Cover not available
Part of
Particles in German, English, and Beyond
Edited by Remus Gergel, Ingo Reich and Augustin Speyer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 224] 2022
► pp. 177–208

Chapter 7
Final though

| Saarland University
| Saarland University
Starting out from observations in English linguistics, the paper makes a case that final though is an English particle. An experimental study is conducted indicating that though is permissive outside of concessive contexts as well. The focus of this study is placed on corpus examples which have remained unaccounted for in previous approaches. A descriptive generalization is proposed in terms of noteworthiness and an initial modelling in terms of a split notion of Common Ground following Bar-Asher Siegal & Boneh (2016) is pursued.
Keywords: English particles, Common Ground managment, mirativity, concessivity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Discourse particles in English
  • 2.Final though
    • 2.1Previous research on final though
    • 2.2Unsolved questions
  • 3.Concessive final though
    • 3.1Experiment
      • 3.1.1Methods
      • 3.1.2Results
      • 3.1.3Discussion
      • 3.1.4Corpus findings
    • 3.2Final though as projective content
    • 3.3Final though as a trigger in corpus examples
  • 4.Descriptive generalization of the uses of final though: Balancing noteworthiness
  • 5.Common ground management (with side-effect mirativity)
  • 6.Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 16 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.224.07puh
References (39)
References
Abraham, Werner. 1991. The Grammaticalization of the German Modal Particle. In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological studies in language 19.2], Bernd Heine & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds), 331–380. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adelaar, Willem. F. H. 1977. Tarma Quechua: Grammar, texts, dictionary. Lisse: De Ridder.Google Scholar
2013. A Quechuan mirative? In Perception and cognition in language and culture. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Anne Storch (eds), 95–109. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Aikenvald, Alexandra Y. 2012. The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology 16(3): 435–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1986. Contrastive linking in spoken and written English. In English in Speech and Writing [Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 60], Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd Bäcklund. (eds), 13–40. Stockholm: Almquist & Wolsell.Google Scholar
Bade, Nadine. 2016. Obligatory presupposition triggers in discourse-empirical foundations of the theories maximize presupposition and obligatory implicatures. Doctoral dissertation, Univ. Tübingen.
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur & Nora Boneh . 2016. Discourse update at the service of mirativity effects: the case of the Discursive Dative. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26: 103–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen . 2002. On the development of final ‘though’: a case of grammaticalization? In New reflections on grammaticalization [Typological studies in language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 345–361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Hans-Georg Obenauer . 2011. Discourse Particles, Clause Structure, and Question Types. The Linguistic Review 28(4): 449–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David I. & Brady Z. Clark 2010. Sense and Sensitivity: How focus determines meaning. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Christensen, Rune H. B. 2019. Ordinal: Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 2019.12-10. Cran R-project, 15 December 2019. [URL]> (27 June 2020)
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra A. Thompson 1998. On the concessive relation in conversational English. In Anglistentag 1998 Erfurt. Proceedings. Fritz-Wilhelm Neumann & Sabine Schülting (eds), 29–39. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: the grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1(1): 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3): 369–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dvořák, Bostjan & Remus Gergel. 2004. Slovenian clitics: VP ellipsis in yes/no questions and beyond. In ESSLLI 16: Proceedings of the workshop on the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of questions, ed. I. Comorovski and M. Krifka, 85–91.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin & Maiken Heide . 2018. Inferential processes in English and the question whether English has modal particles. Open Linguistics 4(1): 509–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2019. An exploratory, corpus-based study of concessive markers in English, German and Spanish: The distribution of ‘although’, ‘obwohl’ and ‘aunque’ in the Europarl corpus. In Empirical Studies of the Construction of Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 305]. Óscar Loureda, Inés Recio Fernández, Laura Nadal & Adriana Cruz (eds), 151–191 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergel, Remus. 2007. Interpretable features in vP-ellipsis: on the licensing head. Proceedings of Console XIV: 165–188.Google Scholar
. 2008. Comparative inversion: a diachronic study. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11: 191–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Sich ausgehen: actuality entailments and further notes from the perspective of an Austrian German motion verb construction. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, Martín Fuchs & Joshua Phillips (eds). New Orleans: LSA Publications 5: 5–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergel, Remus, Martin Kopf-Giammanco & Maike Puhl. 2021. Simulating semantic change: a methodological note. In Proceedings of Experiments in Linguistic Meaning (ELM) 1, Andrea Beltrama, Florian Schwarz & Anna Papafragou (eds.). 184–196. University of Pennsylvania: LSA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie, Alexander Haselow & Margje Post . 2015. Final Particles. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 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
Huber, Magnus, Nissel Magnus & Karin Puga. 2016. Old Bailey Corpus 2.0.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1988. Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: Cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. In Explaining Language Universals. John A. Hawkins (ed), 145–166. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund . 2000. Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. In Cause – Condition – Concession – Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Bernd Kortmann & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), 341–360. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lau, Monica & Johan Rooryck . 2017. Aspect, evidentiality, and mirativity. Lingua Special Issue Essays on Evidentiality. Monica Lau & Willem Adelaar (eds), Lingua 186–187: 110–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument & Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6): 661–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mexas, Haris. 2016. Mirativity as realization marking: A cross-linguistic study. MA dissertation, Leiden University
Potts, Christopher. 2012. Conventional implicature and expressive content. In Semantics HSK 33.3. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus v. Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds). Berlin: de Gruyter. 2516–2535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randoph, Sidney Greenbaum, , Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik . 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reich, Ingo. 2011. Ellipsis. In Semantics HSK 33.2. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus v. Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds). Berlin: de Gruyter. 1849–1874.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Elisabeth. 1996. Contrast: adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on sentence and text level [Research in Text Theory 23]. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Survey of English Usage. 1998. International Corpus of English – GB. London: University College London.Google Scholar
van Kemenade, Ans. 2022. A small word in a large picture: discourse particle thenover the history of English. In Particles in German, English, and Beyond, Gergel, Remus, Ingo Reich & Augustin Speyer (eds), 147–175. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Susanne. 2005. Ellipsis and Focus in Generative Grammar. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2011. Discourse Particles. In Semantics HSK 33.2. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus v. Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds). Berlin: de Gruyter. 2012–2038.Google Scholar