![Final particles are often classified in a more general way as a sub-class of
what has been called, among others, discourse markers (Schiffrin 1987; 2001;
Fraser 1999), pragmatic markers (Andersen and Fretheim 2000, Norrick 2009),
pragmatic particles (Foolen [1996] 2003; Fried and Östman 2005), discourse
particles (Fischer 2006), modal particles (Aijmer 2013; Izutsu and Izutsu 2013),
or interactional particles (Morita 2012); in French a common term is particules
énonciatives (e.g. Fernandez-Vest 1994); in German, Abtönungspartikeln (Weydt
1969; 1989) is an established term. The problem concerning the categorical rela-
tionship between these different types of particles has been discussed by several
authors in a recently published edited volume by Degand, Pietrandrea and
Cornillie (2013). We avoid this terminological confusion here, claiming that the
elements under investigation are distinct enough to deserve a descriptive label
of their own, as shown in Section 3. FPs are usually monomorphemic units that
are prosodically integrated into a host unit and cannot occur in isolation, they
are unaccented, have no propositional content and do not effect the truth con-
ditions of the unit they accompany. The meaning of FPs is relatively elusive, due
to the fact that they often change their function depending on the illocutionary
type of the utterance to which they are attached and on the sequential context
in which this utterance is situated. However, what all FPs have in common is
that they convey different types of metapragmatic information (e.g. emotive,
epistemic) and information on the rhetorical relation to a prior discourse unit,
situating an utterance in a specific communicative context. FPs thus serve an
utterance-integrative function in ongoing discourse.
While FPs are quite common and relatively well-documented in East and
Southeast Asian languages, the phenomenon has not been investigated in detail
for European languages, in which the use of final particles appears to be in-
creasing. At least some FPs have been part of everyday speech in some of these
languages for centuries, but others appeared recently. Lenker (2010), for instance,
states for English that the retrospective ground-changing function of adverbials
with temporal sources (then, after all, still) used in the right periphery of a clause
was not widely used until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when a new
typology of connectives arose. According to Lenker, most adverbials of this type
that appear in final position developed quite late: final though, for example, which
has been in use in English since the nineteenth century (though sparingly), came
to be used frequently only in the second half of the twentieth century (Lenker
2010: 201), and is largely restricted to spoken, interactional language. Lenker links
the development in English to what she considers a typological change in the
late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which consists in a growing prefer-
ence for adverbial connectives over coordinating conjunctions (Lenker 2010: 9).
Traugott (forthc.) shows that the types of pragmatic markers in final position
have been incremental from Old English. The clause-final position has come to
Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 5](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-15-320.jpg)
![for the management of common ground (Haselow 2012a). Another problem for
linguistic categorization is that most FPs have heterosemes in other word classes,
leading to categorical overlap, particularly in ongoing grammaticalization, which
often makes it difficult to draw a clear-cut boundary between FPs and their lexical
sources, e.g. adverbs or conjunctions.
Some attempts have been made to define FPs. One of the most widely used
definitions is that by Mulder and Thompson (2008: 183; also Thompson and Suzuki
2011: 668):
[A] final particle is a discourse marker that occurs at the end of an interactional unit,
whether a turn, a turn unit, or a prosodic unit, and indexes certain pragmatic stances [. . .]
The authors have good reasons to label this definition a “working characteriza-
tion” as it poses a number of questions, for example, if and why final particles
are discourse markers, if this classification means that they are not grammatical,
and what exactly is meant by “certain pragmatic stances”. Generally, it is far
from clear which factors licence their occurrence, and whether their function
is merely to add expressive information to an utterance, thus conveying the
speaker’s attitude or affective meanings, or whether they also have discourse-
organizing, probably grammatical (structuring) functions that justify a categori-
zation of FPs as grammatical elements.
This section discusses different types of elements that have been analyzed
as “final particles” in different languages of the world and seeks to identify
some defining core features of FPs, thus preparing the ground for the different
studies in this volume. The term “particle” suggests that the classification is
based on a formal criterion, namely the fact that the elements under investiga-
tion are non-inflecting and usually monomorphemic. As the discussion below
will show, this is indeed a feature that is common to most of the elements that
have been labelled “final particles” in different studies. The question is if
this formal similarity is reflected in a functional equivalence of FPs in different
languages of the world. Based on the lexical source of FPs, which determine
particle-specific subfunctions, we can distinguish four major subtypes of FPs:
conjunction-like, conjunct/connector-like, adverb-like, and focus particle-like
FPs. Other lexical sources are, of course, possible, e.g. quotative markers such
as Korean -ko (Sohn, this vol.), motion verbs as in Khmer (Paillard, this vol.), or
question particles (e.g. Bailey, this vol.), but they seem to be less preferred from
a typological perspective. Each of the four subtypes of FPs will be briefly dis-
cussed below. A fifth category includes FPs in Asian languages such as Mandarin
Chinese and Cantonese, which differ somewhat in their function from FPs in
European languages.
Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 9](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-19-320.jpg)
![(Luke [1990: 11] for Cantonese). FPs occur in abundance in many Asian languages,
but there are great differences between these languages in the size of the inven-
tory of FPs and the frequency of their use in speech. Final particles are also
found in languages with a mixed Asian-European background, such as Singa-
pore English (Gupta 1992; Low and Deterding 2003; Ler and Lay 2006; Hiramoto
2012) and Chinese Pidgin Russian (Shapiro 2012).
The differences in frequency and position between Asian and European final
particles could be related to typological differences. Haselow (2012a) claims that
the occurrence of final particles does not seem to correlate with the basic syntactic
configuration of a language (English is SVO, German is V-2 and V-final, Japanese
and Korean are V-final, Chinese languages basically SVO), and that it therefore
seems unlikely that typological differences play a major role (Haselow 2012a:
182–183). However, some typological differences – and word order is not the
most important of them – might influence, among others, the frequency of FPs
in Asian languages, where they fulfill pragmatic functions for which other
means are used in the European languages.
The Mainland Southeast Asian languages, such as Khmer (Paillard, this
vol.), Thai, Vietnamese, or Burmese are found to be typologically close and they
share a number of features with neighbouring languages, including the lan-
guages of China (Comrie 2007; Dryer and Haspelmath 2011). First, Mainland South-
east Asian languages and the Sinitic languages typically have a complex tone
system with different contrastive level tones (e.g. rising tone, falling tone, rising-
falling tone), i.e. every syllable has a tone; changing the tone of a syllable may
change the meaning it represents. Syllables and utterances in general are thus
restricted in terms of pitch variation and intonation contour, which means that
most of these languages need to resort to other ways of expressing functions
taken over by intonation in non-tone languages, such as English. FPs have
important communicative functions in tone languages, many of which are similar
to those fulfilled by intonation in languages like English, such as changing illocu-
tionary force or expressing the speaker’s attitude. Secondly, these languages are
characterized by limited morphology (Dryer and Haspelmath 2011). The absence of
rich morphology might promote the use of short words like particles in general,
which serve analytic ways of encoding particular types of categorical informa-
tion in isolating languages. Note, however, that some highly inflective languages
have abundant particle usage as well, e.g. Russian (Vasilyeva 1972; Rathmayr
1985), a language that even has a rich intonation system. In any case, it seems
that at least some typological factors promote the use of final particles. It is
therefore not surprising that in a recent dissertation, Cantonese sentence-final
particles are compared to intonation patterns in English (Wakefield 2011).
14 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-24-320.jpg)
![FPs are also common in Japanese and Korean. Japanese is, typologically
speaking, not very close to the Southeast Asian languages but it has in common
with these languages that intonation can be used to a much lesser extent for
the expression of (meta-)pragmatic meanings than in a language like English.
Japanese is claimed to be a postpositional language with SOV word order, and
has an agglutinative structure (Onodera 2004). Korean is also an agglutinative
SOV-language. Both languages have final particles developed from connectives,
which already take final position (usually being suffixed to the verb), i.e. their
change into FPs was not based on syntactic movement to the final position, but
on local reinterpretation (Okamoto 1995; McGloin and Konishi 2010; Sohn 1996;
Rhee 2012). In this sense, the study of Japanese and Korean FPs is particularly
intriguing for the studies on the relation between grammaticalization and syn-
tactic structure (see the contributions by Shinzato, Sohn and Taylor).
Major questions for the linguistic description of FPs in Asian languages
are the functional diversity of individual particles, and the complex interplay of
clause-type, pitch and particle meaning. The various functions a particle may
have in different contexts make it difficult to state if FPs have a core function.
If core functions can be identified, they usually require rather long-winded de-
scriptions, as shown for Cantonese [aa3] in the quote below: for Leung (2008:
81), the core function of this FP is to make a sentence sound “more neutral,
less direct, and less straightforward”:
When [aa3] is attached to a sentence, its function is to make the original sentence sound
more moderate, no matter what kind of attitude the sentence originally carries. For example,
if the original sentence is a question, the particle attached brings a sense of doubt. This
implies that the speaker knows something about the question he asks and has an expecta-
tion on the answer, but he is just doubtful and asking for confirmation. In this respect, the
speaker does not seem to be too direct and abrupt and the atmosphere is more neutral.
Besides, it also appears that the speaker is not so confident if the other side is willing to
co-operate and therefore it leaves room for possible rejection. (Leung 2008: 81)
The problem with such descriptions is that it is difficult to see which meanings
are semanticized in a single FP, and which meanings are contextual effects
deriving from the utterance produced in a particular sequential context in a
conversation. In other words, it is not entirely clear how much of a speaker’s
attitude is indeed semantically encoded in a particle or conveyed by other means,
e.g. by a specific prosody (cf. Fretheim, this vol.), and how much of it is merely
pragmatics, i.e. contextually derived.
In general, in many Asian languages FPs express (meta-)pragmatic meanings,
either changing illocutionary force (e.g. from an assertion to an information
seeking request), indicating an implicature or speaker-expectation (e.g. seeking
Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 15](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-25-320.jpg)
![agreement), modifying the tone of an utterance (e.g. softening questions, as with
Cantonese [aa3], or expressing emphasis, as with Korean -tanikka [Rhee 2012]),
indicating epistemic modality (Strauss 2005), or affective stance (e.g. doubt,
hesitation, impatience). Often, a single FP can fulfill several functions. In most
general terms, the function of FPs in Asian languages seems to be to embed a
proposition in a particular communicative context and to indicate the speaker’s
knowledge state or stance. These functions are not uncommon with FPs in Euro-
pean languages. However, as existing studies – including the analyses of FPs in
European languages presented in this volume – show, indexical functions, i.e.
those by which an utterance is related to a preceding or implied proposition,
seems to play a more important role for the use of FPs in these languages.
3.6 General properties of final particles
The diversity in the types of FPs discussed above shows that the label “final par-
ticle” refers to a great collection of items, but in spite of the various forms and
distinct languages in which they occur they have much in common. In almost
all languages with FPs these elements display heterosemy, i.e. they fulfill a
different function when they are used in some other position than the final one.
This synchronic complexity reflects the diachronic development of FPs from
other, usually lexical word classes, e.g. English final then from time adverb >
initial conjunct > FP (Haselow 2012b), final but from conjunction > FP (Mulder
and Thompson 2008, 2011) or French alors from time adverb > conjunct > FP
(Degand and Fagard 2011).
Formally, FPs are typically non-inflecting, monomorphemic units that are
prosodically integrated into a host unit, receiving low-key intonation, lacking
constituent status, and are positionally fixed to the end of that unit. They have
no conceptual meaning, cannot be questioned or focused and cannot be used as
an utterance of their own, but require a host unit. Functionally, FPs fulfill different
tasks related to discourse structure, speaker attitude, illocutionary force, and
turn-taking. Their meaning is basically procedural in the sense of Blakemore
(1987): they are abstract, schematic expressions that indicate how an utterance
is to be understood by the addressee, i.e. they provide an interpretive cue to the
hearer, and serve the integration of an utterance in the local discourse context.
Structurally, the use of FPs is not licensed by syntactic rules, but determined
by the context as they relate an utterance to a variety of aspects of the com-
municative context, such as the speaker’s stance, the illocutionary goal of the
speaker, and discourse cohesion. Thus, they do not participate in the organization
of sentence structure, but are loosely connected with a syntactic unit. However,
16 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-26-320.jpg)
![final position is argued to play an important role for building up cohesion, being
used for elements that tie together two subsequent turns.
Aino Koivisto’s paper deals with the ways in which final conjunctions can
be used as turn-final or utterance-final particles with interactive functions. The
discussion is based on the functions of Finnish mutta, which is equivalent to
English but, in naturally occurring face-to-face and telephone conversations.
Koivisto addresses a number of theoretical questions concerning the analysis of
final conjunctions as final particles that have remained open since Mulder and
Thompson’s (2008) seminal work on final but in Australian English, such as the
conditions under which a final conjunction forms a recognizable turn-ending,
and the interactional functions it serves. Taking a Conversation Analytic approach,
the author analyzes the local, sequentially arranged interactional contexts
where utterances with final mutta occur in order to find out whether these
represent recognizable actions in recurrent, identifiable social contexts. The
results of Koivisto’s study are highly relevant for typological research for two
reasons. First, the fact that final conjunctions occur not only in East Asian,
Southeast Asian and Indo-European languages, but also in languages of the
Finno-Ugric family – all of which exhibit different syntactic configurations –
suggests that the phenomenon is not related to the typological parameters of a
language, but most likely conditioned by cognitive processes in interactive
speech production. Secondly, Koivisto proposes a (probably cross-linguistic)
diachronic pathway that provides further evidence for the emergence and con-
ventionalization of bipartite sequential patterns out of a reduction or “collapse”
of more extended ones: the claim is that the two-part pattern [claim + concession
+ mutta] identified for interactive sequences involving units with final mutta in
Finnish is a reduced form of an original three-part concessive pattern [claim +
concession + return to the original claim] where the mutta-prefaced return is
compressed into mutta.
Alexander Haselow provides a corpus-based analysis of final particles
in spoken German. The author argues that final particles should be treated as
an independent category as they are characterized by a number of distinctive,
category-constitutive features that set them apart from other elements that may
potentially occur in final position, and discusses how they differ from other
types of particles in German, basically discourse particles and modal particles.
The paper also addresses questions of more general theoretical interest, above
all the question of whether final particles are discourse markers, or a subgroup
of discourse markers, and how the term “final” is to be defined. Haselow sees
the basic function of final particles in providing information on how a discourse
unit is to be integrated into “a developing mental model of the discourse” in
terms of Hansen (2006: 25), i.e. as structuring dialogic interaction in a broader
Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 21](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-31-320.jpg)
![sense, encompassing propositional, but also non-propositional, metacommuni-
cative aspects of discourse. The latter aspects include the information status of
a message and the rhetorical relation between an implied or explicitly encoded
preceding message and the content of the unit that ends in a final particle.
Part II: Grammaticalization Theory
Bernd Heine, Gunther Kaltenböck and Tania Kuteva argue that the emergence
of sentence-final particles like English but or German final oder ‘or’ is not the
result of a gradual process of grammaticalization, but an instantaneous one,
thus challenging Mulder and Thompson’s assumption that English final but
underwent a gradual change from conjunction to final particle with several
intermediate stages (e.g. Mulder and Thompson’s [2008] “Janus but”). The use
of elements such as but and oder in final position is argued to derive from a
process labeled cooptation, whereby a chunk of grammar, such as a clause, a
phrase, an adverb, or a conjunction, is taken out of sentence grammar and
pressed into service as a so-called thetical unit. In Thetical Grammar, a thetical
is an autonomous information unit that is syntactically and prosodically inde-
pendent of its host, i.e. of the utterance to which it is attached. In a second
step, after being used as a thetical in a concrete context, this unit may undergo
grammaticalization. What is particularly intriguing about the idea of thetical
grammar and cooptation is that grammaticalization does not necessarily start
with small-scale, “sneaky” changes that extend from one environment to another
based on similarity relations between different environments (De Smet 2012: 608),
but is arguably initiated by an abrupt transfer of a linguistic element or unit
from sentence grammar to the plane of discourse grammar, and thus by a
change from a syntactic constituent to a discourse-organizing element, which
may occur in any speech event. Heine, Kaltenböck and Kuteva show that,
as theticals, but and or function as final particles, thus constituting the right
utterance boundary. Once the left boundary separating the final particle from
its preceding host is eliminated via grammaticalization, the final particle may
turn into an integrated appendage of its preceding host unit.
Yuki Taylor examines the grammaticalization of Japanese toka, focusing on
the decategorization of this element from an exemplifying and quotative marker
to a pragmatic particle that softens an utterance. The data are based on 19
segments of spontaneous informal dialogues. In its original function as a marker
of exemplification, toka is used with concrete examples, which serve to make
the propositional meaning of an utterance clearer. It also occurs with proposi-
tional units that are to be understood as approximations, in the sense of ‘or
22 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-32-320.jpg)
![However, we need to be modest. A truly integrative approach needs to be
worked out much more fully in order to understand what makes the final posi-
tion of a sentence or an utterance attractive for particular kinds of lexemes, and
in what way the final position is cognitively relevant in (on-line) speech produc-
tion. The chapters in this volume represent no more than single pieces of a
larger puzzle, and yet they contribute, each in its own way, to a more thorough
understanding of the subject.
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1986. Why is actually so popular in spoken English? In Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd
Bäcklund (eds.), English in speech and writing: A symposium, 119–127. Stockholm: Almqvist
and Wiksell.
Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Analyzing modal adverbs as modal particles and discourse markers.
In Liesbeth Degand, Paola Pietrandrea & Bert Cornillie (eds.), Discourse markers and
modal particles. Categorization and description, 89–106. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Andersen, Gisle & Thorstein Fretheim (eds.). 2000. Pragmatic markers and propositional
attitude. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2002. On the development of final
‘though’: A case of grammaticalization? In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New
reflections on grammaticalization, 345–361. Amsterdam & Phildelphia: John Benjamins.
Benveniste, Émile. 1971 [1958]. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in general linguistics,
trans. by Mary Elizabeth Meek, 223–230, Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. (First
published in 1958 as “De la subjectivité dans le langage.” In Émile Benveniste, Problèmes
de linguistique générale, 258–266. Paris: Gallimard.)
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman
grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chan, Marjorie. 2002. Chinese: Gender-related use of sentence-final particles in Cantonese. In
Marlis Hellinger & Hadumod Bussmann (eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic
representation of women and men. Volume 2, 57–72. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 2007. Areal Typology of Mainland Southeast Asia: What we learn from the
WALS Maps. MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 13. 18–47. http://www.manusya.journals.
chula.ac.th/files/essay/Comrie_18-47.pdf. (9 October 2012)
Davis, Christopher. 2011. Constraining interpretation: Sentence final particles in Japanese.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88. 601–633.
Dedaić, Mirjana N. & Mirjana Misković-Luković. 2010. South slavic discourse particles. Amster-
dam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
30 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-40-320.jpg)
![Degand, Liesbeth & Benjamin Fagard. 2011. ‘Alors’ between discourse and grammar: The role of
syntactic position. Functions of Language 18(1). 29–56.
Degand, Liesbeth, Paola Pietrandrea & Bert Cornillie (eds.). 2013. Discourse markers and modal
particles. Categorization and description. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dehé, Nicole & Yordanka Kovalova. 2006. The syntax, pragmatics and prosody of parenthetical
what. English Language and Linguistics 10(2). 289–320.
Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2011. The World Atlas of Language Structures
Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info/ (30 November 2014).
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses.
Linguistics 43. 449–470.
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In
Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 403–425. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. ‘Same same but different’ – Modal particles, discourse markers
and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Liesbeth Degand, Paola Pietrandrea &
Bert Cornillie (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and descrip-
tion, 19–46. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fernandez-Vest, Jocelyne M. M. 1994. Les particules énonciatives dans la construction du
discours. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse
particles: introduction to the volume. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse
particles, 1–20. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Foolen, Ad. 2003 [1996]. Pragmatic particles. In Jan-Ola Östman, Jef Verschueren, Jan Blommaert
& Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics online. www.benjamins.com/online/hop/
(30 November 2014)
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7). 931–952.
Fretheim, Thorstein. 2000. Constraining explicit and implicit content by means of a Norwegian
scalar particle. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 23. 115–162.
Fretheim, Thorstein. 2010. The metarepresentational use of main clause phenomena in embedded
clauses. Linguistics 48(2). 301–324.
Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2005. Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case
of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1752–1778.
Gecova, O. G. (ed.). 1999. Arxangel’skij oblastnoj slovar’. Vol. 10. Moscow: Nauka.
Gupta, Anthea Fraser. 1992. The pragmatic particles of Singapore Colloquial English. Journal of
Pragmatics 18. 31– 57.
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing Questions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT PhD dissertation.
Hancil, Sylvie. 2014. The final particle but in British English: An instance of cooptation and
grammaticalization at work. In Sylvie Hancil & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization
Theory and Data, 209–228. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2006. A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of
discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In Kerstin Fischer
(ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 21–41. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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.
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-
final ‘then’ in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3603–3623.
Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 31](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-41-320.jpg)
![König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2012. Understanding English–German contrasts. Berlin: Erich
Schmidt.
Kwok, Helen. 1984. Sentence particles in Cantonese. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies.
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1). 5–38.
Law, Anne. 2002. Cantonese sentence-final particles and the CP domain. UCL Working Papers
in Linguistics 14. 375–398.
Ler, Soon & Vivien Lay. 2006. A relevance-theoretic approach to discourse particles in Singapore
English. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 149–166. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Lee, Duck-Young. 2007. Involvement and the Japanese interactive particles ne and yo. Journal of
Pragmatics 39. 363–388.
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and rhetoric: Adverbial connectors in the history of English.
Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Leung, Wai-Mun. 2008. Promising approaches for the analysis of sentence-final particles in
Cantonese: The case of [aa3]. Asian Social Science 4(5). 74–82.
Li, Boya. 2006. Chinese final particles and the syntax of the periphery. Leiden: University of
Leiden doctoral dissertation. http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001873/book-
part.pdf (20 May 2014)
Linell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins, and Transforma-
tions. London: Routledge.
Low, Ee Ling & David Deterding. 2003. A corpus-based description of particles in spoken
Singapore English. In David Deterding, Ee Ling Low & Adam Brown (eds.), English in
Singapore: Research on Grammar. Singapore & New York: McGraw-Hill Education (Asia).
http://www.ubd.edu.bn/academic/faculty/FASS/staff/docs/DD/ESROG-Low-Deterding.pdf
(13 November 2014)
Luke, Kang-kwong. 1990. Utterance particles in Cantonese conversation. Amsterdam & Philadel-
phia: John Benjamins.
McGloin, Naomi & Yumiko Konishi. 2010. From connective particle to sentence-final particle: A
usage-based analysis of shi ‘and’ in Japanese. Language Sciences 32. 507–588.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken
Hale: A life in language, 293–338. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Morita, Emi. 2012. Deriving the socio-pragmatic meanings of the Japanese interactional particle
ne. Journal of Pragmatics 44(3). 298–318.
Mulder, Jean & Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in
English conversation. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The
multifunctionality of conjunctions, 179–204. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Nikolaeva, T.M. 1985. Funkcii častic v vyskazyvanii: na materiale slavjanskix jazykov. Moscow:
Nauka.
Nikolaeva, T.M. 2000. Ot zvuka k tekstu. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.
Norrick, Neal R. 2009. Pragmatic markers: Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 863–865.
Okamoto, Shigeko. 1995. Pragmaticization of meaning in some sentence-final particles in
Japanese. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on Semantics
and Pragmatics, 219–246. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Onodera, Noriko. 2000. Development of demo type connectives and na elements. Two extremes
of Japanese discourse markers. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1). 27–55.
Onodera, Noriko. 2004. Japanese discourse markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse
analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 33](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-43-320.jpg)
![Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. (Inter)Subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In
Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjec-
tification and Grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Liselotte Brems,
Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), Intersections of Intersubjectivity. Special
issue of English Text Construction 5(1). 7–28.
Traugott, Elizabeth. forthc. On the rise of types of clause final pragmatic markers in English. To
appear in: Journal of Historical Pragmatics.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Vasilyeva, A.N. 1972. Particles in colloquial Russian. Moscow: Progress.
Wakefield, John. 2011. The English equivalents of Cantonese sentence-final particles. Disserta-
tion, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies.
<http://repository.lib.polyu.edu.hk/jspui/handle/10397/4304> (20 May 2014)
Waltereit, Richard. 2004. Metonymischer Bedeutungswandel und pragmatische Strategien: Zur
Geschichte von frz. quand même. Metaphorik (6). 117–133.
Weydt, Harald. 1969. Abtönungspartikeln: Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen
Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg v.d.H.: Gehlen.
Weydt, Harald (ed.). 1989. Sprechen mit Partikeln. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Wouden, Ton van der & Ad Foolen. 2011. Pragmatische partikels in de rechterperiferie [Pragmatic
particles in the right periphery]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 16. 307–322.
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina. 2004. Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Yap, Foong Ha, Jiao Wang & Charles Tsz-kwan Lam. 2010. Clausal integration and the emer-
gence of mitigative and adhortative sentence-final particles in Chinese. Taiwan Journal of
Linguistics 8(2). 63–86.
Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 35](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-45-320.jpg)
![disjuncts realised by single adverb phrases, as shown in examples (1) and (2)
below1:
(1) I’m sorry to hear that, naturally. <1994 (19940612)>
(2) He would have killed me and her right there, probably. <2008 (080919)>
The study of adverbs as regards their position has been recurrently touched
upon in the literature by scholars from different persuasions (e.g. Baltin 2007;
Austin, Engelberg, and Rauh 2004; Ernst 2002; Kim 2000; Jacobson 1980). In
this introduction I will summarise the main points raised both by reference
grammars and specialised research, focusing, in so doing, on end-positioning
in particular. It should be first noted that in this paper I will follow the morpho-
syntactic distinction commonly established between “adverb”, defined as an ele-
ment functioning at phrase level, and “adverbial”, referring to a phrasal element
functioning at sentence level (Hasselgård 2010). A further note on terminology: I
will retain the denomination “disjuncts”, originally posed by Greenbaum (1969)
and later endorsed by Quirk et al. (1985), to refer to wide-scope adverbials or
sentence modifiers of the type of naturally and probably in (1) and (2) above.
Terminology and notational conventions for characterising adverbial posi-
tions in the sentence vary from one author to another. The grammar of Quirk et
al. (1985: 490) offers one of the earliest and most fine-grained classifications of
adverbial placement by distinguishing three basic positions, namely “initial”,
“medial” and “end”, as well as four variants of the latter two (“initial medial”,
“medial medial”, “end medial” and “initial end”). The examples that they use to
illustrate these are well-known2:
(3) By then the book must have been placed on the shelf. (I)
The book by then must have been placed on the shelf. (iM)
The book must by then have been placed on the shelf. (M)
The book must have by then been placed on the shelf. (mM)
The book must have been by then placed on the shelf. (eM)
The book must have been placed by then on the shelf. (iE)
The book must have been placed on the shelf by then. (E)
(Quirk et al. 1985: 490)
1 The examples in this paper belong to The Corpus of Contemporary American English. See the
“data and method” section. Examples appear without any changes on the original. Neverthe-
less, suspension dots “[. . .]” are used in some cases to indicate that part of the example has
been truncated to shorten its length and facilitate readability.
2 I stands for “initial”, M (or m) for “middle or medial”, and E for “end”.
40 Pedro Ureña Gómez-Moreno](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-50-320.jpg)
![troops of the present 2nd Dragoons. It suffered severely at
Waterloo, and distinguished itself in the Mutiny.
Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 7th, or Queen's Own Regiment
of Hussars. 1690-1842. Illustrated with a plate. [London: Parker.
1842]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-57-320.jpg)
![The Eighth (The King's Royal Irish) Hussars.
"Pristinæ virtutis memores."
The Harp and Crown.
TITLES.
1693-1751. Colonel Henry Cunningham's [or its Colonel's name]
Regiment of Dragoons; "St. George" from 1740-51.
1751-75. The 8th Dragoons.
1775-77. The 8th Light Dragoons.
1777-1822. The 8th, or The King's Royal Irish Light Dragoons.
1822 (from). The 8th, The King's Royal Irish Hussars.
PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c.
* "Honours" on the Colours.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-58-320.jpg)
![Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 8th, or King's Royal Irish
Regiment of Hussars. 1693-1843. Illustrated. [London: Parker.
1844.]
Historical Record of the 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars. To
1803. By John Francis Smet, M.D., late Surgeon, 8th Hussars.
[London: Mitchell. 1874.]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-60-320.jpg)
![1715. Jacobite rising.
1798. Irish Rebellion.
1806. Buenos Ayres.
1807. Monte Video.
1809. Flushing.
*1811-13. Peninsula.
*1843. Punniar.
*1846. Sobraon.
*1848-49. Punjaub.
*1849. Chillianwallah.
1849. Goojerat.
1857-58. Indian Mutiny.
*1857. Delhi.
*1858. Lucknow.
*1878-80. Afghanistan.
*1879. Charasiah.
*1879. Kabul.
*1880. Kandahar.
1900. South Africa.
Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-84); Blue (1784-1830); Scarlet (1830-41);
Blue (from 1841). Facings: Buff (1715-1805); Crimson (1805-
30); Blue (1830-41); Scarlet (from 1841). Lancer-cap plume,
Black and White.
Regimental Badge.—"The Royal Cypher within the Garter."
Nickname.—"The Delhi Spearmen" (a native sobriquet).
Notes.—The senior of several regiments of Dragoons restored in
1715, which had been disbanded after Utrecht. Raised in the
southern counties, it served uninterruptedly in Ireland for
eighty-six years to 1803, and in its title received special favour
at the hands of Queen Adelaide in 1830. It gained distinction for
service during the Indian Mutiny, and is the only British cavalry
regiment with "Charasiah," "Kabul, 1879," and "Kandahar, 1880"
on its Colours.
Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 9th, or Queen's Royal
Regiment of Light Dragoons (Lancers). 1715-1841. Illustrated
with a plate. [London: Parker. 1841.]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-62-320.jpg)
![1746. Falkirk.
1746. Culloden.
1758-63. Germany.
1759. Minden.
1760. Warbourg.
1760. Campen.
1761. Kirk Denkern.
1762. Wilhelmstahl.
1763. Grœbenstein.
*1808-14. Peninsula.
1808. Sahagun.
1809. Benevente.
1809. Corunna.
1813. Morales.
1813. Vittoria.
1813. Pyrenees.
1814. Orthes.
1814. Toulouse.
*1815. Waterloo.
1855. Eupatoria.
*1855. Sevastopol.
*1878-79. Afghanistan.
*1878. Ali Masjid.
*1884. Egypt.
1900. South Africa.
Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-83); Blue (from 1784). Facings, Deep Yellow
(1715-1811); Scarlet (1811-1819); Blue (from 1819); Helmet-
plume, Black and White.
Regimental Badges.—"The Prince's Plume," "The Rising Sun," "The Red
Dragon" (from 1783, ancient Badges of the Princes of Wales).
Also "The White Horse."
Nicknames.—"Baker's Light Bobs" (when under the command of
Valentine Baker). "The Don't Dance Tenth" (an officer told his
hostess at a ball, "The Tenth Don't Dance"). "The Chainy Tenth"
(from the pattern of the pouch belt).
Notes.—Raised in Hertfordshire and adjoining counties; the regiment
received its "baptism of fire" in the Jacobite rising of 1745.
Since then its colours show its record.
Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 10th, The Prince of Wales's
Own Royal Regiment of Hussars. 1715-1842. Illustrated with
plates. [London: Parker. 1843.]
The Memoirs of the 10th Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales's](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-64-320.jpg)
![Own). By Colonel R. S. Liddell, late 10th Hussars. Illustrated.
[London: Longmans. 1891.]
The White Horse (of Hanover).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-65-320.jpg)
!["Motus Componere." Its present title was bestowed because it
escorted the Prince Consort on the occasion of his marriage to
Her Majesty.
Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 11th, or Prince Albert's Own
Regiment of Hussars. 1715-1842. [London: Parker. 1843.]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-68-320.jpg)
![The Twelfth (The Prince of Wales's Royal)
Lancers.
The Plume of the Prince
of Wales.
The Rising Sun. The Red Dragon.
TITLES.
1715-51. Colonel Phineas Bowles's [or its Colonel's name]
Regiment of Dragoons.
1751-68. The 12th Dragoons.
1768-1816. The 12th (The Prince of Wales's) Light Dragoons.
1816-17. The 12th (The Prince of Wales's) Lancers.
1817 (from). The 12th (The Prince of Wales's Royal) Lancers.
PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c.
* "Honours" on the Colours.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-69-320.jpg)
![1795. Corsica.
*1801. Egypt.
1801. Aboukir.
1801. Mandora.
1801. Alexandria.
1809. Walcheren.
*1811-14. Peninsula.
1812. Salamanca.
1813. Vittoria.
1814. Bayonne.
*1815. Waterloo.
1815. Netherlands.
*1851-53. South Africa.
1855. Eupatoria.
*1855. Sevastopol.
1858. Indian Mutiny.
*1858. Central India.
1900. South Africa.
Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-84); Blue (1784-1830); Scarlet (1830-42);
Blue (from 1842). Facings, White (1715-68); Black (1768-84);
Yellow (1784-1817); Scarlet (1817-30); Blue (1830-42); Scarlet
(from 1842). Plume, Scarlet.
Regimental Badges.—"Plume of the Prince of Wales," "The Rising Sun,"
"The Red Dragon" (in honour of the Prince of Wales, afterwards
George IV., whose crests they were); also "The Sphinx," for
Egypt (1801).
Nickname.—"The Supple Twelfth."
Notes.—Originally raised in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and
Hampshire, it served in Ireland, from 1717, for seventy-six
years. In Egypt it captured a French Convoy with Colours.
Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 12th, Prince of Wales's Royal
Regiment of Lancers. 1715-1842. Illustrated with a plate.
[London: Parker. 1842]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-70-320.jpg)
![The Thirteenth Hussars.
"Viret in Æternum."
The Royal Cypher and Crown.
TITLES.
1715-51. Colonel Richard Munden's [or its Colonel's name]
Regiment of Dragoons.
1751-83. The 13th Dragoons.
1783-1861. The 13th Light Dragoons.
1861 (from). The 13th Hussars.
PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c.
* "Honours" on the Colours.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-72-320.jpg)
![1715. Jacobite rising.
1745. Jacobite rising.
1796. Jamaica.
*1810-14. Peninsula.
1811. Campo Mayor.
*1811. Albuera.
1811. Arroyo dos Molinos.
1812. Badajos.
*1813. Vittoria.
*1814. Orthes.
*1814. Toulouse.
*1815. Waterloo.
1815. Netherlands.
*1854. Alma.
*1854. Balaclava.
*1854. Inkerman.
*1855. Sevastopol.
1900. South Africa.
Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-84); Blue (1784-1832); Scarlet (1832-40);
Blue (from 1840). Facings, Green (1715-84); Pale Buff (1784-
1836); Green (1836-40); Buff (from 1840). Plume, White.
Regimental Badge.—None recognised in Regulations, but "The Royal
Cypher and Crown" appear on appointments. The motto, "Viret
in Æternum," has been borne since its formation.
Nicknames.—Familiar in 18th century as "The Green Dragoons" (from
the facings); "The Ragged Brigade" (during the Peninsular War,
when its arduous services debarred much attention to
appearances); "The Evergreens" (from its facings and punning
motto); "The Geraniums" (for smartness of appearance); and
"The Great Runaway Prestonpans" (in allusion to the panic
which seized some of the men in the fight with the Jacobite
rebels).
Notes.—Raised in the Midlands, the services of this regiment have
been of the most distinguished order. It formed part of the
Balaclava Light Brigade. In the Peninsula it served in no less
than thirty-two affairs, not counting general actions, losing 274
men and 1,009 horses.
Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 13th Regiment of Light
Dragoons. 1715-1842. [London: Parker. 1842.]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-73-320.jpg)
![1715. Jacobite rising.
1746. Culloden.
1794-95. Flanders.
1796. West Indies.
*1808-14. Peninsula.
*1809. Douro.
*1809. Talavera.
1809. Oporto.
1810. Busaco.
1810. Barca de Avintas.
*1811. Fuentes d'Onor.
1812. Badajos.
1812. Burgos.
1812. Salamanca.
*1813. Vittoria.
*1814. Orthes.
1814. Tarbes.
1814. Toulouse.
1815. New Orleans.
*1848-49. Punjaub.
*1849. Chillianwallah.
*1849. Goojerat.
*1856. Persia.
1858. Indian Mutiny.
*1858. Central India.
1900. South Africa.
Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-84); Dark Blue (1784-1830); Scarlet (1830-
40); Blue (from 1840). Facings, Lemon Yellow (1715-1798);
Orange (the livery of Brandenburg, 1798-1830); Scarlet (in
1830), and shortly afterwards Blue (1830-40); Scarlet (1840-
61); Blue (from 1861). Plume, White.
Regimental Badges.—"The Royal Crest within the Garter," also "The
Prussian Eagle" (adopted in 1798 in honour of the Duchess of
York, the Princess Royal of Prussia).
Nicknames.—"The Ramnuggur Boys" (having encountered enormous
odds at the battle in question); "The Emperor's Chambermaids"
(bestowed while in India).
Notes.—Raised in the South of England by Colonel Dormer (see
Royal Warwickshire Regiment). Its record of services shows its
fame. Especially in the Peninsula, in the Punjaub, in Persia, and
in Central India has it gained distinction.
Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 14th, or the Kings Regiment of
Light Dragoons. Illustrated with plates. [London: Parker. 1847.]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-75-320.jpg)
![Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 15th, or King's Regiment of
Light Dragoons (Hussars). 1759-1841. [London: Parker. 1841.]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/25133406-250520103412-f12f881f/85/Final-Particles-Sylvie-Hancil-Editor-Alexander-Haselow-Editor-Margje-Post-Editor-78-320.jpg)
Final Particles Sylvie Hancil Editor Alexander Haselow Editor Margje Post Editor
- 1. Final Particles Sylvie Hancil Editor Alexander Haselow Editor Margje Post Editor download https://ebookbell.com/product/final-particles-sylvie-hancil- editor-alexander-haselow-editor-margje-post-editor-50266812 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Final Particles Sylvie Hancil Alexander Haselow Margje Post Eds https://ebookbell.com/product/final-particles-sylvie-hancil-alexander- haselow-margje-post-eds-5595392 The Japanese Sentencefinal Particles In Talkininteraction Hideki Saigo https://ebookbell.com/product/the-japanese-sentencefinal-particles-in- talkininteraction-hideki-saigo-2499746 Stance In Talk A Conversation Analysis Of Mandarin Final Particles Rueyjiuan Regina Wu https://ebookbell.com/product/stance-in-talk-a-conversation-analysis- of-mandarin-final-particles-rueyjiuan-regina-wu-1711646 Searches For Supersymmetric Particles In Final States With Multiple Top And Bottom Quarks With The Atlas Detector 1st Ed Chiara Rizzi https://ebookbell.com/product/searches-for-supersymmetric-particles- in-final-states-with-multiple-top-and-bottom-quarks-with-the-atlas- detector-1st-ed-chiara-rizzi-22501596
- 3. Final Prophecy 04 Demonkeepers Jessica Andersen https://ebookbell.com/product/final-prophecy-04-demonkeepers-jessica- andersen-46217934 Final Verdict Jessica R Patch https://ebookbell.com/product/final-verdict-jessica-r-patch-46252480 Final Exit Lena Diaz https://ebookbell.com/product/final-exit-lena-diaz-46252884 Final Offer Lauren Asher https://ebookbell.com/product/final-offer-lauren-asher-47659160 Final Option Clive Cussler Boyd Morrison https://ebookbell.com/product/final-option-clive-cussler-boyd- morrison-47674422
- 5. Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow, Margje Post (Eds.) Final Particles
- 6. Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs Editor Volker Gast Editorial Board Walter Bisang Jan Terje Faarlund Hans Henrich Hock Natalia Levshina Heiko Narrog Matthias Schlesewsky Amir Zeldes Niina Ning Zhang Editor responsible for this volume Volker Gast Volume 284
- 7. Final Particles Edited by Sylvie Hancil Alexander Haselow Margje Post
- 8. ISBN 978-3-11-035380-8 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-037557-2 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039418-4 ISSN 1861-4302 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. 6 2015 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Typesetting: RoyalStandard, Hong Kong Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com
- 9. Table of contents I Introduction Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow 1 Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 3 II Discourse Analysis & Conversation Analysis Pedro Ureña Gómez-Moreno 2 Sentence-final adverbials: Recurrent types and usage 39 Aino Koivisto 3 Taking an interactional perspective on final particles: The case of Finnish mutta (‘but’) 55 Alexander Haselow 4 Final particles in spoken German 77 III Grammaticalization Bernd Heine, Gunther Kaltenböck and Tania Kuteva 5 Some observations on the evolution of final particles 111 Yuki Taylor 6 The evolution of Japanese toka in utterance-final position 141 Rumiko Shinzato 7 Two types of conditionals and two different grammaticalization paths 157 Sung-Ock Sohn 8 The emergence of utterance-final particles in Korean 181 Sylvie Hancil 9 The grammaticalization of final but: From conjunction to final particle 197
- 10. IV Cognitive Approaches Ton van der Wouden and Ad Foolen 10 Dutch particles in the right periphery 221 Thorstein Fretheim 11 A relevance-theoretic perspective on the Norwegian utterance-final particles da and altså compared to their English counterpart then 249 Margje Post 12 The North Russian utterance-final particle dak as an information- structuring device 285 Denis Paillard 13 A study of three particles in Khmer: tɨv, mɔɔk, coh 305 V Generative Approaches Gabriela Soare 14 Particles and Parameters in Wh-Questions 333 Francesca Del Gobbo, Nicola Munaro and Cecilia Poletto 15 On sentential particles: A cross-linguistic study 359 Kaori Takamine 16 Circumstantial PPs and the middle field in Japanese 387 Laura R. Bailey 17 Word order and the syntax of question particles 407 Subject index 427 Author index 432 vi Table of contents
- 11. I Introduction
- 13. Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow 1 Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 1 Introduction Spoken language has been the primary focus of research in discourse analysis and conversation analysis for some decades, but grammatical analysis is still largely based on written structures and has only recently come to include data from natural speech. As a result of this written-language bias (Linell 2005) that has long dominated linguistic research, many structural features that are char- acteristic of spontaneous spoken language as well as the form and function of many indexical elements that are frequently used in speech are still in need of investigation. This book focuses on one particular kind of such indexical ele- ments, namely final particles. In the current volume we have brought together sixteen studies on final particles in different languages of the world to take stock of some of the recent advances in the study of these elements and to contribute to broadening and deepening our understanding of their function and syntactic status, their com- ing-into-existence (often considered an instance of grammaticalization), and the factors that condition their use. This collection of articles is, to our knowl- edge, the first cross-linguistic overview of final particles, and we hope it will not only provide interesting insights into current research on this topic, but also set the scene for more diverse research in this area. Most of the contribu- tions were presented at the International Conference on Final Particles, held on 27–28 May 2010 in Rouen. We did not privilege one theoretical perspective over another since no one approach could exhaustively represent the full range of functions of final particles and their categorical status. While some authors rely on discourse- and conversation-analytic methods to explore the function of final particles, others are interested in grammaticalization, in cognitive aspects, or they assume a universal grammar and work within a generative framework. Commonalities emerge in the use of corpus data and the search for explanations of the grammatical and pragmatic role of the final position in a sentence or an utterance. In this introduction, we will first sketch some general ideas about final particles and the relevance of the study of final particles for linguistic theory Sylvie Hancil, University of Rouen; Margje Post, University of Bergen; Alexander Haselow, University of Rostock
