, S., ed., Textsorten, Handlungsmuster, Oberflächen: linguistische Typologien der Kommunikation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eitelmann, M. & Haumann, D., eds. (2022). Extravagant Morphology Studies in Rule-Bending, Pattern-Extending and Theory-Challenging Morphology. Amsterdam & Phildelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, B. I. (1939). Who, it may be asked, was Finnegan? The Guardian, May 12, 1939.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (2000). Genres, text types, or discourse modes? Narrative modalities and generic categorization. Style, 34(1), 274–292.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, L. & Nini, A. (2020). Individuality in syntactic variation: An investigation of the seventeenth-century gerund alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 279–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M. (2020). Following the Formula in Beowulf, Örvar-Odds Saga, and Tolkien. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, E. J. & Michaelis, L., eds. (2003). Mismatch: Form-Function Incongruity and the Architecture of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fry, D. K. Jr. (1981). Formulaic theory and Old English poetry. In Heartz, D. & Wade, B., eds., Report of the Twelfth Congress, Berkeley 1977, International Musicological Society. Kassel: Bärenreiter, pp. 169–173.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (1999). Blending and metaphor. In Steen, G. & Gibbs, R., eds., Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, M. L. & Goldberg, A. E. (1999). Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In Hahn, M. & Stoness, S. C., eds., Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 208–211.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. & Ungerer, T. (2023). Attack of the snowclones: A corpus-based analysis of extravagant formulaic patterns. Journal of Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226723000117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37(6), 1043–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2020). Human linguisticality and the building blocks of languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 10: 3056. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herman, D. (1995). Universal Grammar and Narrative Form. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2017a). Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 310–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2017b). From constructions to Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 284–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2018). Creativity and Construction Grammar: Cognitive and psychological issues. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2019). Language and creativity: A Construction Grammar approach to linguistic creativity. Linguistics Vanguard, 5. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Bergs, A. (2018). A Construction Grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes, 18. https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, A., ed. (1932). Letters of D. H. Lawrence. London: Viking.Google Scholar
Iser, W. (1972). The reading process: A phenomenological approach. New Literary History, 3(2), 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, C. L., Cho, S.-J., & Watson, D. G. (2019). Self-priming in production: Evidence for a hybrid model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 43(7): e12749. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakobson, R. (1960). Concluding statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 350–377.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1909 [1954]). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. London: Allen Unwin.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1994). Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keunen, B. (2000). Bakhtin, genre formation, and the cognitive turn: Chronotopes as memory schemata. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.1069.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2685–2701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lauwers, P. & Willems, D. (2011). Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches, and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, A. B. (1991). Epic Singers and Oral Tradition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lord, A. B. (1995). The Singer Resumes the Tale. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, C. (1992). Literary sociolinguistics: A methodological framework for research on the use of nonstandard language in fiction. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 17(1), 103–123.Google Scholar
Moessner, L. (2001). Genre, text Type, style, register: A terminological maze? European Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, B. (2005). Black day for the blue pencil. The Observer, August 6. www.theguardian.com/books/2005/aug/06/featuresreviews.guardianreview1.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. & Vaux, B. (2003). Metalinguistic, shmetalinguistic: The phonology of shmreduplication. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 39(1), 702–721.Google Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2010). Viewpoint and Construction Grammar: The case of past + now. Language and Literature, 19(3), 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2012). The constructional underpinnings of viewpoint blends: The Past now in language and literature. In Dancygier, B. & Sweetser, E., eds., Viewpoint and Perspective in Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2018). Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics and Cognition, 25(3), 543–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, B. (2015). Frames for clause combing. Schematicity and formulaicity in discourse patterns. In Fischer, K. & Nikiforidou, K., eds., On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre. Special Issue of Constructions and Frames, 7(2), pp. 348–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, A. H. (1986). Oral-formulaic research in Old English studies. Oral Tradition, 1(3), 548–606.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In Östman, J.-O. & Fried, M., eds., Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, M. (1971 [1928]). The traditional epithet in Homer. In Parry, A., ed., The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–191.Google Scholar
Petré, P. (2019). How constructions are born. The role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF. In Busse, B. & Möhlig-Falke, R., eds., Patterns in Language and Linguistics: New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 157–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Propp, V. Y. (2012 [1928]). The Russian Folktale. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (2004). Snowclones: Lexicographical dating to the second. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000350.html.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. (2002). The Neuroscience of Language: On Brain Circuits of Words and Serial Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S. & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia: A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3–34.Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riedinger, A. (1985). The Old English formula in context. Speculum, 60, 294–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J. & Michaelis, L. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Construction and Frames, 2(2), 158–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. (2016). Two ideas of creativity. In Hinton, M., ed., Evidence. Experiment and Argument in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 15–26.Google Scholar
Smit, D. (1987). The later styles of Henry James. Style, 21(1), 95–106.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions. Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, D. (1995). Subjective meanings and the history of inversions in English. In Stein, D. & Wright, S., eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2008). The grammaticalization of NP of NP Patterns. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1972). Some Aspects of Text Grammars: A Study in Theoretical Linguistics and Poetics. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walpole, H. (1754). Letter to Horace Mann. In Lewis, W. S., ed., Rescuing Horace Walpole. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Watt, I. (1974). The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1995). Subjectivity and experiential syntax. In Stein, D. & Wright, S., eds., Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zarcone, A., McRae, K., Lenci, A., & Padó, S. (2017). Complement coercion: The joint effects of type and typicality. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziegeler, D. (2007). A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(5), 990–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book 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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×