Download Discourse markers and grammaticalization

Universidade Federal Fluminense
Niterói
Mini curso, Part 2: 08.05.14, 17:30
Discourse markers
and grammaticalization
Bernd Heine
1
[email protected]
What is a discourse marker?
2
“... the status of discourse markers remains uncertain (see, for
example, Fischer 2006). There is little consensus on whether they
are a syntactic or a pragmatic category, on which types of
expressions the category includes, on the relationship of discourse
markers to other posited categories such as connectives,
interjections, modal particles, speaker-oriented sentence adverbials,
and on the term “discourse marker” as opposed to alternatives such
as “discourse connective” or “pragmatic marker” or “pragmatic
particle”.” (Lewis 2011: 419-20).
Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional
approach to the emergence of discourse markers in
Linguistics 49, 2: 415-43.
3
English.
What is a discourse marker? 1
Discourse markers (DMs) are "sequentially dependent elements
which bracket units of discourse" (Schiffrin 1987: 36).
But there are almost as many definitions as there are authors who
have worked on them.
Heine, Bernd 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization,
pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51, 6: 1205-47.
4
What is a discourse marker? 2
Also called discourse particles, pragmatic markers, discourse
connectives, adverbials connecting adverbials, conjunctions, “vocal
hickups”, etc., DMs have become known under a larger number of
different names; Dér (2010: 5) found 42 different English terms
being in use for DMs.
And they have been the subject of many studies (e.g., Schiffrin
1987; Brinton 1996; 2008: 1, 15; Jucker 1993: 436; Jucker and Ziv
1998: 1-5; Schourup 1999; Gohl and Günthner 1999: 59-63;
Barth-Weingarten and Couper-Kuhlen 2002: 352; Traugott and
Dasher 2002: 154-7; Auer and Günthner 2005: 334; Kaltenböck
2007: 31; Brinton 2008: 1, 15; Dér 2010; Lewis 2011; Vandenbergen
5
and Willems 2011).
What is a discourse marker? 3
Properties defining discourse markers
a
They are syntactically independent from their environment.
b
They tend to be set off prosodically from the rest of the utterance.
c
Their meaning is non-restrictive.
d
Their meaning is procedural rather than conceptual-propositional.
e
They are non-compositional and as a rule short.
Paradigm English examples:
after all, anyway, besides, however, I think, indeed, in fact,
instead, now, then, well, you know
But also multi-word units: if you will, in any case
6
How to account for the existence of discourse markers?
Grammaticalization
Pragmaticalization
Grammaticalization
Grammaticalization: a definition
Grammaticalization is defined as the development from lexical to
grammatical forms, and from grammatical to even more
grammatical forms. Since the development of grammatical forms is
not independent of the constructions to which they belong, the study
of grammaticalization is in the same way concerned with
constructions, and with even larger discourse segments.
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi, & Friederike Hünnemeyer 1991.
Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott 2003.
Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10
Grammaticalization: an English example
a
b
He used all the money.
Verb
He used to come on Tuesdays. Habitual
(Context) extension:
verbal rather than nominal
complements
Desemanticization:
Loss of lexical meaning in favor of an
aspectual function
External decategorialization:
used to lost most of the syntactic
potential it has as a lexical verb
Internal decategorialization:
Loss of the ability to be inflected
Erosion:
reduced
used to tends to be phonetically
Pragmaticalization
Pragmaticalization: a definition
"... the process by which a syntagma or word form, in a given context,
changes its propositional meaning in favor of an essentially
metacommunicative, discourse interactional meaning." (Frank-Job
2006: 361)
Frank-Job, Barbara 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach
to discourse markers. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) 2006.
Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Pp.
359-74.
Pragmaticalization is a process leading to “the development of
discourse markers” (Norde 2009: 21).
Norde, Muriel 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
The established view
a I think that John is not going to come tonight.
Sentence grammar unit
Pragmaticalization >
b John I think is not going to come tonight.
Discourse marker
(Erman and Kotsinas 1993; Aijmer 1997; Biber et al 1999: 197, 140, 1075,
Stenström 1995: 291, Quirk et al 1985: 1113-5; Kaltenböck 2007)
Pragmaticalization vs. grammaticalization
15
The relationship between pragmaticalization and grammaticalization:
Three main positions
A The two are different and each should be understood and described
in its own right (Erman and Kotsinas 1993; Aijmer 1997; Günthner
1999; Frank-Job 2006; Ocampo 2006; Norde 2009).
B Pragmaticalization is a sub-type of grammaticalization (Wischer
2000; Barth and Couper-Kuhlen 2002: 357).
C There is no pragmaticalization (Traugott 1995; Traugott and
Dasher 2002; Brinton and Traugott 2005: 136-40; Brinton 2008;
Diewald 2011a; 2011b).
16
A The pragmaticalization view
Lexical expression
Grammaticalization
Grammatical expression
(e.g., a tense or aspect marker)
Pragmaticalization
Pragmatic expression
(discourse marker)
17
B The grammaticalization view
Lexical expression
Grammaticalization
Canonical grammaticalization
Pragmaticalization
18
........
An alternative account:
Thetical Grammar
Comment clauses (e.g. Brinton 2008)
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English:
Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. (Studies in English
Language.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
a I think that Kim went home.
Sentence grammar
b Kim I think went home.
Thetical
c Kim went I think home.
d Kim went home I think.
20
A prototypical definition of a thetical
a
b
c
d
e
elliptic.
They are syntactically independent from their environment.
They tend to be set off prosodically from the rest of the utterance.
Their meaning is non-restrictive.
They tend to be positionally mobile.
Their internal structure is built on principles of SG but can be
Bernd Heine, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva, and Haiping Long 2013. An
outline of
discourse grammar. In Bischoff, Shannon and Carmen Jany (eds.),
Functional
Approaches to Language. Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 175-233.
21
What is “non-restrictive” meaning?
The meaning of Sentence Grammar units is restrictive:
It relates to the structure of the sentence.
The meaning of theticals is non-restrictive:
It relates to the situation of discourse.
22
Components of the situation of discourse (Kaltenböck et al. 2011)
Text organization
Source of information
Attitudes of the speaker (“subjectivity”)
Speaker-hearer interaction (“intersubjectivity”)
Discourse setting
World knowledge
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine, and Tania Kuteva
2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35, 4: 848-893.
23
Sentence Grammar vs. Thetical Grammar
The item confidentially
a
We were told so confidentially.
Sentence organization: syntactically and prosodically integrated,
positionally fixed, has a syntactic function: adverb
Restrictive meaning
b
Confidentially, we were told so.
Discourse organization: syntactically and prosodically set off,
positionally free, serves speaker-hearer interaction: thetical
Non-restrictive meaning
24
Cooptation
(Kaltenböck et al. 2011; Heine et al. 2013)
25
Discourse Grammar
Sentence Grammar (SG)
Conceptual Formulae
theticals of social
exchange
---->
Vocatives
Thetical Grammar (TG)
Imperatives Interjections
...
...
Cooptation of a Sentence Grammar adverb as a thetical “disjunct”
The item confidentially (repeated)
a
We were told so confidentially.
Cooptation >
b
Confidentially, we were told so.
27
Cooptation vs. grammaticalization 1
a Spontaneity: Grammaticalization is a gradual process that may take
centuries to be accomplished. Cooptation, by contrast, is
spontaneous rather than gradual, it can take place any time and
in any situation.
b Scope: Grammaticalization tends to lead to a restriction in the
(semantic-pragmatic) scope of the unit undergoing the process.
Cooptation by contrast entails an increase in scope.
c Syntax: Grammaticalization leads to both external and internal
decategorialization, i.e. to a loss of morphosyntactic properties,
including loss of autonomy. In cooptation, by contrast, the unit
concerned becomes syntactically independent of its environment.
d Semantics: The meaning of grammaticalized units is determined
by their function in the sentence in which they occur. Theticals,
i.e. coopted units, by contrast have non-restrictive (or
“metacommunicative”) meaning, which is not part of the sentence
meaning but rather is determined by the situation of discourse.
Cooptation vs. grammaticalization 2
e Morphophonology: Grammaticalized items tend to fuse with their
host or other elements of a sentence. Units undergoing cooptation
on the other hand tend to be separated from the rest of the utterance.
f Prosodics: Grammaticalization is almost invariably associated with
a loss of distinct intonation and other prosodic features.
Cooptation by contrast creates new syntactically autonomous units
characterized by pauses and distinct intonation contours.
g Word order: Information units undergoing grammaticalization tend
to be increasingly restricted in their placement, typically being
confined to a position next to their host. A unit coopted as a thetical,
by contrast, tends to be freed of constraints on placement.
Diachronic observations
30
English what else (repeated)
(Lenk 1998: 189-202; Brinton 2008: 212)
a The price reflects what else is available in the pub. (What's brewing,
BNC, 1991)
b Of course, on Monday nights they settle down to watch - what else "Murphy Brown" (Saturday Evening Post, 1992).
31
The earliest attestations of what else that we are aware of date back
to Early Modern English in the 16th century, and they concern both
Sentence Grammar units, as in (a), and thetical units in (b) and (c).
a Theyr reseruations were as wel ... in vittailis, whether flesh, fishe,
corne, bread, drinke, or what els, as in money. (1579 Expos.
Termes Law s.v. Reservation [OED]; Brinton 2008: 215)
b But I se my father, but what now may I do? may I go to hym?
what els, Father I haue synned into the heuen and before the,
nor here after I am not worthy to be called thy sonne. (1540
Palsgrave,The Comedye of Acolastus V, v; Brinton 2008: 216)
c Eteocles: And wilt thou then I vse some other reade?
Creon: What else? be still awhile, for haste makes wast (1573
Gascoigne and Kinwelmersh (trans.), Euripides’ Iocasta: A
Tragedie II, ii [ED]; Brinton 2008: 215)
32
Evidence for thetical status of what else in Early Modern English
i What else in (b) and (c) is not part of the sentence syntax; rather it is
ii
syntactically independent.
Its meaning does not appear to be part of the utterance meaning;
rather, it is described by Brinton (2008: 217) as
metacommunicative, subjective and interpersonal.
iii It has (semantic-pragmatic) scope over the utterance as a whole
rather than over some constituent of it.
33
Interim conclusion
There is evidence that what else served as a thetical from the earliest
stage of its documentation in the 16th century, and that all its main
features are due to this development
34
The earliest attestations of some "discourse markers" (comment
clauses) and their corresponding Sentence Grammar units in the
history of English (Source: Brinton 2008).
Form
Sentence Grammar
unit
Thetical
(I) say
I daresay
(as) you say
that is (to say)
I mean
(as/so) you see
if you will
I find
I gather
what else
1653
?
1400
?
1390
c888
10th c.
1390
1576
1579
1590-5
c1440
c1380
10th c.
1382-6
c1325
10th c.
1400
1871
1573, 1540
OE hwt
'what'
what's more
c888
c800
?
1633
From cooptation to grammaticalization
a I think that John is not going to come tonight.
Sentence grammar
Cooptation as a syntactically and prosodically autonomous unit
b John, I think, is not going to come tonight.
Thetical
Grammaticalization:
Loss of conceptual meaning
Loss of prosodic distinctiveness (intonation, pauses)
c John I think is not going to come tonight.
Discourse marker
Conclusions
Earlier positions on the relationship between pragmaticalization and
grammaticalization
A The two are different and each should be understood and described
in its own right.
B The former is a sub-type of the latter.
C There is no pragmaticalization.
The present position:
D "Pragmaticalization" is the result of cooptation, possibly followed by
grammaticalization.
37
Sentence [cooptation] > thetical (grammaticalization > ) discourse
grammar
marker
unit
38
Sentence [cooptation] > thetical (grammaticalization > ) discourse
grammar
marker
unit
__________________________________________
"pragmaticalization"
39
Qesttions?
40