- 14. (Section 2) before providing a typological overview of different types of final particles (Section 3). In Section 4, we will briefly present the different contribu- tions to this volume. 2 Final particles as a research topic All contributions to this volume are based on the following observation: in many languages of the world, sentences or, from a discourse perspective, utterances often end in elements that have little or no lexical or conceptual, but predomi- nantly procedural meaning in terms of Blakemore (1987) in that they provide an interpretive cue to the hearer as to how to understand the sentence or utterance they accompany. Some examples are given in (1). (1) a. English: I wouldn’t care actually/anyway/but/even/so/then/though. b. Dutch: Die avond moest ’t gebeuren dus/immers/maar/misschien. ‘That evening it had to happen thus/after all/but/perhaps.’ c. Northern Ona davno ne robotat. Bol’na dak. Russian: she:NOM;SG long NEG work:PRS;3SG ill:NOM;F;SG PRT ‘She hasn’t been working for a long time. (Because) she is ill.’ (Gecova 1999) d. Cantonese: Neih sik keuih maa.3/me.5 (Chan 2002: 59) you know him/her PRT ‘Do you know her PRT (neutral question)/ PRT (surprise, dismay)?’ e. Venetian Dove valo, ti? (Del Gobbo, Munaro, and Poletto, this vol.) Italian Where goes.he PRT ‘Where on earth is he going?’ The elements highlighted in bold in (1), which occur predominantly in spoken discourse, are what we and many other linguists analyzing these items call final particles (FPs). More specific terms are sentence-final and utterance-final particles. The term sentence-final particle is widely used for Asian languages and in studies written in a generative framework. Some contributors to this volume prefer the term utterance-final particle, since the units involved need not have the form of a complete sentence and the particles themselves usually have no constituent status. We have chosen to use the neutral term final particles and leave it to the authors to decide which term fits their data best. 4 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 15. Final particles are often classified in a more general way as a sub-class of what has been called, among others, discourse markers (Schiffrin 1987; 2001; Fraser 1999), pragmatic markers (Andersen and Fretheim 2000, Norrick 2009), pragmatic particles (Foolen [1996] 2003; Fried and Östman 2005), discourse particles (Fischer 2006), modal particles (Aijmer 2013; Izutsu and Izutsu 2013), or interactional particles (Morita 2012); in French a common term is particules énonciatives (e.g. Fernandez-Vest 1994); in German, Abtönungspartikeln (Weydt 1969; 1989) is an established term. The problem concerning the categorical rela- tionship between these different types of particles has been discussed by several authors in a recently published edited volume by Degand, Pietrandrea and Cornillie (2013). We avoid this terminological confusion here, claiming that the elements under investigation are distinct enough to deserve a descriptive label of their own, as shown in Section 3. FPs are usually monomorphemic units that are prosodically integrated into a host unit and cannot occur in isolation, they are unaccented, have no propositional content and do not effect the truth con- ditions of the unit they accompany. The meaning of FPs is relatively elusive, due to the fact that they often change their function depending on the illocutionary type of the utterance to which they are attached and on the sequential context in which this utterance is situated. However, what all FPs have in common is that they convey different types of metapragmatic information (e.g. emotive, epistemic) and information on the rhetorical relation to a prior discourse unit, situating an utterance in a specific communicative context. FPs thus serve an utterance-integrative function in ongoing discourse. While FPs are quite common and relatively well-documented in East and Southeast Asian languages, the phenomenon has not been investigated in detail for European languages, in which the use of final particles appears to be in- creasing. At least some FPs have been part of everyday speech in some of these languages for centuries, but others appeared recently. Lenker (2010), for instance, states for English that the retrospective ground-changing function of adverbials with temporal sources (then, after all, still) used in the right periphery of a clause was not widely used until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when a new typology of connectives arose. According to Lenker, most adverbials of this type that appear in final position developed quite late: final though, for example, which has been in use in English since the nineteenth century (though sparingly), came to be used frequently only in the second half of the twentieth century (Lenker 2010: 201), and is largely restricted to spoken, interactional language. Lenker links the development in English to what she considers a typological change in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which consists in a growing prefer- ence for adverbial connectives over coordinating conjunctions (Lenker 2010: 9). Traugott (forthc.) shows that the types of pragmatic markers in final position have been incremental from Old English. The clause-final position has come to Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 5
- 16. be occupied by an increasingly larger set of elements over the history of English, some of which developed later than others, the “youngest” type being retro- spective contrastive markers (then, though, actually, after all). The use of final particles is thus probably the result of ongoing syntactic changes that are inter- woven with changes in discourse organization. This shift, which may well be ongoing in other European languages as well, has not been widely recognized and is therefore worth studying. While most research on FPs has been done for East Asian languages (e.g. Luke 1990; Okamoto 1995; Sohn 1996; Onodera 2000; Strauss 2005; Wu 2004; Li 2006; Lee 2007; Kita and Ide 2007; Sybesma and Li 2007; Haugh 2008; Yap, Wang, and Lam 2010; Davis 2011; Saigo 2011; Rhee 2012, and the references therein), little of this is known to researchers of European languages. Unifying the studies on FPs allows for a cross-fertilization of Asian and European linguis- tics and for truly integrative approaches to the study of the syntax of spoken language: hypotheses formulated for the development and the function of FPs in different languages can be tested against each other, and descriptions of the function of FPs in one language often find their proper place if judged against other languages, especially when they are genetically unrelated. Most of the contributions to this volume suggest that the factors underlying the develop- ment and the use of FPs are similar in typologically distinct languages since FPs are not necessarily licensed by syntactic rules, but motivated by discourse needs and interactive forces (e.g. intersubjective understanding, turn-taking) that hold for all speakers irrespective of the underlying language. On these grounds, a typological perspective seems justified. The study of FPs has a lot to offer for linguistic description and studies on discourse structure. There are at least six domains in which the study of final particles sheds new light on linguistic theory: (i) Theories of Grammar: FPs are elements of spoken grammar and thus relevant for theories of the structure of spoken language. Since their word class affiliation is indeterminate, they represent a challenge for linguistic categorization. (ii) Syntactic Theory: The syntactic status of FPs is far from clear. The role of the final position (or “right periphery”, or “post-field”) in the construction of a sentence or a structural unit of any type (an “utterance” or “unit of talk”) needs to be rethought in order to encompass FPs. (iii) Cognitive Linguistics: Final particles are prototypical procedural markers, indicating how the linguistic unit they are attached to is to be understood by the addressee. They can index the cognitive status of a message (e.g. surprise/unexpectedness, plausibility) and provide different cues on how to process the message they accompany. 6 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 17. (iv) Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis: FPs are used to structure jointly produced discourse. They have a cohesive function that needs to be explored and related to the conditions of interactive discourse production. FPs structure conversational turns in that they mark transition-relevant places and thus play a role in the turn-taking system that regulates inter- personal communication. (v) Discourse-Pragmatic Variation: Both the initial and the final position are preferred places for the indication of information that is relevant for the processing of a message. More attention needs to be paid to the question if, and in what way, the initial and the final position differ in their communi- cative function. (vi) Grammaticalization: FPs are based on a variety of source lexemes which, over time, developed heterosemes in final position, where they acquired metapragmatic functions and lost much of the original semantic content. Similarities in the development of particular types of FPs in different lan- guages (e.g. FPs based on conjunctions) suggest typologically consistent, recurrent diachronic pathways. Each of these aspects will figure in the different contributions of this volume, some focusing more on syntactic theory (especially the contributions by Bailey, Soare, Takamine and by Del Gobbo, Munaro, and Poletto, which are based on generative approaches), others more on theories of grammar and grammaticali- zation (e.g. Heine, Kaltenböck and Kuteva’s article), and many of them include data and discussions that are relevant for hypotheses and theories in several domains (e.g. Hancil on final but, Ureña Gómez-Moreno on final adverbials in English). A challenge for linguistic description is how to define the class of “final particles” in opposition to other elements that may potentially be used in final position (e.g. adverbs or tags), and how to integrate the great collection of items that have been identified as “final particles” in different typologically and genet- ically unrelated languages into a single category. The discussions of FPs include various types of linguistic items (e.g. adverb-like or conjunction-like elements, or question particles, see Soare, this vol.; Bailey, this vol.) with various kinds of functions (e.g. connective, expressive, modifying, see f.i. Nikolaeva 1985; 2000; Dedaić and Misković-Luković 2010: 2). A further problem is that FPs are usually described as language-specific items (e.g. sentence-final particles in Japanese, utterance-final particles in Dutch etc.) and thus defined according to the formal criteria and form-function mappings of the respective language. The difficulty thus lies in mapping a supposedly cross-linguistically relevant category to a number of language-specific categories. Moreover, even the most essential formal criterion for an FP, namely the type of unit to which it is final, has not been de- Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 7
- 18. fined in a uniform way: some authors use the term “clause-final”, others speak of “sentence-final”, “utterance-final”, “turn-final” or “prosodic-unit-final” particles. We will argue that, in spite of the typological diversity of languages that have FPs, it is possible to identify some basic category-constitutive core features that characterize FPs as an independent linguistic category. A preliminary attempt for such an integrated description is made in Section 3. 3 Final particles: A typological overview FPs occur predominantly in unplanned, interactive speech (conversation) and rarely in written language, and many of them tend to be used in informal con- texts. Their syntactic status is, in contrast to core-grammatical elements, not entirely clear, above all in terms of constituent status and degree of integration into the syntactic structure of the host unit, and they do not easily fit into a particular linguistic category. For instance, in English linguistics the elements discussed as FPs (e.g. then, though, anyway, but) by e.g. Mulder and Thompson (2008), Haselow (2012a; 2013) or Hancil (this vol.) can be found under different labels in the literature, e.g. as conjuncts (Quirk et al. 1985: 634–647), linking adverbials (Biber et al. 1999: 889–892), connective adjuncts (Huddleston and Pullum 2002: 779), adverbial connectors (Lenker 2010), or discourse markers (Fraser 1999), i.e. they are labeled either according to word class affiliation, their syntactic function, their pragmatic function, or a combination of different as- pects (e.g. “adverbial connector”). A further problem that complicates a uniform description of FPs is that they are studied from a broad range of theoretical approaches, e.g. (i) under a broad conception of grammar, i.e. one that encom- passes structural relations beyond the sentence level (e.g. text organization and speaker-hearer interaction), such as “macrogrammar” (Haselow 2013) or “thetical grammar” (Kaltenböck, Heine, and Kuteva 2011; this vol.), (ii) under a generative framework, which focuses on the syntactic status of FPs, functional hierarchies, and on how the final position is generated in sentence/clause struc- ture (movement operations), partly based on cartographic studies of clause structure (e.g. Bailey, this vol.; Takamine, this vol.), (iii) from a grammaticaliza- tion perspective (e.g. Barth-Weingarten and Couper-Kuhlen 2002; Mulder and Thompson 2008; Hancil 2014; this vol.), (iv) based on discourse-analytic ap- proaches, which seek to identify the discourse-structuring and cohesive function of FPs (Foolen 2003), or (v) on cognitive approaches, which focus, for instance, on the cognitive status of the units they link (e.g. asymmetric relations between two information units, see Post, this vol., Paillard, this vol.), or on their function 8 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 19. for the management of common ground (Haselow 2012a). Another problem for linguistic categorization is that most FPs have heterosemes in other word classes, leading to categorical overlap, particularly in ongoing grammaticalization, which often makes it difficult to draw a clear-cut boundary between FPs and their lexical sources, e.g. adverbs or conjunctions. Some attempts have been made to define FPs. One of the most widely used definitions is that by Mulder and Thompson (2008: 183; also Thompson and Suzuki 2011: 668): [A] final particle is a discourse marker that occurs at the end of an interactional unit, whether a turn, a turn unit, or a prosodic unit, and indexes certain pragmatic stances [. . .] The authors have good reasons to label this definition a “working characteriza- tion” as it poses a number of questions, for example, if and why final particles are discourse markers, if this classification means that they are not grammatical, and what exactly is meant by “certain pragmatic stances”. Generally, it is far from clear which factors licence their occurrence, and whether their function is merely to add expressive information to an utterance, thus conveying the speaker’s attitude or affective meanings, or whether they also have discourse- organizing, probably grammatical (structuring) functions that justify a categori- zation of FPs as grammatical elements. This section discusses different types of elements that have been analyzed as “final particles” in different languages of the world and seeks to identify some defining core features of FPs, thus preparing the ground for the different studies in this volume. The term “particle” suggests that the classification is based on a formal criterion, namely the fact that the elements under investiga- tion are non-inflecting and usually monomorphemic. As the discussion below will show, this is indeed a feature that is common to most of the elements that have been labelled “final particles” in different studies. The question is if this formal similarity is reflected in a functional equivalence of FPs in different languages of the world. Based on the lexical source of FPs, which determine particle-specific subfunctions, we can distinguish four major subtypes of FPs: conjunction-like, conjunct/connector-like, adverb-like, and focus particle-like FPs. Other lexical sources are, of course, possible, e.g. quotative markers such as Korean -ko (Sohn, this vol.), motion verbs as in Khmer (Paillard, this vol.), or question particles (e.g. Bailey, this vol.), but they seem to be less preferred from a typological perspective. Each of the four subtypes of FPs will be briefly dis- cussed below. A fifth category includes FPs in Asian languages such as Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese, which differ somewhat in their function from FPs in European languages. Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 9
- 20. 3.1 Final particles of the conjunction type Over the past decade several studies have analyzed the use of conjunction-type words as possible utterance- or turn-completion points, especially for English (Mulder and Thompson 2008), Finnish (Koivisto 2012) and Japanese (Izutsu and Izutsu 2014). Most of these studies notice the ambiguity of pre-pausal conjunc- tions as a turn-holding/-continuing and a turn-yielding device: sometimes speakers resume their talk after a pause, wheras in other cases they consider a turn as complete and thus allow for speaker transition (Jefferson 1983). This ambiguity is reflected in the different degrees of prosodic integration of final conjunctions into the previous unit; the degree of integration can vary both between languages and between various dialects of a single language. Mulder and Thompson (2008) speak of a continuum along which the conversational function of English but changes from a prosodic-unit initial, turn-continuing conjunction or connective to a prosodic-unit final discourse marker that signals turn-completion and fulfills a turn-yielding function. The authors claim that this continuum emerges from an ongoing grammaticalization process of but into an FP.1 In similar vein, other authors have demonstrated that spates of talk ending in a conjunction are not incidental, let alone erroneous, but that they have systematic functions in interaction. Final conjunctions often do not indicate the speaker’s intention to continue but rather form recognizable points of turn com- pletion. In other words, they are not best characterized as ‘conjunctions’ but rather as ‘final particles’ that guide the interpretation of the unit they accom- pany. Some examples of conjunctions used as FPs in different languages are given in (2). (2) a. English but (Mulder and Thompson 2008; Thompson and Suzuki 2011; Hancil, this vol.; Heine, Kaltenböck and Kuteva, this vol.), so (Haselow 2013: 393–397) b. Finnish mutta ‘but’ and ja ‘and’ (Koivisto 2012; this vol.) c Japanese demo ‘but’ (Izutsu and Izutsu 2014), shi ‘and’ (McGloin and Konishi 2010), kara ‘because’ (Thompson and Suzuki 2011) d. Korean -(ta)nikka ‘because’ (Rhee 2012) e. Dutch maar ‘but’, en ‘and’, of ‘or’ (van der Wouden and Foolen 2011; this vol.) f. Northern Russian da ‘and’ (Post 2005; this vol.) 1 This view has recently been challenged by Hofmockel (2014). Her data on Scottish final but do not attest ambiguous uses of but as a conjunction and as an indicator of a hanging implication. Rather, in utterance-final position but is used as an FP, either marking emphasis or pointing to information in the pragmatic pretext; see also Hancil, this vol. 10 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 21. All of the studies referred to in (2) show that participants often orient to the units of talk that end in conjunctions as turn-yielding, the evidence for this being either a speaker change occurring after the conjunction or a noticeable absence of turn continuation after the conjunction-like element. While in some cases a final conjunction with intermediate pitch serves as a mental resting point allowing the speaker to plan what s/he wants to say next, in many cases it points to a proposition that has either been mentioned before and is thus not repeated again, or to information that is obvious, known to the hearer and that can therefore remain implicit. Three types of conjunctions have repeatedly been reported to function as FPs in different languages: adversative, causal and additive conjunctions. Adver- sative conjunctions (e.g. English but, Dutch maar, Finnish mutta, Japanese demo) point to information that is dissonant to the propositional content of the utterance it accompanies and often carry an unstated contrasting implication (“hanging implication”, Mulder and Thompson 2008), so that an utterance end- ing with such a conjunction is linked to a concession that is left implicit. In some cases, such as final but in Australian or Scottish English, the final con- junction has progressed to becoming an FP with no hanging implication, i.e. the semantically contrastive material is supplied in the unit with the final con- junction itself (Thompson and Suzuki 2011: 672). Causal conjunctions (e.g. English so, Japanese kara) index a proposition that relates to a consequence or outcome of the event mentioned in an utterance that is evident (so), or they mark the utterance they accompany itself as the reason for or the cause of something (kara). Additive conjunctions (e.g. English and, Finnish ja, Dutch en, Northern Russian da) tend to mark the propositional content of an utterance as potentially expandible and thus signal possible continuation, as e.g. in the case of the construction of lists, which are marked as not exhaustive and expandible by further nameable items that need not be mentioned (Koivisto 2012: 1258), or in descriptions, where and signals that more details could be provided. In some cases, units with a final conjunction are uttered with finality-indicating prosody, in others they end with mid-level pitch and “holding silence”, and are thus more indeterminate as to their completion. In any case, final conjunctions are ana- lyzed as FPs when they do not establish a propositional relation between two units on the sentential or textual level, but rather link the utterance they accom- pany to an implied proposition, or when they modify an utterance in terms of illocutionary force (Rhee 2012). 3.2 Final particles of the conjunct/adverbial connector type Another source of FPs are conjuncts, such as English then in conditional if. . . then. . . constructions (Haselow 2012b), its Norwegian counterparts da and så, Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 11
- 22. and Russian dak, which probably developed from the (linking) adverb tak, and forms which are often ambiguous in their function as a conjunct/linking adverb (Biber et al. 1999)/adverbial connector (Lenker 2010) and a postposed sub- ordinator, such as English though or French quand même. Some examples are provided in (3). (3) a. English then (Haselow 2011, 2012b; Fretheim, this vol.), though (Lenker 2010: 210–212) b. Norwegian da and så (see Fretheim 2000; this vol.) c. Northern Russian dak (see Post, this vol.) d. French quand même ‘nevertheless’ (Waltereit 2004), alors ‘thus, then’ (Degand and Fagard 2011) e. Spanish pues ‘so’ (Páez-Urdaneta 1982) Each of the elements in (3) can be described in terms of a cline from a syntactic to a textual or discourse-internal linking element. French alors, for instance, has causal and conditional meanings of the type “p alors q” when it is used as a marker of structural relations within a syntactic unit. As an FP, it links two subsequent discourse units, marking a subjective conclusion derived by the speaker, i.e. it establishes consequential or resultative relations with an argu- mentative meaning (Degand and Fagard 2011). The particles in (3) tend to rene- gotiate the illocutionary type of the utterance they accompany, e.g. from an assertion to an inferred conclusion whose validity needs to be confirmed (then, alors), or from an assertion to an implied concession (though, quand même, pues). Note that some of the lexemes included here are originally temporal or deictic adverbs (Russian dak, from deictic tak ‘so; in that way’ and its Norwegian counterpart så; Norwegian temporal da ‘so; then’). 3.3 Final particles of the adverbial type Adverbs are another common source of FPs. The semiotic difference between an adverb and an FP is based on the presence (adverb) or absence (FP) of proposi- tional content, differences in meaning (conceptual vs. relational), and scope (narrow scope over contituents or a clause with adverbs and expanded scope over two adjacent discourse units with FPs). In contrast to adverbs, FPs lack positional flexibility and are not integrated into the syntactic structure of the unit they accompany, i.e. they are not immediate constituents. Examples are provided in (4). 12 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 23. (4) a. English actually, anyway (Haselow 2012a: 194–199, 2013: 404–408) b. German jetzt ‘now’ (Haselow, this vol.) c. French déjà ‘already’ (Hansen 2008: 213) Most adverbs used as FPs are time or place adverbs or adverbs of manner/ respect (e.g. anyway). The meaning of the FPs often reflects the underlying propo- sitional meaning of the adverbs in abstracted form in the sense that speakers refer to the temporal or segmental (or, metaphorically speaking, “local”) structure of ongoing discourse when using these adverbs as FPs (now/then – pointing at a moment in time in emerging discourse, here – pointing at a place in discourse). 3.4 Final particles of the focus particle type Focus particles, e.g. English only or even, are elements that interact with the focus of a sentence and single out a constituent that bears the main stress. Their scope is usually over a specific part of a sentence or a clause, which is high- lighted against the background of the information given in the rest of the sentence. Moreover, focus particles provide information about a set of alternatives con- trasting with the focus (König and Gast 2012: 299). Some focus particles exclude paradigmatic alternatives (e.g. only), others indicate addition of alternative values (e.g. also), some with implied scalarity (e.g. even). Examples for focus-particle-like FPs are provided in (5). (5) a. English even (Kim and Jahnke 2011; Haselow 2012a: 199–201) b. Dutch alleen ‘only’, zelfs ‘even’ (van der Wouden and Foolen, this vol.) c. Cantonese je ‘only, merely’ (Chan 2002: 60) Most of the FPs of this group are based on scalar focus particles, which evoke a contextually derived scale of the likelihood of occurrence of an individual item in a specific context. As FPs they are used to mark the idea expressed in an utterance as noteworthy and an unplanned contribution to ongoing talk, e.g. as an afterthought or an idea deriving from the post-factum realization of a fact in on-line speech production (Kim and Jahnke 2011: 53). 3.5 Final particles in Asian languages: Main differences to Indo-European languages East and Southeast Asian languages have a complex system of particles, which constitute one of the “hallmarks of natural conversation” in these languages Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 13
- 24. (Luke [1990: 11] for Cantonese). FPs occur in abundance in many Asian languages, but there are great differences between these languages in the size of the inven- tory of FPs and the frequency of their use in speech. Final particles are also found in languages with a mixed Asian-European background, such as Singa- pore English (Gupta 1992; Low and Deterding 2003; Ler and Lay 2006; Hiramoto 2012) and Chinese Pidgin Russian (Shapiro 2012). The differences in frequency and position between Asian and European final particles could be related to typological differences. Haselow (2012a) claims that the occurrence of final particles does not seem to correlate with the basic syntactic configuration of a language (English is SVO, German is V-2 and V-final, Japanese and Korean are V-final, Chinese languages basically SVO), and that it therefore seems unlikely that typological differences play a major role (Haselow 2012a: 182–183). However, some typological differences – and word order is not the most important of them – might influence, among others, the frequency of FPs in Asian languages, where they fulfill pragmatic functions for which other means are used in the European languages. The Mainland Southeast Asian languages, such as Khmer (Paillard, this vol.), Thai, Vietnamese, or Burmese are found to be typologically close and they share a number of features with neighbouring languages, including the lan- guages of China (Comrie 2007; Dryer and Haspelmath 2011). First, Mainland South- east Asian languages and the Sinitic languages typically have a complex tone system with different contrastive level tones (e.g. rising tone, falling tone, rising- falling tone), i.e. every syllable has a tone; changing the tone of a syllable may change the meaning it represents. Syllables and utterances in general are thus restricted in terms of pitch variation and intonation contour, which means that most of these languages need to resort to other ways of expressing functions taken over by intonation in non-tone languages, such as English. FPs have important communicative functions in tone languages, many of which are similar to those fulfilled by intonation in languages like English, such as changing illocu- tionary force or expressing the speaker’s attitude. Secondly, these languages are characterized by limited morphology (Dryer and Haspelmath 2011). The absence of rich morphology might promote the use of short words like particles in general, which serve analytic ways of encoding particular types of categorical informa- tion in isolating languages. Note, however, that some highly inflective languages have abundant particle usage as well, e.g. Russian (Vasilyeva 1972; Rathmayr 1985), a language that even has a rich intonation system. In any case, it seems that at least some typological factors promote the use of final particles. It is therefore not surprising that in a recent dissertation, Cantonese sentence-final particles are compared to intonation patterns in English (Wakefield 2011). 14 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 25. FPs are also common in Japanese and Korean. Japanese is, typologically speaking, not very close to the Southeast Asian languages but it has in common with these languages that intonation can be used to a much lesser extent for the expression of (meta-)pragmatic meanings than in a language like English. Japanese is claimed to be a postpositional language with SOV word order, and has an agglutinative structure (Onodera 2004). Korean is also an agglutinative SOV-language. Both languages have final particles developed from connectives, which already take final position (usually being suffixed to the verb), i.e. their change into FPs was not based on syntactic movement to the final position, but on local reinterpretation (Okamoto 1995; McGloin and Konishi 2010; Sohn 1996; Rhee 2012). In this sense, the study of Japanese and Korean FPs is particularly intriguing for the studies on the relation between grammaticalization and syn- tactic structure (see the contributions by Shinzato, Sohn and Taylor). Major questions for the linguistic description of FPs in Asian languages are the functional diversity of individual particles, and the complex interplay of clause-type, pitch and particle meaning. The various functions a particle may have in different contexts make it difficult to state if FPs have a core function. If core functions can be identified, they usually require rather long-winded de- scriptions, as shown for Cantonese [aa3] in the quote below: for Leung (2008: 81), the core function of this FP is to make a sentence sound “more neutral, less direct, and less straightforward”: When [aa3] is attached to a sentence, its function is to make the original sentence sound more moderate, no matter what kind of attitude the sentence originally carries. For example, if the original sentence is a question, the particle attached brings a sense of doubt. This implies that the speaker knows something about the question he asks and has an expecta- tion on the answer, but he is just doubtful and asking for confirmation. In this respect, the speaker does not seem to be too direct and abrupt and the atmosphere is more neutral. Besides, it also appears that the speaker is not so confident if the other side is willing to co-operate and therefore it leaves room for possible rejection. (Leung 2008: 81) The problem with such descriptions is that it is difficult to see which meanings are semanticized in a single FP, and which meanings are contextual effects deriving from the utterance produced in a particular sequential context in a conversation. In other words, it is not entirely clear how much of a speaker’s attitude is indeed semantically encoded in a particle or conveyed by other means, e.g. by a specific prosody (cf. Fretheim, this vol.), and how much of it is merely pragmatics, i.e. contextually derived. In general, in many Asian languages FPs express (meta-)pragmatic meanings, either changing illocutionary force (e.g. from an assertion to an information seeking request), indicating an implicature or speaker-expectation (e.g. seeking Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 15
- 26. agreement), modifying the tone of an utterance (e.g. softening questions, as with Cantonese [aa3], or expressing emphasis, as with Korean -tanikka [Rhee 2012]), indicating epistemic modality (Strauss 2005), or affective stance (e.g. doubt, hesitation, impatience). Often, a single FP can fulfill several functions. In most general terms, the function of FPs in Asian languages seems to be to embed a proposition in a particular communicative context and to indicate the speaker’s knowledge state or stance. These functions are not uncommon with FPs in Euro- pean languages. However, as existing studies – including the analyses of FPs in European languages presented in this volume – show, indexical functions, i.e. those by which an utterance is related to a preceding or implied proposition, seems to play a more important role for the use of FPs in these languages. 3.6 General properties of final particles The diversity in the types of FPs discussed above shows that the label “final par- ticle” refers to a great collection of items, but in spite of the various forms and distinct languages in which they occur they have much in common. In almost all languages with FPs these elements display heterosemy, i.e. they fulfill a different function when they are used in some other position than the final one. This synchronic complexity reflects the diachronic development of FPs from other, usually lexical word classes, e.g. English final then from time adverb > initial conjunct > FP (Haselow 2012b), final but from conjunction > FP (Mulder and Thompson 2008, 2011) or French alors from time adverb > conjunct > FP (Degand and Fagard 2011). Formally, FPs are typically non-inflecting, monomorphemic units that are prosodically integrated into a host unit, receiving low-key intonation, lacking constituent status, and are positionally fixed to the end of that unit. They have no conceptual meaning, cannot be questioned or focused and cannot be used as an utterance of their own, but require a host unit. Functionally, FPs fulfill different tasks related to discourse structure, speaker attitude, illocutionary force, and turn-taking. Their meaning is basically procedural in the sense of Blakemore (1987): they are abstract, schematic expressions that indicate how an utterance is to be understood by the addressee, i.e. they provide an interpretive cue to the hearer, and serve the integration of an utterance in the local discourse context. Structurally, the use of FPs is not licensed by syntactic rules, but determined by the context as they relate an utterance to a variety of aspects of the com- municative context, such as the speaker’s stance, the illocutionary goal of the speaker, and discourse cohesion. Thus, they do not participate in the organization of sentence structure, but are loosely connected with a syntactic unit. However, 16 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 27. there is gradience with respect to syntactic incorporation/non-incorporation in the host unit since in some languages they seem to interact more closely with syn- tactic structure (e.g. in Cantonese, where they may change the clause type, or in Korean, where some FPs are combinations of clause-type markers and connec- tors, cf. Rhee 2012) than in others. In any case, in the peripheral position FPs have wide scope, ranging over the unit to which they are attached and another (expressed or implied) unit to which the one they accompany is linked. The development and the functions of FPs are often discussed in connection with subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Subjectivity refers to the indication of speaker attitude and viewpoint, intersubjectivity to the speaker’s relation and attention to the addressee (Traugott 2010). FPs always entail subjectivity since they are speaker cues to the organization of spoken discourse and the inter- pretation of an utterance. However, a distinction needs to be made between the ambient subjectivity and intersubjectivity that is inherent in language use anyway (Benveniste 1971), owing to the fact that in talk-in-interaction speakers design their utterances for a particular addressee and provide cues to what they mean in a given context, and semanticized (inter)subjective meanings (Traugott 2012: 20–21), i.e. (inter)subjective meanings that are part of the semantics of a lexeme (here an FP) and not deriving from the contextual environment in which a lexeme is used. Most intersubjective meanings are not semanticized meanings, but mere contextual effects (e.g. deriving from the speaker’s illocu- tionary goal) rather than indicative of (inter)subjectivity coded in the meaning of FPs. For instance, the indication of impatience with some information-seeking requests with English then (Haselow 2011: 3611), or that of social proximity with actually (Aijmer 1986: 128), are by no means semanticized meaning components of these FPs. Moreover, it appears that each FP is associated with different degrees of subjectivity or intersubjectivity: an FP such as English even typically expresses that the utterance it accompanies is the deferred realization of a fact by the speaker and thus carries a highly subjective meaning (Kim and Jahnke 2011), whereas final question particles in Cantonese, for instance, cue the speaker’s attention to the addressee. Since the latter are turn-yielding and modify the way in which a questions is asked – depending on the relation to the addressee – they are more intersubjective than particles which merely express speaker attitude. In any case, it can be assumed that next to their core meaning, FPs have various pragmatic submeanings. These submeanings are contextual effects that occur in particular uses, e.g. with particular speech acts, illocutionary goals or in particular conversational sequences. The extent to which FPs indicate subjectivity and intersubjectivity is not explicitly addressed in the different contributions to this volume and thus remains open for further research. However, it surfaces in various forms throughout this Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 17
- 28. volume in the sense that FPs are used to frame what speakers say, indicating the speaker’s perspective (English but, Hancil, this vol., Korean -ko, Sohn, this vol.) or epistemicity/commitment to a proposition (Norwegian altså, Fretheim, this vol.), thus expressing subjectivity. Some FPs are also intersubjective as they indi- cate the speaker’s attention to the addressee, e.g. soliciting the addressee’s response and guiding his/her attention (Korean -nuntey, Sohn, this vol.) or expressing alignment with the addressee’s assumptions (German ja, Haselow, this vol.). Note that the prosody of both the utterance in which a particle occurs and of the particle itself is important to determining the particle’s function and implied (inter)subjective meanings (Thompson and Suzuki 2011: 680; Dehé and Kovalova 2006 on final what). Intonation can fulfill discourse and pragmatic functions similar to those of FPs, and such functions can also be expressed by a combination of prosody and particle use (Kirsner and Van Heuven 1996 on Dutch; Fretheim 2010; this vol., on Norwegian; Pittayaporn 2010 on Bangkok Thai). 4 Structure of the present volume As mentioned above, this volume understands itself as a contribution to the task of disentangling FPs in a variety of languages in the world and thus to pave the way for cross-linguistic categorization principles. The different articles in this volume contribute different aspects to a comprehensive, cross-linguistically valid definition of “final particles” as a distinct linguistic category. This does not imply that we intend to develop a cross-linguistic characterization at all costs, thus risking to gloss over important language-specific aspects. Rather, we hope that this volume will help readers see the commonalities between the different types of final particles analyzed in the sixteen studies. The volume falls into four parts, each comprising articles that represent a specific theoretical framework: Discourse and Conversation Analysis (Part I), Grammaticalization Theory (Part II), cognitive approaches (Part III), and genera- tive approaches (Part IV). The studies in Part II all have their main focus on the historical development of final particles. The remaining papers take a synchronic perspective. Table 1 is intended to provide an overview of the different combina- tions of language and theoretical approach in each contribution to this volume. For practical reasons, discourse analysis and conversation analysis have been merged into a single category, based on their similarity with respect to method- ological and analytic principles. 18 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 29. The various perspectives taken in the study of final particles offer a more comprehensive picture of FPs and help develop a clearer idea of what the study of FPs has to offer to research in syntactic structure and discourse organization. The findings resulting from the different approaches complement and enrich each other in many interesting ways, providing missing links for each other. Table 1: Overview of the chapters of this volume and languages and approaches covered I Discourse Analysis & Conversation Analysis II Grammati- calization III Cognitive approaches IV Generative approaches Indo- European English (Ureña Gómez- Moreno) German (Haselow) English (Hancil) Norwegian, English (Fretheim) Dutch (van der Wouden & Foolen) Northern Russian (Post) Finno-Ugric Finnish (Koivisto) East Asian Japanese (Shinzato) Japanese (Taylor) Japanese, Korean (Sohn) Japanese (Takamine) Southeast Asian Khmer (Paillard) Cross- linguistic/ Typological perspective English, German (Heine, Kaltenböck & Kuteva) Northern Italian, Mandarin Chinese (Del Gobbo, Munaro & Poletto) Typology of polar question particles (Bailey) Typological parameters in WH-questions (Soare) Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 19
- 30. What most of the studies on FPs have in common is their empirical orientation: since FPs occur predominantly in spontaneous interactive speech, their analysis requires data from natural talk-in-interaction. It was probably only due to this methodological procedure – using transcripts of natural conversation – that FPs were brought on the research agenda of European linguists since FPs are rarely the subject of description in standard grammars and, if so, they are not described in a uniform way. This confirms Sacks’ (1984: 22) observation that “many things that actually occur are debarred from use as a basis for theorizing about conversation” and, in our case, for theorizing about grammar and cogni- tive aspects of speech production in interactive contexts. The different articles in this volume show that FPs lend themselves to testing and formulating new hypotheses that challenge existing assumptions on syntactic structure, gram- maticalization, and the cognitive organization of speech. Part I: Discourse Analysis and Conversation Analysis The paper by Pedro Ureña Gómez-Moreno is, even though it does not explicitly deal with final particles, highly relevant for the present volume since he, like other contributors to this volume such as van der Wouden and Foolen, Haselow, and Fretheim, explicitly discusses the communicative function of the (sentence-) final position and its pragmatic role in discourse, based on an analysis of certainty and uncertainty epistemic disjuncts in different syntactic positions. Adverbials are usually described as highly movable units, and their positional preferences within the sentence are particularly complex to describe. Position, however, matters as it plays a crucial role in interpreting the meaning of adver- bials and reflects different cognitive motivations (Diessel 2005; Swan and Breivik 2011). Within the adverbial class, disjuncts have been argued to enjoy greater flexibility as regards their occurrence in the peripheries of the sentence than other types of adverbs. However, the pragmatic differences between initial and final position have not always been sufficiently explained. Drawing on the analysis of a sample of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, Ureña Gómez-Moreno examines diverse cases in spoken English in which adverbials with clausal scope take final position. The analysis of certainty and uncertainty epistemic disjuncts shows that placing these items in final position is a rhetorical device to enrich the discursive force of arguments by conveying relevant speaker- oriented information just before a topic shift or the closing of a conversational turn. The final position is used for “last minute” evaluations of an utterance just produced, as it were, and for conveying pragmatic nuances. Moreover, the 20 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 31. final position is argued to play an important role for building up cohesion, being used for elements that tie together two subsequent turns. Aino Koivisto’s paper deals with the ways in which final conjunctions can be used as turn-final or utterance-final particles with interactive functions. The discussion is based on the functions of Finnish mutta, which is equivalent to English but, in naturally occurring face-to-face and telephone conversations. Koivisto addresses a number of theoretical questions concerning the analysis of final conjunctions as final particles that have remained open since Mulder and Thompson’s (2008) seminal work on final but in Australian English, such as the conditions under which a final conjunction forms a recognizable turn-ending, and the interactional functions it serves. Taking a Conversation Analytic approach, the author analyzes the local, sequentially arranged interactional contexts where utterances with final mutta occur in order to find out whether these represent recognizable actions in recurrent, identifiable social contexts. The results of Koivisto’s study are highly relevant for typological research for two reasons. First, the fact that final conjunctions occur not only in East Asian, Southeast Asian and Indo-European languages, but also in languages of the Finno-Ugric family – all of which exhibit different syntactic configurations – suggests that the phenomenon is not related to the typological parameters of a language, but most likely conditioned by cognitive processes in interactive speech production. Secondly, Koivisto proposes a (probably cross-linguistic) diachronic pathway that provides further evidence for the emergence and con- ventionalization of bipartite sequential patterns out of a reduction or “collapse” of more extended ones: the claim is that the two-part pattern [claim + concession + mutta] identified for interactive sequences involving units with final mutta in Finnish is a reduced form of an original three-part concessive pattern [claim + concession + return to the original claim] where the mutta-prefaced return is compressed into mutta. Alexander Haselow provides a corpus-based analysis of final particles in spoken German. The author argues that final particles should be treated as an independent category as they are characterized by a number of distinctive, category-constitutive features that set them apart from other elements that may potentially occur in final position, and discusses how they differ from other types of particles in German, basically discourse particles and modal particles. The paper also addresses questions of more general theoretical interest, above all the question of whether final particles are discourse markers, or a subgroup of discourse markers, and how the term “final” is to be defined. Haselow sees the basic function of final particles in providing information on how a discourse unit is to be integrated into “a developing mental model of the discourse” in terms of Hansen (2006: 25), i.e. as structuring dialogic interaction in a broader Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 21
- 32. sense, encompassing propositional, but also non-propositional, metacommuni- cative aspects of discourse. The latter aspects include the information status of a message and the rhetorical relation between an implied or explicitly encoded preceding message and the content of the unit that ends in a final particle. Part II: Grammaticalization Theory Bernd Heine, Gunther Kaltenböck and Tania Kuteva argue that the emergence of sentence-final particles like English but or German final oder ‘or’ is not the result of a gradual process of grammaticalization, but an instantaneous one, thus challenging Mulder and Thompson’s assumption that English final but underwent a gradual change from conjunction to final particle with several intermediate stages (e.g. Mulder and Thompson’s [2008] “Janus but”). The use of elements such as but and oder in final position is argued to derive from a process labeled cooptation, whereby a chunk of grammar, such as a clause, a phrase, an adverb, or a conjunction, is taken out of sentence grammar and pressed into service as a so-called thetical unit. In Thetical Grammar, a thetical is an autonomous information unit that is syntactically and prosodically inde- pendent of its host, i.e. of the utterance to which it is attached. In a second step, after being used as a thetical in a concrete context, this unit may undergo grammaticalization. What is particularly intriguing about the idea of thetical grammar and cooptation is that grammaticalization does not necessarily start with small-scale, “sneaky” changes that extend from one environment to another based on similarity relations between different environments (De Smet 2012: 608), but is arguably initiated by an abrupt transfer of a linguistic element or unit from sentence grammar to the plane of discourse grammar, and thus by a change from a syntactic constituent to a discourse-organizing element, which may occur in any speech event. Heine, Kaltenböck and Kuteva show that, as theticals, but and or function as final particles, thus constituting the right utterance boundary. Once the left boundary separating the final particle from its preceding host is eliminated via grammaticalization, the final particle may turn into an integrated appendage of its preceding host unit. Yuki Taylor examines the grammaticalization of Japanese toka, focusing on the decategorization of this element from an exemplifying and quotative marker to a pragmatic particle that softens an utterance. The data are based on 19 segments of spontaneous informal dialogues. In its original function as a marker of exemplification, toka is used with concrete examples, which serve to make the propositional meaning of an utterance clearer. It also occurs with proposi- tional units that are to be understood as approximations, in the sense of ‘or 22 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 33. so’. As a quotative marker, toka signals that a quote is not representing the exact reproduction of what somebody else (or the speaker him/herself) said, but a rough reformulation. Taylor argues that in final position the original meanings of toka are bleached: utterance-final toka merely has a hedging effect, making an utterance less assertive, less challenging and thus serving the management of interpersonal relations. Utterance-final toka has undergone decategorization from an exemplifying particle to a final particle with exclusively metapragmatic (softening) function, and scope expansion from narrow scope over a specific element (an example or a quote) to broader scope over the entire utterance it accompanies. The third paper resting upon a grammaticalization framework is also dedi- cated to final particles in Japanese. Rumiko Shinzato’s analysis of two types of ba-conditionals and their developmental paths shows that while “regular” conditionals have not fully grammaticalized as sentence-final particles, quota- tive conditionals have. To account for this divergence, the analysis is based on a consideration of four factors: (1) the internal morphological make-up of the conditionals, (2) the protasis-apodosis relationship, (3) the inclusion of a verb of saying in the constructions, and (4) the implication of counter-expectation. While both regular and quotative conditionals could be understood as condi- tionals even in the absence of an apodosis, it is only with quotative conditionals that the apodosis is no longer felt to be truncated and required as an implicit interpretive cue. The markers of quotative conditionals underwent decategoriza- tion from marking the unit they are attached to as a direct quote of what some- one has said to addressee-oriented, emotive markers of subjectivity. However, the picture is complicated by the existence of two different subtypes of quotative conditionals, namely those involving phonologically contracted markers and those involving uncontracted markers of conditionality, of which only the con- tracted ones were grammaticalized into FPs. Shinzato argues that the develop- ment of FPs from quotative conditionals is a case of subjectification in the sense of Langacker (1990) and a case of (inter)subjectification as defined by Traugott (2003). Sung-Ock Sohn observes a development similar to that of ba-conditionals in Japanese for quotative and contrastive connectives in Korean, a language that is structurally similar to Japanese. Sohn reports that it is quite common for clause connectives to develop into utterance-final particles in Japanese and Korean, but very little is known about the factors that condition the grammatic- alization into final particles. Sohn explores the semantic and pragmatic factors responsible for the develoment of the quotative particle -ko into an utterance- final particle in Korean. The analysis of spontaneous conversation shows that Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 23
