This chapter reviews recent developments that reflect a convergence of work in various branches of linguistics and psycholinguistics around the implications of the incremental sequencing of speech units for understanding grammar and the cognitive processing that underlies the production, comprehension, and interpretation of utterances. Notions from Functional Discourse Grammar are used to present a view of syntactic structure as arising from the incremental extension of holophrases, i.e., minimal utterances. By prioritizing the timecourse of language processing, the chapter interprets syntactic hierarchy as arising from chunk-and-pass operations supported by predictive processing. Spoken dialogue is identified as the primary arena for these processes, with grammaticality subordinated to situational appropriateness. Linguistic data are seen as protocols of joint action aimed at the incremental co-creation of meaning. All of these notions make essential reference to context as constantly active, prior to and during the utterance of the linguistic signal, and as a crucial component of the operations and processes that take place in verbal interaction.

The chapter begins with an introduction to the FDG theory and language model. The discussion includes some of the issues in the classification of premodifiers and compares the distinctions made in FDG with the construction-based model. The second section presents an FDG model of each of-binominal, illustrating how the model captures the differences between these constructions. By doing so, current issues in recent FDG research are addressed, such as the role of CxG like constructions in FDG, interfaces and mismatches between levels, and the distinction between operators and modifiers. One important finding is that FDG predicts the changes of premodification patterns found in Chapter 7. The historical analysis in the FDG frameworks shows that we are looking at the reduction of the internal components of the N-of-N template to a simple NP template, with a reanalyzed chunk [N of (a)], functioning first as a modifier and then as a lexical operator. Therefore, although we are structurally looking at an of-binominal, this term is actually a misnomer

The chapter begins with a brief overview of research on the of-binominal, in general, before focusing on the constructions addressed in this study. It presents the constructions discussed in this work: prototypical N+PP, head-classifier, pseudo-partitive, evaluative binominal noun phrase, evaluative modifier, and binominal intensifier, and the research gap that the monograph fills. Furthermore, it briefly introduces the two theories used: Construction Grammar (CxG) and Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) and presents the rationale behind examining the results from two theoretical paradigms. This chapter, furthermore, explains the choice of corpora used in the research (primarily the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA) and details the construction of the dataset: those constructions included and excluded from the data set.

The final chapter briefly summarizes the key findings in Parts I and II and compares and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the models discussed in Chapters 8 and 9. In particular, it is argued that one of the fundamental differences between these two approaches is the information they seek to model. FDG offers defined primitives and combinatorial constraints that function as a basis of analysis and constrain possible outcomes. In the context of this project, this means that FDG allows us to capture the distinction between the six of-binominal categories discussed by using the language-specific tools that already exist in the model. However, the FDG account lacks a network view of these phenomena. The CxG analysis offers a network perspective on the changes in constructions and links these constructions to more entrenched patterns in the language systems. This means that it can capture the co-evolution of constructions in the language system. Finally, this chapter discusses some remaining open questions and suggests potential avenues of future research.

Chapter 3 provides a review of current frameworks intended to understand interactional language. It serves as the basis to develop a grammar of interactional language Classic speech act theory, and current attempts to syntacticize it, do not take into consideration the interactional dimension, specifically the role of the addressee in constructing common ground. This chapter reviews several frameworks that take the interactional dimension into consideration. Specifically, I review dialogue-based models (conversation analysis and grounding theory), several functional grammar-based models, as well as recent formal semantic and syntactic approaches toward interactional language. The core lessons learned from these frameworks are that the unit of analysis of interactional language is a minimal conversation consisting of an initiating and a reaction move and that the construction of common ground is an interactive process. It further implies that we have to rethink the classic distinction between competence and performance. Itshows that what these frameworks are missing is a way to disentangle the various factors that contribute to the interpretation of discourse markers. Consequently, it becomes impossible to develop a typology. In contrast, formal syntactic approaches, while well equipped for cross-linguistic comparison, have not explored interactional language and consequently they lack the empirical base necessary to develop a typology. This chapter is the first attempt to survey these frameworks