Discourse markers and grammaticalization

Transcription

1 Universidade Federal Fluminense Niterói Mini curso, Part 2: , 17:30 Discourse markers and grammaticalization Bernd Heine 1 bernd.heine@uni-keln.de

2 What is a discourse marker? 2

3 ... 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: ). Lewis, Diana M A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in Linguistics 49, 2: English.

4 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 On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51, 6:

5 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 and Willems 2011). 5

6 What is a discourse marker? 3 Properties defining discourse markers a b c d e 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. Their meaning is procedural rather than conceptual-propositional. 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

7 How to account for the existence of discourse markers?

8 Grammaticalization Pragmaticalization

9 Grammaticalization

10 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 Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10

11 Grammaticalization: an English example a He used all the money. Verb b 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

12 Pragmaticalization

13 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 A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.) Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp Pragmaticalization is a process leading to the development of discourse markers (Norde 2009: 21). Norde, Muriel Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14 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: ; Kaltenböck 2007)

15 Pragmaticalization vs. grammaticalization 15

16 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: ; Brinton 2008; Diewald 2011a; 2011b). 16

17 A The pragmaticalization view Lexical expression Grammaticalization Pragmaticalization Grammatical expression (e.g., a tense or aspect marker) Pragmatic expression (discourse marker) 17

18 B The grammaticalization view Lexical expression Grammaticalization Canonical grammaticalization Pragmaticalization... 18

19 An alternative account: Thetical Grammar

20 Comment clauses (e.g. Brinton 2008) Brinton, Laurel J 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

21 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 An outline of discourse grammar. In Bischoff, Shannon and Carmen Jany (eds.), Functional Approaches to Language. Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter. Pp

22 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

23 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 On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35, 4:

24 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

25 Cooptation (Kaltenböck et al. 2011; Heine et al. 2013) 25

26 Discourse Grammar Sentence Grammar (SG) ----> Thetical Grammar (TG)... Conceptual Formulae Vocatives Imperatives Interjections... theticals of social exchange

27 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

28 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.

29 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.

30 Diachronic observations 30

31 English what else (repeated) (Lenk 1998: ; 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

32 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

33 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

34 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

35 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? c1440 (as) you say 1400 c1380 that is (to say)? 10th c. I mean (as/so) you see c888 c1325 if you will 10th c. 10th c. I find I gather what else , 1540 OE hw t c888 c800 'what' what's more? 1633

36 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

37 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

38 Sentence [cooptation] > thetical ( grammaticalization > ) discourse grammar marker unit 38

39 Sentence [cooptation] > thetical ( grammaticalization > ) discourse grammar marker unit "pragmaticalization" 39

40 Qesttions? 40