In line with Sansiñena (2015), the paper discusses cases in which quoted directives and strong directives intertwine, and represents the close relation between the constructions through horizontal links. The three ‘desiderative’ semantic categories are argued to constitute instantiations of one schema and speakers therefore arrive at each specific meaning through multidimensional links. In such cases, one interpretation can be more salient than other interpretations that are potentially possible depending on the felicity conditions of the relevant speech acts (see also Sansiñena 2015). Finally, the paper suggests that insubordination works at different levels of abstraction, with one type of insubordination operating at the level of the sentence and another type operating at the discourse-organizing level. The main contribution of this paper lies on the network model presented, which offers a framework that can be applied to other cases of polysemous insubordination. The paper by Gunther Kaltenböck, entitled “On the use of semi-insubordination in English”, investigates the formal and functional properties of complex sentences with an ‘incomplete’ matrix clause, on the basis of corpus data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Corpus of American Soap Operas (SOAP). Semi-insubordination (SIS) is defined as a two-component structure with a so-called matrix element (an adjective or noun) and a subordinate clause (such as a that-clause, a how-clause, or a to-infinitive, among others), with the former having scope over the latter. The study shows that SIS form structurally related constructions, exhibiting its own functional profile, and it is therefore argued that SIS is best analysed as a construction in its own right rather than simply an ‘incomplete elliptical structure’. This general argument for a construction grammar analysis over an ellipsis account is strong and convincing. The study further shows that SIS is attested in corpus data with diverse ‘matrix’ predicates exhibiting different preferences for the type of subordinate clause, and identifies various structural overlaps with related constructions: structural expansion into, for instance, it-extraposition (It’s funny that…) and exclamatives (How funny that…), among others, occurs relatively frequently. The main focus of the paper, however, is with the functional properties of SIS (including subjective speaker evaluation, non-generic interpretation, and deictic anchoring) and with its specific functional profile, on the basis of which two major discourse functions – the ‘commenting’ function and the ‘presentative’ function – are identified. The informational status of the subordinate clause and its syntactic and prosodic form are argued to be essential in determining which of these two discourse functions is foregrounded. It is also argued, against previous accounts of SIS, that absence of a clear presupposition structure is one of the main functional components of SIS in English. Pointing to the functional idiosyncrasies, as well as to the structural idiosyncrasies and a number of formulaic uses, Kaltenböck argues that SIS has its own node in the constructional network of a speaker’s grammar and it is taxonomically linked with a set of distinct but formally and functionally related constructions, some with prominent links and others with less prominent ones. The study not only contributes to detailing the properties of a to- date quite neglected pattern in English but it also offers an explanation of this discourse-level phenomenon while addressing some of the challenges that are involved in expanding constructionist thinking to discourse-level phenomena.

### 3. Implications and future directions