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

Digital sources

Perseus Perseus Digital Library http://​www​.consul​.embrussia​.ru​/node​/164
HNC Hellenic National Corpus http://​hnc​.ilsp​.gr
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