Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries
Edited by Daniël Van Olmen and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 325] 2021
► pp. 49–74

Chapter 2
Dutch pragmatic markers in the left periphery

ORCID logo | Meertens Instituut
| Radboud Universiteit

This chapter explores the left periphery of Dutch utterances. Four positions hosting pragmatic markers (PMs) are distinguished: the first sentence position (P1), a position following P1 and two positions respectively preceding and following a left dislocated constituent. We hypothesize that there are correlations between these positions and pragmatic functions like discourse coherence, subjectivity and intersubjectivity. A short look is taken at asyndetic clusters of pragmatic markers in the left periphery, we also assume functional motivations for the linear ordering of PMs in the cluster. The goal of the chapter is primarily descriptive, inspired by functionally oriented frameworks, in particular Construction Grammar, Functional Discourse Grammar and Interactional Linguistics. The illustrative data are mainly taken from CGN, the corpus of spoken Dutch.

Keywords: Dutch, left periphery, pragmatic marker, pragmatic function, particle cluster
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An inventory of Dutch pragmatic markers
  • 3.Positions for PMs in the left periphery
    • 3.1A first sketch of Dutch sentence structure
    • 3.2Pragmatic markers in P1
    • 3.3Post-P1 pragmatic markers
    • 3.4PMs to the right and left of left dislocated constituents
  • 4.Functions of PMs in the left periphery
    • 4.1Functional classifications
    • 4.2PMs in P1 vs. Pre-P1
    • 4.3PMs after P1 constituents
    • 4.4PMs after left dislocated constituents
    • 4.5A short functional look at PMs in the middle field
  • 5.PM clustering in the left periphery
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.325.02van
References
Alm, Maria, Janina Behr, and Kerstin Fischer
2018 “Modal Particles and Sentence Type Restrictions: A Construction Grammar Perspective.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3 (1), 133: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Jan Lindström
2016 “Left/right Asymmetries and the Grammar of Pre- vs. Postpositioning in German and Swedish Talk-in-Interaction.” Language Sciences 56: 68–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate, and Ulrich Detges
2014 “Introduction.” In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, ed. by Kate Beeching, and Ulrich Detges, 1–23. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breindl, Eva
2008 “ ‘Die Brigitte nun kann der Hans nicht ausstehen’. Gebundenes Topik im Deutschen [Brigitte now, Hans cannot stand her].” Deutsche Sprache 36 (1): 27–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 “Nach Rom freilich führen viele Wege. Zur Interaktion von Informationsstruktur, Diskursstruktur und Prosodie bei der Besetzung der Nacherstposition [To Rome, for sure, many roads lead. On the interaction between information structure, discourse structure and prosody in the filling of the after-first-position].” In Konnektoren im Deutschen und im Sprachvergleich. Beschreibung und grammatische Analyse, ed. by Gisella Ferraresi, 17–56. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
1996 Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine
2017 “Towards an Operational Category of Discourse Markers: A Definition and Its Model.” In Discourse Markers, Pragmatics Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, ed. by Chiara Fedriani, and Andrea Sansò, 101–126. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria Josep, and Ludivine Crible
2019 “Co-Occurrence of Discourse Markers in English: From Juxtaposition to Composition.” Journal of Pragmatics 140: 171–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, and Ludivine Crible
Discourse Segmentation, Boundaries and Discourse Marker Use: A Corpus-based Study on Spoken French.” (this volume)
Degand, Liesbeth, and Benjamin Fagard
2011 “ Alors between Discourse and Grammar. The Role of Syntactic Position.” Functions of Language 18 (1): 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vriendt, Sera
1994 Van geen kleintje vervaard. Essays over Nederlandse taalwetenschap [Not afraid of small things. Essays on Dutch linguistics]. Brussel: VUB-Press.Google Scholar
De Vriendt, Sera, Willy Vandeweghe, and Piet Van de Craen
1991 “Combinatorial Aspects of Modal Particles in Dutch.” Multilingua 10 (1/2): 43–59.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C.
1997a The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. Second revised edition, edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
1997b The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. Second revised edition, edited by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John
2007 “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Engelbretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline
2010 “Dus vooraan of in het midden? Over vorm-functierelaties in het gebruik van connectieven [Thus in front or in the middle? About form-function relations in the use of connectives].” Nederlandse Taalkunde 15 (2): 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiorentini, Ilaria, and Andrea Sansò
2019 “From Digressive Marker to Topic Shifter and beyond. The Case of Italian tra parentesi (‘in brackets’).” Journal of Pragmatics 141: 102–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij, and Maarten C. van den Toorn
1997 Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammar], 2nd ed. Groningen/Leuven: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander
2019 “Discourse Marker Sequences: Insights into the Serial Order of Communicative Tasks in Real-time Production.” Journal of Pragmatics 146: 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S., and Vincent J. van Heuven
1996 “Boundary Tones and the Semantics of the Dutch Final Particles hè, hoor, zeg, and joh .” In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996, ed. by Crit Cremers, and Marcel den Dikken, 133–146. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
2017 “Syntax and Semantics of Additive Focus Markers from a Cross-linguistic Perspective: A Tentative Assessment of the State of the Art.” In Focus on Additivity: Adverbial modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages, ed. by Anna-Maria De Cesare, and Cecilia Andorno, 23–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan
1975 “Dutch as an SOV Language.” Linguistic Analysis 1: 111–136.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud
2001 “Dislocation”. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, ed. by Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible, Vol. 2, 1050–1078. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Müller, Sonja
2018 Distribution und Interpretation von Modalpartikel-Kombinationen [Distribution and interpretation of modal particle combinations]. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, and Daan Broeder
2003 “The Spoken Dutch Corpus and its Exploitation Environment”. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora (LINC-03). 14 April, 2003. Budapest, Hungary ([URL]).
Panov, Vladimir
2020 “Final Particles in Asia: Establishing an Areal Feature.” Linguistic Typology 24 (1): 13–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul
2004 “Vocatives, Topics, and Imperatives.” Talk delivered at the IMS Workshop on Information Structure, Bad Teinach, Germany, July 16–18, 2004. [URL]
Rhee, Seongha
2016 “LP and RP in the Development of Discourse Markers from ‘what’ in Korean.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17 (2): 255–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph, and Stefan Th. Gries
2021 “How do Speakers and Hearers Disambiguate Multi-functional Words? The case of well .” Functions of Language 28 (1): 55–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2020 The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, Maria
1991 “ ‘Kombinieren Sie doch nur ruhig mal Modalpartikeln!’: Combinatorial Regularities for Modal Particles and their Use as an Instrument of Analysis.” Multilingua 10 (1/2): 19–42.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2012 “Intersubjectification and Clause Periphery”. English Text Construction 5 (1): 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “On the Function of the Epistemic Adverbs Surely and No Doubt at the Left and Right Peripheries of the Clause.” In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, ed. by Kate Beeching, and Ulrich Detges, 72–91. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike, and Annika Labrenz
Emoji as graphic discourse markers: Functional and positional associations in German WhatsApp® messages” (this volume).
van der Auwera, Johan
1987 “Complementizers as P2 Fillers.” In Putting One’s Words into Line. On Word Order and Functional Grammar, ed. by Jan Nuyts, and Georges De Schutter, 61–72. Dordrecht and Providence RI: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Wouden, Ton
2015 “A Marked Construction to Mark a Marked Phenomenon: How to Shift Topics in Dutch, or, the Barabbas Construction.” In Addenda: Artikelen voor Ad Foolen, ed. by Sander Lestrade, Peter de Swart, and Lotte Hogeweg, 539–572. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit.Google Scholar
van der Wouden, Ton, and Ad Foolen
2015 “Dutch Particles in the Right Periphery.” In Final Particles, ed. by Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow, and Margje Post, 221–247. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar