expressed by the predicate, conveying different semantic roles such as addressees, recipients, experiencers or affected possessors. In their non-propositional use as ‘interactional datives’, they behave more like ‘freely added’ pragmatic markers that point to several interactional meanings. All meanings connect through the core semantic domain of ‘indirect affectedness’, and the DATIVE-OF- INTEREST use, in which a participant is represented as a beneficiary of the event, plays a key role in this representation. The paper undoubtedly relates to several key issues of this special volume. Not only does it provide further evidence to the idea that interactional markers can also be defined in terms of a grammatical construction, it is also innovative in the kind of network it proposes. First, it is argued that these interactional datives have the status of grammatical constructions 1st 2nd because they not only share formal characteristics (i.e. they are restricted to and person atonic and enclitic personal pronouns), but also relate to particular discourse functions (such as signalling evidentiality, looking for emotional closeness between the interlocutors or providing a speaker’s metatextual commentary or epistemic stance) and discourse settings (i.e. informal private conversations). However, based on the interplay between person and number of the pronoun, a threefold typology is proposed, involving Explicit Addressee Reference (or ‘contact’), Implicit Addressee Reference (or speaker-centred emotional reactions) and Collective Reference (or speakers’ witness commentaries). Each type comes in a different form and is characterized by a different interactional profile. As such, they can be defined as multi-layered clusters and complex form-meaning pairings. The notion of ‘implicit anchoring’, including the principles of Coherence, Involvement and Politeness (Fried & Östman 2005), is proposed in order to account for the conventionally encoded interactional features. These relevant features are also defined as ‘discourse patterns’ (in Östman’s 2015 terms) which represent “schematized and conventionalized knowledge, shared by interlocutors, about what is appropriate to say in a particular situational setting or how to interpret appropriately the speaker’s likely communicative intention in that setting” (Fried, this volume, p xx). This discourse patterns are then connected to particular linguistic forms. Next, the paper also contributes to the methodological challenge of representing the internal organization of discourse-related phenomena, compared with more standard grammatical patterns. It is shown that the interactional dative construction is part of a broader network in which dative argument-expressions and dative interactional markers overlap. Both domains are connected through the semantic notion of ‘indirect affectedness’, as the propositional meaning of ‘participants being indirectly affected by the event expressed by the predicate’ has extended towards the non- propositional use of ‘participants being indirectly affected by what is being said in discourse’. This representation substantiates the fluid rather than discrete relationship between propositional and non-propositional uses, accounting also for ambiguous cases. This leads to an important theoretical contribution provided by this paper which is to represent “the grammatical organization of conversational language […] through integrated ‘constructional maps’” (Fried, this volume, p. xx). This notion of ‘constructional map’ relates to Croft’s (2001: 92) concept of ‘mental maps’ or ‘conceptual spaces’ based on functional similarities among items. As an alternative to the rather straight hierarchical constructional networks including inheritance relationships and coercion effects, Fried proposes to work with fluid maps that account for degrees of overlap at different formal and functional levels of representation. This representation clearly shows the core of common features of the different dative variants as well as the more peripheral ones that relate to other conceptual spaces. This systematic representation could then be applied to cognate categories cross-linguistically.