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 (39)
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