Cover not available

In:Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective
Edited by Alessandra Barotto and Simone Mattiola
[Studies in Language Companion Series 227] 2023
► pp. 13–34

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

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

 | Vilnius University
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.227.02pan
Abstract
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
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Does English have modal particles? In Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds), 111–130. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie (eds). 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Al-Bataineh, Hussein. 2020. The syntax of Arabic vocatives. Brill’s Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 12(2): 328–360. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alm, Maria, Behr, Janina & Fischer, Kerstin. 2018. Modal particles and sentence type restrictions: A construction grammar perspective. Glossa 3(1): 1–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Antonov, Anton. 2015. Verbal allocutivity in a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology 19(1): 55–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2009. Discourse, grammar, discourse. Discourse Studies 11(1): 5–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Struckmeier, Volker (eds). 2017. Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds). 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 1st edn. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013b. Modal particles and discourse markers: Two sides of the same coin? In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
van Emde Boas, Evert, Rijksbaron, Abert, Huitink, Luuk & de Bakker, Matthieu. 2019. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2): 167–190.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Preestablished categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 119–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Bound forms, welded forms, and affixes: Basic concepts for morphological comparison. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1: 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hölzl, Andreas. 2018. A Typology of Questions in Northeast Asia and Beyond: An Ecological Perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrey A. 2011. Reference in Discourse. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2019. Rethinking agreement: Cognition-to-form mapping. Cognitive Linguistics 30(1): 37–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Obe, Rie & Haberland, Hartmut. 2019. Japanske interaktive partikler i dansk oversættelse. NyS, Nydanske Sprogstudier 1(57): 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panov, Vladimir. 2020a. Final particles in Asia: Establishing an areal feature. Linguistic Typology 24(1): 13–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020b. The marking of uncontroversial information in Europe: presenting the enimitive. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52(1): 1–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Rinas, Karsten. 2006. Die Abtönungspartikeln doch und ja: Semantik, Idiomatisierung, Kombinationen, tschechische Äquivalente. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanzheev, G. D., Bertagaev, T. A. & Cydendambaev, C. B. 1962. Grammatika Burjatskogo jazyka. Moskva: IVL.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoonjans, Steven. 2013. Modal particles: Problems in defining a category. In Degand, Cornillie & Pietrandrea (eds), 134–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Luís, Ana. 2012. Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spyropoulos, Vassilios, Holton, David, Mackridge, Peter & Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 2012. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar, 2nd ed. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weydt, Harald. 1989. Sprechen mit Partikeln. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61(2): 283–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 4 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