- 34. the utterance-final quotative is used in recurrent discourse contexts, namely in those contexts where a speaker anticipates challenges or dispreferred responses (e.g. disagreement, rejection, lack of uptake, unexpected answer) from the addressee(s). In such contexts, -ko is used to emphasize the speaker’s stance. The development of -ko into an utterance-final particle is in many ways similar to that of the contrastive connective -nuntey ‘but’ into a final particle in Korean: both the quotative and the contrastive connective are, in utterance-final position, employed as a discourse strategy to display a speaker’s personal stance in an implicit or explicit way, and enhance intersubjectivity (here in the sense of mutual understanding). The findings suggest that frequent, recurrent discourse functions (e.g. account-giving, clarification, elaboration) associated with particular elements that preferrably occur in final position are crucial for their development into utterance-final particles. Sylvie Hancil provides a synchronic analysis of the occurrence of sentence- final ‘but’ in the spoken parts of the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Newcastle Electronic Corpus of Tyneside English (NECTE). Sentence-final adverbials in English are traditionally associated with VP-oriented adjuncts, especially manner, time and space adverbials, whereas the presence of clause-oriented adverbials is said to be rare and even problematic in such a position. But the examination of recent spoken English corpora has shown that they are attested in various dialects of English, such as American English, Australian English, Southern British English and Geordie English, to name a few. The paper studies the grammaticalization process of sentence-final but in the light of the five prin- ciples of grammaticalization proposed in Hopper (1991): divergence, layering, specialization, persistence and decategorization. This is complemented by the examination of the semantic development of but, using the four pragmatic- semantic regularities illustrated in Traugott and Dasher (2002): truth-conditional > non-truth-conditional; content > procedural; scope within proposition > scope over proposition > scope over discourse; non-subjective > subjective > intersub- jective. In particular, Hancil shows that the various meanings associated with the sentence-final discourse marker but have an interactional function in the BNC, showing the implicit participation of the interlocutor, whereas in the NECTE corpus they have an interactive function, explicitly involving the partici- pation of the interlocutor. Moreover, Hancil argues that sentence-final but is an instance of pragmaticization in Southern English whereas it is one of grammaticalization in Newcastle English. Sociolinguistic criteria (sex, age, socio- economic class, region) are considered in order to identify the distribution of the marker in Britain. 24 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 35. Part III: Cognitive approaches Ton van der Wouden and Ad Foolen’s paper provides a survey of different types of FPs in Dutch and their semantico-pragmatic meanings. It is an exploratory article in which the authors discuss a number of relevant questions about final particles in general, and assess the value of the various theoretical frameworks that are applied in the study of final particles. The authors note that even though the study of Dutch particles has a long tradition in Dutch linguistics, particle behavior in the right periphery has not been part of it. After a brief introduction into the syntax of the Dutch clause and a definition of the right periphery, van der Wouden and Foolen present an overview of different types of sentence-final particles, based on a corpus of spoken Dutch, and compare them to particles in other positions and to particles in other languages. The authors argue that within the right periphery various particle positions should be distinguished. The paper briefly addresses the phenomenon of particle doubling, i.e. cases in which two instances of the same particle occupy two different positions in the clause, one being in the right periphery, and offers some thoughts on the the grammaticalization and the function of final particles. Thorstein Fretheim’s contribution is a contrastive study of the Norwegian final particles altså and da and English final then, on the one hand, and a detailed analysis of the subtle differences of the pragmatic functions of altså and da, on the other hand. Using a relevance-theoretic framework, Fretheim shows that altså and da share the general, invariant procedural meaning of inquiring if the proposition expressed in the unit they accompany is mutually manifest. However, both particles interact with other procedural cues, thereby acquiring different pragmatic implications. Fretheim provides a systematic account of the complex relationship between particle meaning, sentence type and intona- tion (including both the intonation pattern of the unit they are attached to and the terminal boundary tone applied to the particle), showing the various ways in which a single final particle may evoke different constraints on the hearer’s inferential process. While any utterance-final token of the English final particle then indicates that the proposition of the preceding host sentence represents the speaker’s own view, to be confirmed by the hearer, Fretheim argues that there are conventions of usage in spoken Norwegian which allow speakers to use da, and to a lesser degree altså, to signal that they distance themselves from the host sentence proposition. Spoken English offers no comparable guidance of a prosodic sort, which may be the reason why a final particle then, unlike its cognate Norwegian counterpart da, does not permit the hearer to infer that the proposition expressed is incompatible with the speaker’s own propositional attitude. Then indicates that the speaker seeks confirmation of the proposition Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 25
- 36. expressed; Norwegian da and altså after a declarative are used not only in requests for confirmation but also in acts of reminding the hearer of the truth of the host sentence proposition. Both Margje Post and Denis Paillard show that the utterance-final markers under consideration are the result of an asymmetric relation between two informa- tion units, although they use different theories – Relevance Theory and the Theory of Enunciative Operations respectively, and data from unrelated languages – Post uses data from Northern Russian, Paillard from Khmer. Margje Post reports that unlike other varieties of Russian, Northern Russian dialects have utterance-final pragmatic particles, most notably da and dak. These particles are originally connectives that are also used utterance-initially and in sentence-internal position, but it is in their function as an utterance-final enclitic particle that they have been drawing the attention of linguists for a long time. Possibly, the connective dak developed into a post-positive particle from the adverb and conjunction tak (‘like that’, ‘then’, ‘so’) through ellipsis of the second clause, under influence from neighbouring Finno-Ugric languages with clause-final connectives. Using Relevance Theory, Northern Russian dak can be described as a procedural marker, signalling how the information implied in the expression it is attached to relates to other accessible information. In a way similar to Paillard’s description of three particles in Khmer, Post claims that Northern Russian dak signals an asymmetric relation between two information units, say, x and y, in which y is based on x. Examples of x and y are cause and consequence, condition and event or a dialect word and its explanation. The units x and y should not be understood as linguistic expressions, but as mental units. The unit y is often left implicit, and x can be implicit as well, which ex- plains the various positions of dak in the utterance, including the utterance- initial and utterance-final positions. The particle is always prosodically cliticized to the linguistic representation of x or y, either to the right of the linguistic representation of x or – less often – to the left of y. The main difference between utterance-final dak and utterance-initial and -internal dak is that with utterance- final dak, the information called y here needs to be retrieved entirely from the context. Denis Paillard’s contribution deals with three particles in Khmer, or rather with the uses of the verbs tɨv ‘go’, mɔɔk ‘come’ and coh ‘go down’ as particles. Concerning the semantic value of these lexemes, Paillard’s assumption is that, when used as discourse particles, the literal meaning of motion is abstracted. Paillard’s analysis rests on a common semantic property shared by the three verbs: an entity a corresponds to two distinct positions, ri and rj, which are reference points that can be either temporal, spatial or subjective. The reference points are ordered in the sense that rj follows ri and is therefore dependent on ri. 26 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 37. In the case of tɨv and mɔɔk, one of the two positions is salient: ri in the case of tɨv and rj in the case of mɔɔk. With coh, the two positions ri and rj are successively salient. The difference between the uses of these items as verbs and as particles lies in the status of a: it is an argument in verbal uses, whereas in discourse uses a is interpreted as the sequence under the scope of the particle. Moreover, when the verbs are used as particles, the positions ri and rj are associated with the speaker and the addressee. Part IV: Generative approaches Four articles deal with final particles in a generative framework. Laura Bailey examines the syntactic nature of final polar question particles and argues that some of these should not be analyzed as question particles. Francesca Del Gobbo, Nicola Munaro and Cecilia Poletto argue for deriving sentence-final particles from IP movement. Gabriela Soare uses the Antisymmetry Hypothesis to put forward the role of final particles in a typology of wh-question formation. Kaori Takamine argues that in Japanese the syntactic status of PP modifiers can be reconstructed from the universal hierarchy of functional projections of PPs. Laura Bailey discusses the syntax of polar question particles, that is, those particles that combine with a declarative sentence to form an interrogative that can be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. These particles are interesting because their syntax is controversial and little studied, which is one of the reasons why the the term ‘particle’ is often seen as more or less a wastepaper bin for unclassified ‘little words’. Bailey shows that there are differences between final question particles and those that are initial or in some other position. This asymmetry is argued to be related to a principle that is suggested to be universally valid: the Final-Over-Final Constraint (FOFC), which forbids a head-final phrase to imme- diately dominate a head-initial phrase (Holmberg 2000). This constraint rules out final question particles in VO languages, and yet they are attested in many of such languages. Bailey offers an analysis that allows FOFC to be retained, proposing that final question particles in VO languages are instances of disjunc- tion. A further hypothesis that is discussed is that these final particles in fact may not be true heads, since they are very often optional. The final question particles in VO languages are argued not to be question particles, but rather markers of emphasis, doubt or of some other pragmatic value. Gabriela Soare investigates the role of final and non-final particles in a typology of wh-question formations, providing a survey of ten languages that exhibit distinct strategies for forming wh-questions. The discussion is based on Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 27
- 38. the Antisymmetry Hypothesis articulated in Kayne (1994, 2005), and on carto- graphic studies of clause structure. The typology proposed by Soare takes over Hagstrom’s (1998) and Miyagawa’s (2001) proposal of the (abstract) morphological split between the Q-feature and the wh-feature, but deploys them in the frame- work mentioned. The Force head is assumed to universally have a Q-feature, which is associated with the clausal category (clause typing) with which it agrees. Whether it is overtly realized as a Q-particle or covert is a parametric issue. The Focus head contains a wh-feature which can be overt, realized as a wh-particle, or covert. Though traditional systems use a single feature to express both clause typing and the (criterial) properties of question operators, there are conceptual and empirical reasons that lead to the postulation of two distinct features. One of the parameters reads as follows: ‘MOVE if Q on Force or Wh on Focus is associated with an EPP’. The other regards the overt/covert morpho- logical realization of Q/wh. These combinatorial possibilities account for the existence of wh-movement in languages like Vata and Tlingit (which overtly realize one feature), on the one hand, and in French and Romanian (no overt realization), on the other. It also accounts for its absence in Japanese, Sinhala, Chinese, Tumbuka and French, in which an in-situ strategy is used. Francesca Del Gobbo, Nicola Munaro and Cecilia Poletto investigate the common properties of discourse particles, here called sentential particles (SPs), in some Italo-Romance varieties and Chinese. They show that in Romance, SPs can occur sentence-initially, sentence-internally or sentence-finally, and that the sentence-final position can be derived from the sentence-initial one through movement of a clausal subconstituent into a specifier located higher than the SP. It is argued that sentence-initial and sentence-final particles belong to the same class, because (a) they are all sensitive to the main versus embedded character of the clause (which is not the case for sentence-internal particles), (b) they have analogous pragmatic imports in the two positions, and (c) they are diachronically related. The analysis of Romance sentence-final particles proposed by the authors can be applied to Mandarin Chinese sentence-final particles as well, as these display the same syntactic properties: they are also sensitive to the main versus embedded character of the clause, they can occur in different sentence types and also to the right of a (Topic) left peripheral con- stituent. Moreover, some pragmatic values of Chinese particles have a direct counterpart in Romance; in both cases particles are not real “sentence typers”, but rather express an attitude of the speaker with respect to the proposition. The derivation of final SPs through IP movement can also shed light on the more general question of whether Chinese is to be considered an SOV or an SVO language. 28 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 39. Kaori Takamine discusses the syntactic status of modifier PPs which, in contrast to adverbs, have been little discussed in the recent literature of adver- bial syntax. The first goal of this paper is to argue, based on quantifier scope tests, that Japanese PP modifiers are base-generated in a rigid order, confirming Schweikert’s (2005) universal hierarchy of modifier PPs in which each PP is base-generated in a unique position. The modifier PP hierarchy is then mapped onto clause structure in Japanese. The second goal of this paper is to argue, on the basis of compositionality scope facts, that modifer PPs in Japanese are located in the relatively large area between the Modal and Aspect domain. Takamine’s contribution closes a gap in the discussion on hierarchies of functional projec- tion since modifier PPs are often not properly integrated in such hierarchization models. Cinque (1999), for instance, who advances a rigid hierarchy of func- tional projections hosting each adverb, excludes modifier PPs from his adverbial hierarchy due to their free surface order. Takamine, however, shows that the base order of modifier PPs is rigid if we take that modifier PPs are generated in a lower Aspect domain (Asp1) and that some PPs, such as Temporal and Loca- tive PPs, can undergo scope movement to a higher Aspect domain (Asp2). 5 Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to help linguists develop a clearer idea of what final particles are and what their study has to offer to the study of syntax, discourse structure, grammaticalization and cognition. The most important added value the study of FPs gives us is the reliance on data of spoken language, which is the domain in which FPs predominantly occur. FPs allow us to learn more about cognitive processes in on-line speech production, the organization of discourse in interpersonal communication, syntactic organization, as well as about language change, such as grammaticalization, which often starts in spoken language where speakers need to resolve communicative problems within a concrete communica- tive situation, thereby reshaping language. The cross-linguistic perspective taken in this book helps us see what is unusual, unexpected about final particles in individual languages, and in what way typologically distinct languages developed the same types of final particles with the same or at least similar functions. This perspective helps us find plausible motivations why FPs are used at all. The present volume was compiled in the firm belief that FPs have a good chance becoming acknowledged as a linguistic category of its own rather than being a wastepaper bin for meaningless, unclassified little words. Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 29
