Chapter published in:
Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles
Edited by Pierre-Yves Modicom and Olivier Duplâtre
[Studies in Language Companion Series 213] 2020
► pp. 27–46

Chapter 1
Discourse particle position and information structure

| University of California
Discourse markers differ cross-linguistically not only in their functions but also in their positions within the sentence. Some are sentence-initial, some are sentence-final, and some occur in what has been termed the ‘middle-field’. But many appear simply in second position in the sentence. In many cases the positions of the markers can be explained in terms of the source constructions from which they emerged. Here one likely pathway of development is traced in Mohawk, indigenous to North America, illustrated with a pervasive marker of discourse coherence. Patterns in the modern language suggest that it and others emerged from marked information structures, which, over time, evolved into basic clause structures via familiar mechanisms of grammaticalization.
Article outline
  • 1.The position of discourse markers
  • 2.Mohawk
  • 3.Topic shift constructions
  • 4.Focus constructions
  • 5.Antitopic constructions
  • 6.Grammaticalization
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 04 March 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.213.01mit
References
Abraham, Werner
1991 The grammaticization of the German modal particles. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elisabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 331–380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth
2012 Introduction: Theory of Mind elements across languages. Traces of Bühler’s legacy in modern linguistics. In Modality and Theory of Mind Elements across Languages, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), 1–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1974 Language and consciousness. Language 50: 111–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 25–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1979 The flow of thought and the flow of language. In Discourse and Syntax, Talmy Givón (ed.), 159–181. New York NY: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987 Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 11], Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 Information flow. In Oxford International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 2, William Bright (ed.), 215–218. New York NY: Oxford University Press. Reprinted 2002 in International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2nd edn, Vol. 2, William J. Frawley (ed.), 277–280. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke
1986 Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln: Ja, doch, halt und eben. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2000 Noun and verb in Iroquoian languages: Multicategorisation from multiple criteria. In An Anthology of Word Classes, Petra M. Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds), 379–420. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
WBe Indogermanische Forschungen
1, 333–436.
Wackernagel, Jacob
1892 Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. CrossrefGoogle Scholar