Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 27:3 (2020) ► pp.307–339

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The role of (historical) pragmatics in the use of response particles

The case of French

 | The University of Manchester
Published online: 30 June 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18024.mos
Abstract
This paper studies the synchronic uses and diachronic evolution of a small set of so-called “response particles” in French, viz. the contemporary forms oui ‘yes’, si ‘yes’, and non ‘no’, and their historical sources, as well as a by now largely obsolete fourth particle nenni ‘no’. Among current models of response particle usage, the leading syntactic model is argued to be fundamentally flawed, while the leading semantic model reveals itself incapable of providing an empirically accurate account of the present-day uses of the French particles. Instead, (historical) pragmatics is shown to constitute an indispensable component of such an account. This is hypothesized to be true not just for French, but across languages. In addition, analysis of the French data throws (further) doubt on the explanatory power of the concept of synchronic functional paradigms.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Response particles: A general overview
  • 3.The two basic systems of response particle usage
    • 3.1Holmberg (2016): The use of response particles is syntactically determined
    • 3.2Roelofsen & Farkas (2015): The use of response particles is semantically determined
  • 4.The system of response particles in Modern and Contemporary French
  • 5.The diachronic evolution of the French response particles
    • 5.1Etymological sources of the French response particles
    • 5.2Data used
    • 5.3Classification of response particle uses
    • 5.4Findings
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Databases
  • References
References (33)
Databases
Corpus CLAPI: [URL]
Frantext: [URL]
Perseus Digital Library: [URL]
References
Cole, Peter & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.). Syntax and semantics (vol. 31). New York: Academic Press.
Cruse, David Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein. 2017. The pragmatics of yes and no. In Stavros Assimakopoulos (ed.), Pragmatics and its interfaces, 175–200. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, David & George Lakoff. 1975. Conversational postulates. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), 83–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 41–58.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2008. Particles at the semantics/pragmatics interface: Synchronic and diachronic issues. A study with special reference to the French phasal adverbs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. On the evolution of temporal n-words in Medieval French. Language Sciences 34(1). 76–91. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. The grammaticalization of negative indefinites: The case of the temporal/aspectual n-words plus and mais in Medieval French. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline Visconti (eds.), The diachrony of negation, 185–212. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. The expression of clause negation: From Latin to early French. In Anne Carlier & Céline Guillot-Barbance (eds.), Latin tardif, français: Continuïtés et ruptures, 267–295. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heinz, Sieglinde. 1976. Bejahung und Verneinung. Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 86(4). 289–316.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2016. The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Høybye, Poul. 1939. Oui, si et non. Le français moderne 71. 47–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2001. Oui, non, si: Un trio célèbre et méconnu. Marges linguistiques 21. 95–119.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2007. Speech act distinctions in grammar. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), 276–324.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larrivée, Pierre. 2011. The role of pragmatics in grammatical change: The case of French preverbal non. Journal of Pragmatics 431. 1987–1996. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marchello-Nizia, Christiane. 1985. Dire le vrai: L’adverbe si en français médiéval. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1952. Function, structure, and sound change. Word 81. 1–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plantin, Christian. 1982. Oui et non sont-ils des pro-phrases? Le français moderne 501. 252–265.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pohl, Jacques. 1976. Matériaux pour l’histoire du système oui-non-si. Kwartalnik neofilologiiczny 231. 197–208.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pope, Emily Norwood. 1972. Questions and answers in English. Harvard, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas Bertram Wallace. 1939. Non, nen, and ne with finite verbs in French. In Studies in French language and Mediaeval literature: Presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope by pupils, colleagues and friends, 305–313. Manchester: MUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roelofsen, Floris & Donka Farkas. 2015. Polarity particle responses as a window on the interpretation of questions and assertions. Language 91(2). 359–414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roulet, Eddy, Antoine Auchlin, Jacques Moeschler, Christian Rubattel & Marianne Schelling. 1987. L’articulation du discours en français contemporain, 2nd edn. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Timothy Shopen, (ed.), 155–196.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 1985. Language typology and syntactic description. Volume 1: Clause structure. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thesleff, Holger. 1960. Yes and no in Plautus and Terence. Helsingfors: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wallage, Phillip & Win van der Wurff. 2013. On saying yes in early Anglo-Saxon England. Anglo-Saxon England 421. 183–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilmet, Marc. 1976. Oui, si et non en français moderne. Le français moderne 441, 229–251.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

de Vaan, Michiel
2025. Anaphoric polar answers in Gallo‑Romance and West Germanic. NOWELE. North-Western European Language Evolution 78:1 ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Potočnik, Tomaž
2023. Saying Yes without Yes: The Positive Response System in Latin. Transactions of the Philological Society 121:1 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Angot, Juliette & Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen
2021. The meaning and functions of French je pense (que) . In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue