Cover not available
Part of
New Directions in Grammaticalization Research
Edited by Andrew D.M. Smith, Graeme Trousdale and Richard Waltereit
[Studies in Language Companion Series 166] 2015
► pp. 157–186

Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization

The case of anyway

| University of Rostock

Ways of identifying functional differences between elements in the left and the right periphery of an utterance after grammaticalization processes are discussed using data from the history and present-day use of anyway. This element developed from a clause-internal adverbial into a discourse-grammatical marker with a predominantly global connective function in the left periphery of a unit of talk, and a local connective function (linking two adjacent utterances) in the right periphery, where it also exhibits a modifying effect at the illocutionary level. The data support the hypothesis that elements in the left periphery are basically employed for discourse coherence and text organization, whereas those in the right periphery tend to link adjacent utterances, to modify illocutionary force, and to indicate subjective meanings. The results suggest that structural position is an essential aspect in understanding the outcome of a grammaticalization process.

Published online: 8 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.166.08has
References

Corpora

CLMETEV - The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts Extended Version
compiled by Henrik de Smet, H. [URL] (20 January 2014).
ICE-GB - International Corpus of English (ICE)
- Great Britain (Release 2) 2006 Survey of English Usage, University College London, London (CD Rom).Google Scholar
MEMEM - Michigan Early Modern English Materials
compiled by Richard W. Bailey, James W. Downer, Jay L. Robinson with Patricia V. Lehman. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. [URL] (10 January 2014).
HC - Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, Diachronic Part
Compiled by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö, Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen, Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Available from The Oxford Text Archive. ICAME International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English. [URL] (10 January 2014).
Altenberg, Bengt
1986 Contrastive linking in spoken and written English. In English in Speech and Writing. A Symposium, Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd Bäcklund (eds), 13-40. Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter & Günthner, Susanne
2005 Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen. Ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmanns & Sarah De Groodt (eds), 335-362. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate, Degand, Liesbeth, Detges, Ulrich, Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Waltereit, Richard
2009 Summary of the Workshop on Meaning in Diachrony at the Conference on Meaning in Interaction, University of the West of England, Bristol, April.
Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich
(eds) 2014 Discourse Functions at the Left and the Right Periphery. Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change [Studies in Pragmatics]. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane
1987 Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J
1996 Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C
1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2011 Usage-based theory and grammaticalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 69-78. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja
2010 Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Fagard, Benjamin
2011 ‘Alors’ between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18(1): 29-56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie
(eds) 2011 Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, and/or (inter)subjectification: Methodological issues for the study of discourse markers. Thematic issue of Linguistics 49(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard
2014 ‘Moi je ne sais pas vs. Je ne sais pas moi’: French disjoint pronouns in the left vs. right periphery. In Beeching & Detges (eds), 24-46.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2008 Die Funktion idiomatischer Konstruktionen bei Grammatikalisierungsprozessen - illustriert am Beispiel der Modalpartikel ‘ruhig’. In Konstruktionsgrammatik, II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik, Anatol Stefanowitsch & Kerstin Fischer (eds), 33-57. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2011 Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49(2): 365-390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Smirnova, Elena
2010 Introduction: Paradigmaticity and obligatoriness of grammatical categories. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42(1): 1-10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt
1993 Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know . Studier i modern sprakvetenskap 10: 76-92.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. & Thompson, Sandra A
1996 Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Interaction and grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 134-184. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A
2002 Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In The Language of Turn and Sequence, Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 14-38. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1999 What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7): 931-952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya
1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander
2011 Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14): 3603-3623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication 32(3): 182-204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2): 375-424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83-101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus
2004 Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 21-42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2011 On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 852-897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
1986 Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. In On Conditionals, Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Alice ter Meulen, Judy Snitzer Reilly & Charles Ferguson (eds), 229-246. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1995 [1982] Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Lenk, Uta
1998 Marking Discourse Coherence: Functions of Discourse Markers in Spoken English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean & Thompson, Sandra A
2008 The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions [Typological Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed.), 179-204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murray, Dinah
1979 Well. Linguistic Inquiry 10(4): 727-732.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko
2011 The grammaticalization of discourse markers. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 614-624. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Owen, Marion
1985 The conversational function of ‘anyway’. The Nottingham Linguistic Circular 14: 72-90.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail
1974 A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696-735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A
1996 Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 52-133. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence & Waida, Toshiko
1987 English Connectives. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1998 Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 37], Ana Giacalone Ramat & Paul Hopper (eds), 229-272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Suzuki, Ryoko
2011 The grammaticalization of final particles. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 668-680. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1995 The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the ICHL XII, Manchester 1995. [URL] (16 January 2014)
2003 Constructions in grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian Joseph & Richard Janda (eds), 624-647. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Intersections of Intersubjectivity, Lieselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds), Special issue of English Text Construction 5(1): 7-28. Also published as Intersections of Intersubjectivity in Grammar and Discourse: Theory and Descriptive Advances [Benjamins Current Topics 65], Lieselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds), 7-27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B
2002 Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Aijmer, Karin
2016. Pragmatic markers as constructions. The case of anyway. In Outside the Clause [Studies in Language Companion Series, 178], ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Alvanoudi, Angeliki
2022. Review of Heine, Kaltenböck, Kuteva & Long (2021): The Rise of Discourse Markers. Journal of Historical Linguistics 12:3 ► pp. 504 ff. DOI logo
Haselow, Alexander
2016. Intensifying adverbs ‘outside the clause’. In Outside the Clause [Studies in Language Companion Series, 178], ► pp. 379 ff. DOI logo
Lewis, Diana M.
2021. Chapter 13. Pragmatic markers at the periphery and discourse prominence. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo
Rodríguez-Abruñeiras, Paula
2019. On exemplifying markers in present-day British and American English : formal and functional implications. Brno studies in English :2 ► pp. [155] ff. DOI logo
Ruskan, Anna & Marta Carretero
2021. Chapter 15. A cross-linguistic look at the right periphery. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 415 ff. DOI logo
Varga, Mónika
2020. Funkcionális variáció és átmenetiség a határozói igenevek köréből. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 7:1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Álvarez-Gil, Francisco J.
2019. An Analysis of Certainly and Generally in Late-Modern English English History Texts. Research in Language 17:2 ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Álvarez-Gil, Francisco J.
2019. An analysis ofcertainlyandgenerallyin Late-Modern English English history texts. Research in Language 17:2 ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Discourse Structuring Markers in English [Constructional Approaches to Language, 33], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 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.