Despite the valuable contribution that the five papers gathered in this volume make both to the domain of Construction Grammar and conversational linguistics, there still are several issues to be tackled in future research. These include not only more detailed accounts of specific discourse-related phenomena such as pragmatic markers (following up on, amongst others, Traugott’s 2018 and Enghels’ 2018 accounts), comment clauses, dislocating structures (e.g. with es que in Spanish) etc., but also extensions towards the diachronic and typological domains. As for the latter, the current issue has addressed questions regarding the degree of conventionalization (versus ad-hoc, innovative status) of multi-sentential and multi-modal constructions, and the cognitive model that best captures how they are integrated into a globally coherent network. In this way, the detailed empirical analyses presented in this issue can provide the basis for the establishment of a wider theoretical framework and could open up the current discussion to more typological research. It is well known that “languages differ in the constructions that they possess” (Croft 2001: 29), and that similar constructions may have different distributions across languages. In general terms, CxG has already been confirmed as a powerful theory for cross-linguistic comparison (Croft 2001). An interesting question is thus to what extent we can observe similarities and differences, due to language-specific constraints, between conversational patterns across typologically different languages. An attempt has already been made by Fischer & Alm (2013), who define the form and function components of modal and discourse particles, as well as a general conceptual space against which similar constructions in specific languages can be compared. Still, in future research the question as to what extent issues of discourse-level and interactional phenomena can be defined as linguistic universals should be addressed in more detail. Next, Construction Grammar has been put forward as a highly adequate model to account for language change, mostly as concerns morphology and syntactic patterns. The diachronic constructional approach is concerned with processes and types of change that cannot easily be accounted for by grammaticalization theory (e.g. Barðdal 2008; Hilpert 2013). Whereas grammaticalization has focused mainly on the development of grammatical categories, the constructional approach focuses on how the internal and external configuration of sets of expressions changes (e.g. Himmelmann 2004). The recently developed constructionalization theory (Traugott & Trousdale 2013) pays special attention to the emergence of new constructions. A particularly appealing implication of the constructional view is that the perception of a relationship between patterns within a paradigm is part of a competent speaker’s knowledge. This entails that linguistic change does not apply to an individual linguistic item alone, but always involves to some extent its network family members. A construction can thus be assumed to have its own history which is, however, often constrained by, or has an impact on, the history of related patterns or schemas in the network. This interconnectedness has consequences for the network configuration. Within a network, new patterns can arise whereas others disappear; a pattern can become more frequent and productive and invade the domain of another, or, conversely, it can lose its vitality, become obsolescent and leave a functional gap. As a consequence, the configuration of the network itself can remain stable, or can be reorganized, grow, or shrink. Still, despite these theoretical insights, not much work has been done on the diachronic evolutions of discourse-level phenomena within the constructional change framework. As a consequence, the operationalization of formerly defined diagnostics of constructional change (Himmelmann 2004; Barðdal 2008; Hilpert 2013; Traugott & Trousdale 2013) in the domain of discourse-level phenomena leads to a number of unresolved methodological and terminological issues (Enghels 2018). Traugott and Trousdale (2013) emphasize that the expansion of the productivity and