Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective
Edited by Alessandra Barotto and Simone Mattiola
[Studies in Language Companion Series 227] 2023
► pp. 13–34

Chapter 2
Toward a non-aprioristic approach to discourse-associated devices

| Vilnius University
In this methodological contribution, I argue for a new approach to discourse phenomena in typology. In previous research, the main focus was on the study of language-particular discourse-associated devices. At the same time, characteristics of these devices were tacitly treated as universal without conducting proper cross-linguistic research based on a rigorous typological methodology. I argue that the method of comparative concepts (Haspelmath 2010), which is successfully applied in better-explored domains of typology, is equally functional in the domain of discourse. Crucially, I demonstrate the importance of treating the formal and the functional side of linguistic devices, or constructions, separately.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A categorical universalist approach to discourse-structuring devices
  • 3.Non-aprioristic approach
    • 3.1Language-particular analysis: The Buriat verb and “particles”
    • 3.2Same function in different morphosyntactic disguise: Vocative vs. allocutive
    • 3.3Polar question: Same function, diversity in marking
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Digital sources
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.227.02pan
References (56)
Digital sources
Perseus Perseus Digital Library http://​www​.consul​.embrussia​.ru​/node​/164
HNC Hellenic National Corpus http://​hnc​.ilsp​.gr
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences 18(1–2): 393–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Does English have modal particles? In Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 111–130. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie (eds). 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Bataineh, Hussein. 2020. The syntax of Arabic vocatives. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 12(2): 328–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alm, Maria, Behr, Janina & Fischer, Kerstin. 2018. Modal particles and sentence type restrictions: A construction grammar perspective. Glossa 3(1): 1–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antonov, Anton. 2015. Verbal allocutivity in a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 19(1): 55–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2009. Discourse, grammar, discourse. Discourse Studies 11(1): 5–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Struckmeier, Volker (eds). 2017. Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Clause Linking and Clause Hierarchy: Syntax and Pragmatics [Studies in Language Companion Series 121], Isabelle Bril (ed.), 51–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, 2nd edn, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 901–924. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2017. The ‘word’ in polysynthetic languages. In The Oxford Handbook of Polysynthesis, Vol. 1, Michael Fortescue, Marianne Mithun & Nicholas Evans (eds), 158–185. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds). 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 1st edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Daniel, Michael & Spencer, Andrew. 2009. The vocative – An outlier case. In The Oxford Handbook of Case, Andrej L. Malchukov & Andrew Spencer (eds), 626–634. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth, Cornillie, Bert & Pietrandrea, Paola (eds). 2013a. Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Modal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin? In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed), 403–426. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Same same but different” – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 19–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 2013a. Position of polar question particles. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [URL] (20 July 2020).
. 2013b. Polar questions. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Matthew Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds). [URL] (20 July 2020).
Du Bois, John W. 2003. Discourse and grammar. In The New Psychology of Language. Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. II, Michael Tomasello (ed), 47–85. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
van Emde Boas, Evert, Rijksbaron, Abert, Huitink, Luuk & de Bakker, Matthieu. 2019. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Frames, constructions, and invariant meanings: The functional polysemy of discourse particles. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed), 427–448. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin & Alm, Maria. 2013. A radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 47–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2): 167–190.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 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
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Preestablished categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Defining vs. diagnosing linguistic categories: A case study of clitic phenomena. In How Categorical are Categories?, Joanna Blaszczak, Dorota Klimek-Jankowska & Krzysztof Migdalski (eds), 273–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Aspects of Linguistic Variation, Daniël Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds), 83–113. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. Bound forms, welded forms, and affixes: Basic concepts for morphological comparison. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1: 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hölzl, Andreas. 2018. A Typology of Questions in Northeast Asia and Beyond: An Ecological Perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrey A. 2011. Reference in Discourse. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2019. Rethinking agreement: Cognition-to-form mapping. Cognitive Linguistics 30(1): 37–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2015. Discourse and grammar. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 9–41. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Obe, Rie & Haberland, Hartmut. 2019. Japanske interaktive partikler i dansk oversættelse. NyS, Nydanske Sprogstudier 1(57): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panov, Vladimir. 2020a. Final particles in Asia: Establishing an areal feature. Linguistic Typology 24(1): 13–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: presenting the enimitive. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52(1): 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, Ekaterina & Bychkova, Polina. 2023. Towards pragmatic construction typology: The case of discourse formulae. In Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 227], Alessandra Barotto & Simone Mattiola (eds), XXX–XXX. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume).Google Scholar
Rinas, Karsten. 2006. Die Abtönungspartikeln doch und ja: Semantik, Idiomatisierung, Kombinationen, tschechische Äquivalente. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sanzheev, G. D., Bertagaev, T. A. & Cydendambaev, C. B. 1962. Grammatika Burjatskogo jazyka. Moskva: IVL.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schoonjans, Steven. 2013. Modal particles: Problems in defining a category. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 134–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Luís, Ana. 2012. Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vassilios, Holton, David, Mackridge, Peter & Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 2012. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar, 2nd ed. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vastenius, Anu. 2011. Expressive particles in Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek and Kurdish. BA thesis, Lunds universitet.
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892[2020]. On a Law of Indo-European Word Order: Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Zenodo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weydt, Harald. 1989. Sprechen mit Partikeln. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61(2): 283–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jasionytė-Mikučionienė, Erika
2023. Response Particles in Lithuanian Conversation and Turn Design. LANGUAGE: Codification, Competence, Communication 2:9 ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 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.