Instantiation and anchoring: Variation among staking constructions conditioned by non-linguistic practice

The choice among three related constructions used to stake money is accounted for in terms of their associated non-linguistic practice. With one construction (Here's MONEY that says PROPOSITION) the speaker names a monetary value and draws attention to an instance of it s/he is displaying. A second construction (I've got MONEY that says PROPOSITION) is originally also used to introduce an instance of a monetary value. Here, though, the speaker declares that s/he is carrying the money, implying that s/he will display it if interest is shown. A change in practice, with bettors increasingly not displaying money, leads hearers to no longer expect display, and understand the mention of money merely as an invocation of the amount named. The meaning of 'I've got' changes from carrying to ownership. However, since ownership is entailed, 'I've got' becomes redundant. As the change in practice occurs a third construction (MONEY says PROPOSITION) emerges. It is argued that this is a shortening, without the redundant 'I've got'. It is suggested that the speaker's choice of whether to 'anchor' the mention of money (with 'here's'/'I've got') depends on whether s/he is instantiating a monetary value or merely invoking one. •Instantiating an amount of money requires anchoring; invoking an amount doesn't.•An anchoring relation must be declared if hearer-new, but need not be if hearer-old.•Linguistic action can be shaped by non-linguistic action done in conjunction with it.•Constructions must cover partly/wholly non-linguistic as well as linguistic actions.•Joint projects require the representation of combinations of communicative actions.