Cover not available
Part of
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: 4 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.213.01mit
References (12)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar