Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries
Edited by Daniël Van Olmen and Jolanta Šinkūnienė
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 325] 2021
► pp. 199–228

Chapter 7
The Lithuanian focus particles net ‘even’ and tik ‘only’ and clause peripheries

ORCID logo | Vilnius University

The present chapter investigates the Lithuanian focus particles net ‘even’ and tik ‘only’ and their potential to occur in clause peripheries. The results of the analysis provide evidence that net and tik have the potential to appear in clause peripheries; however, as peripheral elements, they are not so common in spoken Lithuanian. It is observed that net and tik share a set of functions with focus particles in Germanic as well as Romance languages: in clause peripheries, they contribute to discourse structure and common ground management as well as encode (inter)subjective information. Both Lithuanian particles exhibit language-specific properties too, though: they serve as illocutionary force modifiers not only strengthening the illocutionary force of a speech act but also softening it.

Keywords: focus particle, scope, clause periphery, discourse marker, common ground, discourse structure, (inter)subjective meaning
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Features of focus particles in clause peripheries
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Distribution of net and tik in spoken Lithuanian
  • 5.Lithuanian particles net and tik : General characteristics
  • 6.Lithuanian particles net and tik : Towards clause peripheries
  • 7.Clause-peripheral functions of net
    • 7.1Discourse structuring
    • 7.2Marking speaker’s viewpoint
    • 7.3Modifying illocutionary force
  • 8.Clause-peripheral functions of tik
    • 8.1Modifying illocutionary force: Softening speech acts
    • 8.2Modifying illocutionary force: Strengthening speech acts
  • 9.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.325.07jas
References
Ambrazas, Vytautas
(ed.) 1997 Lithuanian Grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar
2006 Lietuvių kalbos istorinė sintaksė [Historical syntax of the Lithuanian language]. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate
2017 “Just a Suggestion: Just/e in French and English.” In Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New Perspectives, ed. by Chiara Fedriani, and Andrea Sansò, 459–480. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J.
1998 “ The Flowers are Lovely; Only, They have no Scent: The Evolution of a Pragmatic Marker.” In Anglistentag 1997 Giessen: Proceedings, ed. by Raimund Borgmeier, Herbert Grabes, and Andreas H. Jucker, 9–33. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth
2014 “ ‘So very Fast then’: Discourse Markers at Left and Right Periphery in Spoken French.” In Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery: Cross-linguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change, ed. by Kate Beeching, and Ulrich Detges, 151–187. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Favaro, Marco
2018 “Focus Marking and Illocutionary Modification: Functional Developments of Italian solo ‘only’”. In 51st Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea: Book of Abstracts, ed. by Olga Spevak, 414–416. Tallinn: University of Tallinn.Google Scholar
2020 “From Focus Marking to Illocutionary Modification: Functional Developments of Italian solo ‘only’”. In Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles, ed. by Pierre-Yves Modicom, and Oliver Duplâtre, 112–131. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, Ad, Richard van Gerrevink, Lotte Hogeweg, and Peia Prawiro-Atmodjo
2009 “The Placement of Focus Particles in Dutch.” In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2009, ed. by Bert Botma, and Jacqueline van Kampen, 51–63. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Patrick
2010 “German doch: An Element that Triggers a Contrast Presupposition.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 46: 163–177.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander
2012 “Subjectivity, Intersubjectivity and the Negotiation of Common Ground in Spoken Discourse: Final Particles in English.” Language and Communication 32: 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Spontaneous Spoken English: An Integrated Approach to the Emergent Grammar of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack, and Frans Zwarts
1991 “Some Remarks on Focus Adverbs.” Journal of Semantics 8 (1–2): 51–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum
(eds) 2002 The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jasionytė-Mikučionienė, Erika
2019 “Subordinating Conjunctions as Discourse Markers in Lithuanian.” Corpus Pragmatics 3: 285–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Min-Joo, and Nathan Jahnke
2011 “The Meaning of Utterance-Final Even .” Journal of English Linguistics 39: 36–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1991 The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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 Greenwald, and Cecilia Andorno, 23–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leskien, August
1903 “Litauische Partikeln und Konjunktionen [Lithuanian particles and conjunctions].” Indogermanische Forschungen 14: 89–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nau, Nicole, and Norbert Ostrowski
2010 “Background and Perspectives for the Study of Particles and Connectives in Baltic languages.” In Particles and Connectives, ed. by Nicole Nau, and Norbert Ostrowski, 1–37. Vilnius: Vilnius University and Association “Academia Salensis”.Google Scholar
Panov, Vladimir
2019 “ Juk and gi, and “Particles” in Contemporary Lithuanian: Explaining Language-particular Elements in a Cross-linguistic Context.” Kalbotyra 72: 58–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ricca, Davide
2017 “Meaning both ‘also’ and ‘only’? The Intriguing Polysemy of Old Italian pure .” In Focus on Additivity: Adverbial modifiers in Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages, ed. by Anna-Maria De Cesare Greenwald, and Cecilia Andorno, 45–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruskan, Anna
2019 “Functional Variation of Discourse Particles in Lithuanian: A Look at Clause Peripheries.” Corpus Pragmatics 3 (4): 303–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A., and Richard Waltereit
2010 “Presupposition Accommodation and Language Change.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 75–102. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smoczyński, Wojciech
2007 Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego [Etymological dictionary of the Lithuanian language]. Vilnius: Vilnius University.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E.
1988 “Grammaticalization and Semantic Bleaching.” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 389–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1999 “The Rhetoric of Counter-expectation in Semantic Change: A Study in Subjectifícation.” In Historical Semantics and Cognition, ed. by Andreas Blank, and Peter Koch, 61–89. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012 “Intersubjectification and Clause Periphery.” English Text Construction 5: 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Investigating “Periphery” from a Functionalist Perspective.” Linguistics Vanguard 1 (1): 119–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Richard B. Dasher
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Valančė, Danguolė
2017 Pabrėžiamųjų dalelyčių funkcijos ir vartosena dabartinėje rašytinėje lietuvių kalboje [Functions and usage of focus particles in contemporary written Lithuanian]. PhD dissertation, Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University.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
Zorikhina Nilsson, Nadezhda
2013 “The Negated Imperative in Russian and Other Slavic Languages: Aspectual and Modal Meanings.” In Diachronic and Typological Perspectives on Verbs, ed. by Folke Josephson, and Ingmar Söhrman, 79–106. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar