Chapter 5
Dichotomous or continuous?
Final particles and a dualistic conception of grammar
This article demonstrates that final particles (more broadly markers) in four East Asian languages (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Mongolian) and three West European languages (English, Spanish, and German) follow a similar semantic/discourse-functional ordering principle when they occur in sequence: more intersubjective particles follow more subjective or less intersubjective particles. These particles can be largely classified into two types: sentence-final and utterance-final types. A detailed description of both types in languages like Japanese reveals that the sentence-final type has some properties of both domains postulated in a dualistic conception of grammar (thetical grammar and sentence grammar, inter alia, in Kaltenböck et al. (2011) and Heine et al. (2013); macrogrammar and microgrammar in Haselow (2016a) among others). Japanese sentence-final particles, par excellence, are microgrammartical and sentence-grammatical elements on formal grounds but macrogrammatical and thetical-grammatical elements in functional terms. This fact requires us to recognize that the two domains do not comprise a dichotomy but form a continuum to a greater degree than assumed thus far.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Sequences of sentence-final particles in East Asian languages
- 2.1Japanese sentence-final particles and their ordering principle
- 2.2Sentence-final particle sequences in Korean, Chinese, and Mongolian
- 2.3“Grammatical” aspects of sentence-final particles
- 3.Final particle sequences in West European languages
- 3.1English final particles (pragmatic markers) and their sequences
- 3.2Sequence of final pragmatic markers in Spanish
- 3.3Final-particle sequences in German
- 3.4Syntactic rather than morphological regulation of final particles
- 4.Further testimony to continuity in dualistic conceptions of grammar
- 4.1Syntactic regulation and morphological integration
- 4.2Utterance-final particles and “final field” in Japanese
- 4.3Ordering principle and degree of morphosyntactic integration
- 5.Final particles in dualistic conceptions of grammar
- 6.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgements
-
Notes
-
References
References (45)
References
Clark, H., & Brennan, S. A.. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diewald, G. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer, K. (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (403–425). Amsterdam: Elsevier.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fujiwara, Y. 1993. Gengo ruikeiron to bunmatsushi [Linguistic typology and sentence-final particles]. Tokyo: Miyai Shoten.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Günthner, S. 2011. Between emergence and sedimentation: projecting constructions in German interactions. Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (Eds.), Constructions: Emergent and emerging (156–185). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haselow, A. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: the functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3603–3623. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haselow, A. 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: final particles in English. Language and Communication, 32, 182–204. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haselow, A. 2015. Final particles in spoken German. In Hancil, S., Haselow, A., & Post, M. (Eds.), Final particles (77–197). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haselow, A. 2016a. A processual view on grammar: macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences, 54, 77–101. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haselow, A. 2019. Discourse marker sequences: insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics, 149, 1–18. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization : A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. 2013. An outline of discourse grammar. In Jany, C., & Bischoff, S. (Eds.). Functional approaches to language (155–206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G. 2014. Discourse grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: some correlations. Language and Cognition, 6, 146–180. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., & Kuteva, T. 2015. Some observations on the evolution of final particles. In Hancil, S., Haselow, A., & Post, M. (Eds.), Final particles (111–140). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B. 2018. On the dualistic nature of discourse processing: linguistic and neurolinguistic observations. Working paper, prepared for the International Workshop One Brain – Two Grammars? Examining dualistic approaches to grammar and cognition, Rostock, 1–2 March 2018.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Izutsu, M. N., & Izutsu, K. 2014. “‘Leap’ or ‘continuum’?: grammaticalization pathways from conjunctions to sentence-final particles.” In Borkent, M., Dancygier, B., & Hinnell, J. (Eds.), Language and the creative mind (83–99). Stanford: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Izutsu, M. N., & Izutsu, K. 2017. Regularity outside argument structure: sequential ordering in final position. A paper presented at IPrA 15, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Izutsu, M. N., & Izutsu, K. 2019.
Very simple, though, isn’t it?: pragmatic marker sequencing at right periphery. A paper to be presented at IPrA 16, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hon Kong.
Jin, G. 2009. Mongorugo no shujoshi no shosetsu nitsuite: kopasu ni motozuku kijutsuteki kenkyu [On the sequential ordering of Mongolian final particles: a corpus-based descriptive study]. In Tomimori, N., Minegishi, M., & Kawaguchi, Y. (Eds.), Kopasu o mochiita gengo kenkyu no kanosei [Potentials of corpus-based studies] (129–147). Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language, 35, 852–897. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaltenböck, G., & Heine, B. 2014. Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: two competing domains? MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A., & Moravcsik, E. (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (348–363). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Klausenburger, J. 1979. Morphologization: Studies in Latin and Romance morphophonology. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lehmann, C. 1985. Grammaticalization: synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e stile, 20, 303–318.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A.. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matsumura, A. (Ed.). 1971. Nihon bunpo daijiten [An unabridged dictionary of Japanese grammar]. Tokyo: Meijishoin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Minami, F. 1993. Gendai nihongo bunpo no rinkaku [An outline of present-day Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noda, H. 1997. “No(da)” no Kino [Functions of no(da)]. Tokyo: Kurosio.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paik, P. J. 2007. Wegugeo roseo eui hangugeo munbeob sajeon [A reference grammar of Korean as a foreign language]. Seoul: Hau.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Paul, W. 2014. Why particles are not particular: sentence-final particles in Chinese as heads of a split CP. Studia Linguistica 68(1), 77–115. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Saji, K. 1957. Syujoshi-no kino [Functions of final particles]. Kokugo Kokubun 26(7), 23–31.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shibatani, M. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shinzato, R., & Masuda, K. 2009. Morphophonological variability and form-function regularity: a usage-based approach to the Japanese modal adverb yahari/yappari/yappa
. Language Sciences, 31, 813–836. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Simpson, A. 2014. Sentence-final particles. In Huang, C. T. J., Li, Y. H. A., & Simpson, A. (Eds.), The handbook of Chinese linguistics (156–179). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sohn, H.-M. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tottie, G., & Hoffmann, S. 2006. Tag questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34(4), 283–311. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Watanabe, M. 1974. Kokugo bunporon [A grammatical theory of Japanese]. Tokyo: Kasamashoin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yamakoshi, Y.. 2012. Kuwashiku wakaru mongorugo bunpo [A detailed Mongolian grammar]. Tokyo: Hakusuisha.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yap, F. H., Yang, Y., & Wong, T.-S. 2014. On the development of sentence final particles (and utterance tags) in Chinese. In Beeching, K., & Detges, U. (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (179–220). Leiden & Boston: Brill. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Izutsu, Katsunobu & Mitsuko Narita Izutsu
Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Katsunobu Izutsu
2021.
On and off the common ground: Japanese final particles as (un)grounding devices.
Lingua Posnaniensis 63:2
► pp. 7 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.