Metapragmatic neology in digital discourse

This note addresses the topic of Judith Bridges’s focus article, namely ‑splain neologisms such as mansplain, thinsplain and covidsplain, from the perspective of morphological theory. I attempt to show that Morphopragmatics, a subfield of morphology, can account for the complex pragmatics of word formation processes like those in ‑splain neology. I propose that the analysis of ‑splain words as constructional idioms, under the framework of Construction Morphology, provides a suitable account of the pragmatic effects associated with the innovations in this lexical pattern.

The evolution of splain terms and the spirit of Citizen Sociolinguistics

I situate Bridges’s study of ‑splain and its social outgrowths and implications within the framework of Rymesian Citizen Sociolinguistics, offering clarity on the methodological differences between this approach and other approaches that have been conflated with it. I agree with Bridges’s addition of critical discourse analysis and neology to the Citizen Sociolinguistics method and with her use of metapragmatics to shed light on the emergence of new personae associated with the weaponization of (man)splain and its associated call-out culture.

Explaining "-splain" in digital discourse

Combining digital discourse analysis and Citizen Sociolinguistics, methodological frames that contend with the effects of evolving digital practices, I present an approach to studying sociolinguistic trends by investigating how social media users talk about what language is doing. This approach is applicable to research on a wide range of linguistic and cultural contexts. The particular focus in this paper, however, is on U.S.-based social issues and linguistic features of American English as they appear in pieces of digital discourse from the micro-blogging platforms Twitter and Tumblr. Situated within the highly fractured sociopolitical climate of the pandemic-afflicted United States, the language under discussion provides a glimpse of some historically relevant sociocultural beliefs and attitudes towards the role of gender and racial identity in sociopolitical discourse. Focusing on uses of -splain, a metapragmatic bound morpheme, the paper demonstrates how social media users assemble lexical, discursive, and other semiotic resources as means for negotiating sociopragmatic appropriateness. The analysis shows how the usage of words like mansplain encompass the sociolinguistic process of enregisterment through practices of linguistic reflexivity, creativity, and regimentation – practices that are essential aspects of interaction and participation in social media. Using these enregistered metapragmatic words problematizes imbalances in users’ sociopragmatic ideologies, namely who can or cannot say what, to whom, and in what manner. I show how creative metapragmatic language is deployed to discuss issues of entitlement and epistemic authority in communicative dynamics. I draw on theoretical frames that reveal how the recontextualization and resemiotization of -splain words and other metapragmatic neologisms are performances of identity. I also show how splain-mediated communication facilitates users in achieving their own discursive intentions to point out language in judgmental and/or lighthearted manners. I assert that attention to metapragmatic neologisms in the perspective of Citizen Sociolinguistics enhances the analytical repertoire of digital discourse analysis.

In defense of the simplicity and accuracy of dependency syntax: A reply to the discussion notes

My focus article in Language Under Discussion from 2018 argued that dependency syntax is both simpler and more accurate than phrase structure syntax with respect to the results delivered by tests for constituents. Four linguists (Richard Hudson, Lachlan Mackenzie, Stefan Müller, and Matthew Reeve) have responded to my focus article with discussion notes, challenging aspects of my message in various ways. In this article, I respond to the counterarguments produced in the discussion notes. In order to address one of the main counterarguments, having to do with scope and meaning compositionality, I introduce a new unit of dependency syntax, namely the colocant. My claim is that aspects of scope and meaning compositionality, for which phrase structure is deemed necessary, can be addressed in terms of colocants. Hence, scope phenomena and the manner in which meaning is composed can no longer be construed as an argument against dependency syntax and in favor of the necessity of phrase structure.

Beyond constituency tests: A reply to Osborne

Timothy Osborne argues that phrase structure grammars (PSGs) postulate unnecessarily complex structures, and that Dependency Grammar (DG) is to be preferred on grounds of simplicity (1:1 word-to-node ratio) and empirical adequacy (capturing the results of constituency tests). In this reply, I argue that, while some of Osborne’s criticisms of PSGs are justified, there are both empirical and theoretical problems with his major claims. In particular, his version of DG is too restrictive with respect to certain constituency facts (modified nouns, verbal phrases), and what it gains in simplicity qua number of nodes, it loses in requiring a more complex interface between syntax and other linguistic components (phonology, semantics). I argue that Mirror Theory, a framework that is in a sense intermediate between DG and PSGs, answers Osborne’s justified criticisms while not suffering from the problems of his version of DG.

Evaluating theories: Counting nodes and the question of constituency

This paper is a reply to Timothy Osborne’s paper Tests for constituents: What they really reveal about the nature of syntactic structure that appeared 2018 in Language under Discussion. This paper discusses how constituent tests work and why it is no problem if they are not applicable. It is argued that Osborne’s claims regarding simplicity of Dependency Grammar (DG) in comparison to Phrase Structure Grammar (PSG) are unwarranted and that DG models that include semantics make use of auxiliary structure that is equivalent to the nodes assumed in PSG. A final section of the paper discusses the general validity of counting nodes for theory evaluation and the assumption of empty elements vs. specialized phrasal rules.

Testing for constituents: A response from Functional Discourse Grammar

Timothy Osborne has surveyed a very large number of published introductions to grammatical analysis, all of which share the assumption that syntactic argumentation is to be conducted without reference to the meanings, uses and contexts of the example sentences. The purpose of Osborne’s article is to examine how well syntactic tests identify subphrasal strings as constituents. The aim of this discussion note is not to engage directly with this issue but to consider, from the viewpoint of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), the validity of the autonomous syntax assumption shared by Osborne and the authors whose work he considers. The note dwells on the hidden presence of functional and interactive notions in a methodology based on syntactic ‘tests’ and it is suggested that the difficulties encountered by that methodology (notably with regard to coordination) can be resolved insightfully by FDG with its four levels of analysis.

Dependencies are more psychologically plausible, not more parsimonious

I argue that the crucial criterion for evaluating analyses is psychological plausibility, and not parsimony, so the number of nodes isn’t important—and indeed, one version of dependency analysis recognises as many nodes as some phrase-structure analyses do. But in terms of plausibility, dependency grammar is preferable to phrase structure because the latter denies that the human mind is capable of recognising direct links (dependencies) between words.

Reply to comments

This short paper contains brief replies to the comments that Richard Hudson, Timothy Osborne, Paul Rastall, and William Benzon made to my focus article, “Linguistic structure: A plausible theory”, in this issue of Language Under Discussion.

Tests for constituents: What they really reveal about the nature of syntactic structure

Syntax is a central subfield within linguistics and is important for the study of natural languages, since they all have syntax. Theories of syntax can vary drastically, though. They tend to be based on one of two competing principles, on dependency or phrase structure. Surprisingly, the tests for constituents that are widely employed in syntax and linguistics research to demonstrate the manner in which words are grouped together forming higher units of syntactic structure (phrases and clauses) actually support dependency over phrase structure. The tests identify much less sentence structure than phrase structure syntax assumes. The reason this situation is surprising is that phrase structure has been dominant in research on syntax over the past 60 years. This article examines the issue in depth. Dozens of texts were surveyed to determine how tests for constituents are employed and understood. Most of the tests identify phrasal constituents only; they deliver little support for the existence of subphrasal strings as constituents. This situation is consistent with dependency structure, since for dependency, subphrasal strings are not constituents to begin with.