Brexit means Brexit: a constructionist analysis
- Jose A. Mompean University of Murcia
- Javier Valenzuela Manzanares University of Murcia
Abstract
This paper presents a corpus-assisted discourse analysis of the Brexit means Brexit tautology from a constructionist perspective. A multimodal corpus of instances of the construction was compiled and analyzed, paying attention to the components of the construction such as its phonetic-phonological and gestural features as well as the idealized cognitive models underlying the use of the tautology in discourse. This study also addresses how different semantic-pragmatic uses have an impact on the linguistic form (e.g. prosody, gesture) and emphasizes the fluid interaction between linguistic meaning/form and the social and cultural context in which language is used. It is argued that a full understanding of any construction requires a multimodal, discourse-based analysis.
References
Alibali, Martha W., Dana C. Heath, and Heather J. Myers (2001). Effects of visibility between speaker and listener on gesture production: Some gestures are meant to be seen. Journal of Memory and Language 44.2: 169–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2752
Autenrieth, Tanja (1997) Tautologien sind Tautologien. In Eckard Rolf (ed.), Pragmatik. Implikaturen und Sprechakte [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderherft 8] (pp. 12–32) Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_2
Baker, Paul (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350933996
Beckman, Mary E., Julia Hirschberg, and Stefanie Shattuck-Hufnagel (2005). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Sun-Ah Jun (ed.) Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing (pp. 9–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.003.0002
Blitz, James (2016, December 20). Year in a word: Brexit. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/2041e104-c394-11e6-9bca-2b93a6856354
Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Bybee, Joan L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186
Casasanto, D. and R. Bottini (2014). Mirror-reading can reverse the flow of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143: 473–479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033297
Croft, William (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
Csabi, Szilvia and Zoltán Kövecses (2014). Lexicography and cognitive linguistics. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 27.1: 118–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.1.05kov
Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S & Hiraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and numerical magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 122.3: 371–396 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371
del Campo, Nuria (2011). A constructional approach to the expression of illocutionary meaning: An analysis of constructions performing the speech acts of requesting and begging. RESLA 24: 43–60.
del Campo, Nuria (2013). Illocutionary Constructions in English: Cognitive Motivation and Linguistic Realization. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang.
Dimitrova, Diana, Mingyuan Chu, Lin Wang, Asli Özyürek, and Peter Hagoort (2016). Beat that word: How listeners integrate beat gesture and focus in multimodal speech discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 28.9: 1255–1269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00963
Emmet, Dorothy (1962). ‘That’s that’: Or some uses of tautology. Philosophy 37: 15–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100030837
Farghal, Mohammed (1992). Colloquial Jordanian Arabic tautologies. Journal of Pragmatics 17.3: 223–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90003-T
Fillmore, Charles (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.
Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay, and Mary C. O’Connor (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64.3: 501–538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/414531
Fontaine, Lise (2017). The early semantics of the neologism BREXIT: A lexicogrammatical approach. Functional Linguistics 4:6(1–15). DOI 10.1186/s40554-017-0040-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-017-0040-x
Fraser, Bruce (1988). Motor oil is motor oil: An account of English nominal tautologies. Journal of Pragmatics 12.2: 215–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90080-X
Fried, Mirjam (2015). Construction Grammar. In Tibor Kiss and Artemis Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook (pp. 974–1003). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Frost, Tom (2017). Review of Brexit: Sociological Responses, edited by William Outhwaite, London, Anthem Press, 2017, 224 pp. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 4.4: 487–501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2017.1373917
Gamble, Andrew (2017). British politics after Brexit. Political Insight 8.1: 4–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2041905817702715
Geeraerts, Dirk (2003). Cultural models of linguistic standardization. In René Dirven, Roslyn M. Frank, and Martin Pütz (eds), Cognitive Models in Language and Thought. Ideology, Metaphors and Meanings (pp. 25–68). Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892901.25
Geoghegan, Peter (2017, March 16). Brexit Means Brexit – but what does Brexit mean? Political Insight 8.1: 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2041905817702740
Ghomeshi, Jila, Ray Jackendoff, Nicole Rosen and Kevin Russell (2004). Contrastive focus reduplication in English (the salad-salad paper). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22.2: 307–357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000015789.98638.f9
Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994). Figurative thought and figurative language. In Morton Ann Gernsbacher (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 411–446). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Nancy S. McCarrell (1990). Why boys will be boys and girls will be girls: Understanding colloquial tautologies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19.2: 125–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01068094
Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka (2004). Cultural scripts: What are they and what are they good for? Intercultural Pragmatics 1.2: 153–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.153
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001
Goldberg, Adele. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0002
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003
Holler, Judith and & Stephen C. Levinson (2019). Multimodal language processing in human communication. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23.8: 639–652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.05.006
Kendon, Adam (1980). Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance. In M. R. Key (ed.), The Relation between Verbal and Nonverbal Communication (pp. 207–227). The Hague: Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813098.207
Koller, Veronika, Susanne Kopf, and Marlene Miglbauer (eds), (2019). Discourses of Brexit. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351041867
Kwon, Iksoo (2009). A tautology is a tautology: Specificity and categorization in nominal tautological constructions. In Iksoo Kwon, Hannah Pritchett and Justin Spence (eds), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Negation (pp. 211–222). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v35i1.3612
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lucero, Ché, Holly Zaharchuk, and Daniel Casasanto (2014). Beat gestures facilitate speech production. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane and B. Scassellati (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 898–903). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Mardell, Mark (2016, July 16). What does 'Brexit means Brexit' mean? BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36782922
Marmaridou, Sophia S. A. (2000). Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.72
Martin, Mike W. (2013). Of Mottos and Morals: Simple Words for Complex Virtues. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.
Mass, A. Suitner, C. Favaretto, X. & Cignacchi, M. (2009). Groups in space: stereotypes and the spatial agency bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45.3: 496–504. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.01.004
McFadden, Pat (2016, September 5). Brexit means what?. Retrieved from https://www.open-britain.co.uk/brexit_means_what
McNeill, David (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
McNeill, David (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001
Meibauer, Jörg (2008). Tautology as presumptive meaning. Pragmatics & Cognition 16.3: 439–470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.16.3.02mei
Min, Shang-Chao (2019). Study on the differences of speech act of criticism in Chinese and English. US-China Foreign Language 6.3: 74–77.
Mompean, Jose A. (2004). Category overlap and neutralization: The importance of speakers’ classifications in phonology. Cognitive Linguistics 15.4: 429–469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.15.4.429
Mompean, Jose A. (2006). The phoneme as a basic-level category: Experimental evidence from English. International Journal of English Studies 6.2: 141–172.
Mompean, Jose A. (2014). Cognitive linguistics and phonology. In John Taylor and Jeannette Littlemore (eds), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 253–276). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Moseley, Tom (2016, December 25). The rise of the word Brexit. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37896977
Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva Ladewig, David Mcneill, and Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.) (2013), Body-Language-Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Volume 1 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.1). Berlin: Mouton.
Okamoto, Shigeko (1993). Nominal repetitive constructions in Japanese: The 'tautology' controversy revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 20.5: 433–466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90039-R
Outhwaite, William (ed.) (2017). Brexit: Sociological Responses. London: Anthem Press.
Pagán Cánovas, Cristobal and Javier Valenzuela (2017). Timelines and multimodal constructions: Facing new challenges. Linguistic Vanguard 3(s1). DOI 10.1515/lingvan-2016-0087 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0087
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda Thornburg (1998). A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30(6): 755–769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9
Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Linda Thornburg (2005). Motivation and convention in some speech act constructions: A cognitive linguistic approach. In Sophia Marmaridou, Kiki Nikiforidou, and Eleni Antonopoulou (eds), Reviewing Linguistic Thought: Converging Trends in the 21st Century (pp. 53–76). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920826.53
Partington, Alan (2008). The armchair and the machine: Corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS). In C. Taylor Torsello, Katherine Ackerley, and Erik Castello (eds), Corpora for University Language Teachers (pp. 95–118). Bern: Peter Lang.
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena (2012). Saying something for a particular purpose: Constructional compatibility and constructional families. RESLA 25: 189–210.
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena (2013). Illocutionary constructions: (multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language and Communication 33: 128–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.02.001
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena and Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza (2011). A Lexical-Constructional Model account of illocution. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8: 99–137.
Radden, Günter and Zoltán Kövecses (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Günter Radden (eds), Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
Rhodes, Russell (2009). A cross-linguistic comparison of tautological constructions with special focus on English. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/afc4/5668665b4ce2f18795acbc1b06d0f3393dce.pdf
Riley-Smith, Ben (2018, August 6). Arguments made for and against Brexit during the EU referendum campaign. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/arguments-made-against-brexit-eu-referendum-campaign/
Ross, Daniel (2018). Small corpora and low-frequency phenomena: try and beyond contemporary, standard English. Corpus, 18 http://journals.openedition.org/corpus/3574 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/corpus.3574
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. and Annalisa Baicchi (2007). Illocutionary constructions: Cognitive motivation and linguistic realization. In Istvan Kecskés and Laurence Horn (eds), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects (pp. 95–127). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198843.2.95
Santiago, J., Lupiáñez, J., Pérez, E., & Funes, M. J. (2007). Time (also) flies from left to right. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14: 512–516 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194099
Schank, Roger C. and Robert P. Abelson (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmid, Hans-Jörg (2016). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 9–36). Boston, MA: APA and Walter de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-002
Schnapper, Pauline (2018). Brexit, or Theresa May’s headache. Observatoire de la Société Britannique 21: 21–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/osb.2048
Searle, John (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, Ada Ren, Mili Mathew, Yvan Yuen, and Katherine Demuth (2016). Non-referential gestures in adult and child speech: Are they prosodic? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech Prosody. International Speech Communication Association (ISCA), Vol. Baixas. pp. 836–839. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21437/SpeechProsody.2016-171
Steen, Francis and Mark Turner (2013). Multimodal Construction Grammar. In Michael Borkent, Barbara Dancygier, and Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the Creative Mind (pp. 255–274). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol (2003). A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In Klaus-Uwe Panther and Linda L. Thornburg (eds), Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.09ste
Szymanek, Bogdan (2015). Remarks on tautology in word-formation. In Laurie Bauer, Lívia Körtvélyessy, and Pavol Štekauer (eds.), Semantics of Complex Words [Studies in Morphology 3] (pp. 143–161). New York: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14102-2_8
Valenzuela, Javier, Joseph Hilferty and Mar Garachana (2005). On the reality of constructions. The Spanish reduplicative-topic construction. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3: 201–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.11val
van Dijk, Teun A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11: 11–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
Vassilaki, Evgenia (2017). Cognitive motivation in the linguistic realization of requests in Modern Greek. In Angeliki Athanasiadou (ed.), Studies in Figurative Thought and Language (pp. 105–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.56.04vas
Vigliocco, Gabriella, Pamela Perniss, and David Vinson (2014). Language as a multimodal phenomenon: Implications for language learning, processing and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 369(1651): 20130292. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0292 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0292
Ward, Gregory L., and Julia Hirschberg (1991). A pragmatic analysis of tautological utterances. Journal of Pragmatics 15.6: 507–520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90109-B
Wierzbicka, Anna (1987). Boys will be boys: 'Radical semantics' vs. 'radical pragmatics'. Language 63.2: 95–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/415385
Wincott, Daniel, John Peterson, and Alan Convery (2017). Introduction: Studying Brexit’s causes and consequences. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19.3: 429-433. Special issue on Brexit. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148117713481
Ziem, Alexander (2017). Do we really need a Multimodal Construction Grammar? Linguistics Vanguard 3(s1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0095 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0095
##submission.format##
##submission.crossmark##
License
In order to support the global exchange of knowledge, the journal Complutense Journal of English Studies is allowing unrestricted access to its content as from its publication in this electronic edition, and as such it is an open-access journal. The originals published in this journal are the property of the Complutense University of Madrid and any reproduction thereof in full or in part must cite the source. All content is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 use and distribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This circumstance must be expressly stated in these terms where necessary. You can view the summary and the complete legal text of the licence.