- 40. However, we need to be modest. A truly integrative approach needs to be worked out much more fully in order to understand what makes the final posi- tion of a sentence or an utterance attractive for particular kinds of lexemes, and in what way the final position is cognitively relevant in (on-line) speech produc- tion. The chapters in this volume represent no more than single pieces of a larger puzzle, and yet they contribute, each in its own way, to a more thorough understanding of the subject. References Aijmer, Karin. 1986. Why is actually so popular in spoken English? In Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd Bäcklund (eds.), English in speech and writing: A symposium, 119–127. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Analyzing modal adverbs as modal particles and discourse markers. In Liesbeth Degand, Paola Pietrandrea & Bert Cornillie (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description, 89–106. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Andersen, Gisle & Thorstein Fretheim (eds.). 2000. Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2002. On the development of final ‘though’: A case of grammaticalization? In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 345–361. Amsterdam & Phildelphia: John Benjamins. Benveniste, Émile. 1971 [1958]. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in general linguistics, trans. by Mary Elizabeth Meek, 223–230, Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. (First published in 1958 as “De la subjectivité dans le langage.” In Émile Benveniste, Problèmes de linguistique générale, 258–266. Paris: Gallimard.) Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman. Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. Chan, Marjorie. 2002. Chinese: Gender-related use of sentence-final particles in Cantonese. In Marlis Hellinger & Hadumod Bussmann (eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men. Volume 2, 57–72. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 2007. Areal Typology of Mainland Southeast Asia: What we learn from the WALS Maps. MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities 13. 18–47. http://www.manusya.journals. chula.ac.th/files/essay/Comrie_18-47.pdf. (9 October 2012) Davis, Christopher. 2011. Constraining interpretation: Sentence final particles in Japanese. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation. De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88. 601–633. Dedaić, Mirjana N. & Mirjana Misković-Luković. 2010. South slavic discourse particles. Amster- dam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 30 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 41. Degand, Liesbeth & Benjamin Fagard. 2011. ‘Alors’ between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18(1). 29–56. Degand, Liesbeth, Paola Pietrandrea & Bert Cornillie (eds.). 2013. Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dehé, Nicole & Yordanka Kovalova. 2006. The syntax, pragmatics and prosody of parenthetical what. English Language and Linguistics 10(2). 289–320. Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2011. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info/ (30 November 2014). Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43. 449–470. Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 403–425. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. ‘Same same but different’ – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Liesbeth Degand, Paola Pietrandrea & Bert Cornillie (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and descrip- tion, 19–46. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fernandez-Vest, Jocelyne M. M. 1994. Les particules énonciatives dans la construction du discours. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: introduction to the volume. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 1–20. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Foolen, Ad. 2003 [1996]. Pragmatic particles. In Jan-Ola Östman, Jef Verschueren, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics online. www.benjamins.com/online/hop/ (30 November 2014) Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7). 931–952. Fretheim, Thorstein. 2000. Constraining explicit and implicit content by means of a Norwegian scalar particle. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 23. 115–162. Fretheim, Thorstein. 2010. The metarepresentational use of main clause phenomena in embedded clauses. Linguistics 48(2). 301–324. Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2005. Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 1752–1778. Gecova, O. G. (ed.). 1999. Arxangel’skij oblastnoj slovar’. Vol. 10. Moscow: Nauka. Gupta, Anthea Fraser. 1992. The pragmatic particles of Singapore Colloquial English. Journal of Pragmatics 18. 31– 57. Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing Questions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT PhD dissertation. Hancil, Sylvie. 2014. The final particle but in British English: An instance of cooptation and grammaticalization at work. In Sylvie Hancil & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization Theory and Data, 209–228. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2006. A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 21–41. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 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. Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance- final ‘then’ in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3603–3623. Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 31
- 42. Haselow, Alexander. 2012a. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication 32(3). 182–204. Haselow, Alexander. 2012b. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In Irén Hegedüs & Alexandra Fodor (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2010: Selected papers from the sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL-16), Pécs, 153–175. Amsterdam & Phildelphia: John Benjamins. Haselow, Alexander. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2). 375–424. Haugh, Michael. 2008. Utterance-final conjunctive particles and implicature in Japanese con- versation. Pragmatics 18(3). 425–451. Hiramoto, Mie. 2012. Pragmatics of the sentence-final uses of can in Colloquial Singapore English. Journal of Pragmatics 44(6–7). 890–906. Hofmockel, Carolin. 2014. “It wasnae me but!” – Functions and emergence of Scottish right peripheral but. Paper presented at Discourse-Pragmatic Variation & Change 2, Newcastle upon Tyne, 8 April 2014. Holmberg, Anders. 2000. Deriving OV order in Finnish. In Peter Svenonius (ed.), The derivation of VO and OV, 123–152. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization. Volume I: Theoretical and methodological issues, 17–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. Language description: The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Izutsu, Mitsuko N. & Katsunobu Izutsu. 2013. From discourse markers to modal/final particles. What the position reveals about the continuum. In Liesbeth Degand, Paola Pietrandrea & Bert Cornillie (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and descrip- tion, 217–235. Amsterdam & Phildelphia: John Benjamins. Izutsu, Mitsuko N. & Katsunobu Izutsu. 2014. Truncation and backshift: Two pathways to sentence-final coordinating conjunctions. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15(1). 62–92. Jefferson, Gail. 1983. On a Failed Hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as Overlap-vulnerable. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 28. Tilburg: Tilburg University. Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva, 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4). 852–897. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kayne, Richard. 2005. Antisymmetry and Japanese. In Richard Kayne (ed.), Movement and Silence, 215–240. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kim, Min-Joo & Nathan Jahnke. 2011. The meaning of utterance-final even. Journal of English Linguistics 39. 36–64. Kirsner, Robert & Vincent van Heuven. 1996. Boundary tones and the semantics of the Dutch final particles hè, hoor, zeg, and joh. In Crit Cremers & Marcel den Dikken (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996, 133–146. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kita, Sotaro & Sachiko Ide. 2007. Nodding, aizuchi, and final particles in Japanese conversa- tion: How conversation reflects the ideology of communication and social relationships. Journal of Pragmatics 30. 1242–1254. Koivisto, Aino. 2012. Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics 44 (10). 1254–1272. 32 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 43. König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2012. Understanding English–German contrasts. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Kwok, Helen. 1984. Sentence particles in Cantonese. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies. Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1). 5–38. Law, Anne. 2002. Cantonese sentence-final particles and the CP domain. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 375–398. Ler, Soon & Vivien Lay. 2006. A relevance-theoretic approach to discourse particles in Singapore English. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 149–166. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Lee, Duck-Young. 2007. Involvement and the Japanese interactive particles ne and yo. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 363–388. Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and rhetoric: Adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Leung, Wai-Mun. 2008. Promising approaches for the analysis of sentence-final particles in Cantonese: The case of [aa3]. Asian Social Science 4(5). 74–82. Li, Boya. 2006. Chinese final particles and the syntax of the periphery. Leiden: University of Leiden doctoral dissertation. http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/articles/001873/book- part.pdf (20 May 2014) Linell, Per. 2005. The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins, and Transforma- tions. London: Routledge. Low, Ee Ling & David Deterding. 2003. A corpus-based description of particles in spoken Singapore English. In David Deterding, Ee Ling Low & Adam Brown (eds.), English in Singapore: Research on Grammar. Singapore & New York: McGraw-Hill Education (Asia). http://www.ubd.edu.bn/academic/faculty/FASS/staff/docs/DD/ESROG-Low-Deterding.pdf (13 November 2014) Luke, Kang-kwong. 1990. Utterance particles in Cantonese conversation. Amsterdam & Philadel- phia: John Benjamins. McGloin, Naomi & Yumiko Konishi. 2010. From connective particle to sentence-final particle: A usage-based analysis of shi ‘and’ in Japanese. Language Sciences 32. 507–588. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 293–338. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Morita, Emi. 2012. Deriving the socio-pragmatic meanings of the Japanese interactional particle ne. Journal of Pragmatics 44(3). 298–318. Mulder, Jean & Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 179–204. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nikolaeva, T.M. 1985. Funkcii častic v vyskazyvanii: na materiale slavjanskix jazykov. Moscow: Nauka. Nikolaeva, T.M. 2000. Ot zvuka k tekstu. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury. Norrick, Neal R. 2009. Pragmatic markers: Introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 863–865. Okamoto, Shigeko. 1995. Pragmaticization of meaning in some sentence-final particles in Japanese. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics, 219–246. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Onodera, Noriko. 2000. Development of demo type connectives and na elements. Two extremes of Japanese discourse markers. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1). 27–55. Onodera, Noriko. 2004. Japanese discourse markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 33
- 44. Páez-Urdaneta, Iraset. 1982. Conversational pues in Spanish: A process of degrammaticaliza- tion? In Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 332–340. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pittayaporn, Pittayawat. 2010. Final particles meet boundary tones: the case of Bangkok Thai. Poster presentation, SEALS 20 (The 20th Anniversary Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society), Zürich, June 10–11, 2010. http://www.sealsxx.uzh.ch/ (9 October 2012) Post, Margje. 2005. The Northern Russian pragmatic particle dak in the dialect of Varzuga (Kola Peninsula): an information structuring device in informal spontaneous speech. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tromsø. http://hdl.handle.net/10037/246 (3 March 2014). Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. Rathmayr, Renate. 1985. Die russischen Partikeln als Pragmalexeme. München: Otto Sagner. Rhee, Seongha. 2012. Context-induced reinterpretation and (inter)subjectification: the case of grammaticalization of sentence-final particles. Language Sciences 34. 284–300. Sacks, Harvey. 1984. Notes on methodology. John M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 21–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saigo, Hideki. 2011. The Japanese sentence-final particles in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, Deborah. 2001. Discourse markers: Language, meaning and context. In Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 54–75. Oxford: Blackwell. Schweikert, Walter. 2005. The order of prepositional phrases in the structure of the clause. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Selting, Margret. 1995. Prosodie im Gespräch. Aspekte einer interaktionalen Phonologie der Konversation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Shapiro, Roman. 2012. Chinese Pidgin Russian. In Umberto Ansaldo (ed.), Pidgins and creoles in Asia, 1–58. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1996. On the development of sentence-final particles in Korean. In Noriko Akatsuka, Shoichi Iwasaki & Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 5, 219– 234. Stanford: CSLI. Strauss, Susan. 2005. Cognitive realization markers in Korean: A discourse-pragmatic study of the sentence-ending particles –kwun, –ney and –tela. Language Sciences 27(4). 437–480. Swan, Toril & Leiv Breivik. 2011. English sentence adverbials in a discourse and cognitive perspective. English Studies 92(6). 679–692. Sybesma, Rint & Boya Li. 2007. The dissection and structural mapping of Cantonese sentence final particles. Lingua 117(10). 1739–1783. Thompson, Sandra A. & Ryoko Suzuki. 2011. The grammaticalization of final particles. In Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 668–682. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–139. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 34 Sylvie Hancil, Margje Post and Alexander Haselow
- 45. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. (Inter)Subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjec- tification and Grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Liselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds.), Intersections of Intersubjectivity. Special issue of English Text Construction 5(1). 7–28. Traugott, Elizabeth. forthc. On the rise of types of clause final pragmatic markers in English. To appear in: Journal of Historical Pragmatics. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vasilyeva, A.N. 1972. Particles in colloquial Russian. Moscow: Progress. Wakefield, John. 2011. The English equivalents of Cantonese sentence-final particles. Disserta- tion, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies. <http://repository.lib.polyu.edu.hk/jspui/handle/10397/4304> (20 May 2014) Waltereit, Richard. 2004. Metonymischer Bedeutungswandel und pragmatische Strategien: Zur Geschichte von frz. quand même. Metaphorik (6). 117–133. Weydt, Harald. 1969. Abtönungspartikeln: Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen Entsprechungen. Bad Homburg v.d.H.: Gehlen. Weydt, Harald (ed.). 1989. Sprechen mit Partikeln. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Wouden, Ton van der & Ad Foolen. 2011. Pragmatische partikels in de rechterperiferie [Pragmatic particles in the right periphery]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 16. 307–322. Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina. 2004. Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Yap, Foong Ha, Jiao Wang & Charles Tsz-kwan Lam. 2010. Clausal integration and the emer- gence of mitigative and adhortative sentence-final particles in Chinese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 8(2). 63–86. Introduction: Final particles from a typological perspective 35
- 47. II Discourse Analysis & Conversation Analysis
- 49. Pedro Ureña Gómez-Moreno 2 Sentence-final adverbials: Recurrent types and usage Most available studies on adverbs agree on characterising these as highly movable units whose positional potential within the sentence is particularly complex to describe. The importance of the study of position lies in the crucial role that it plays in interpreting the meaning and defining the function of words in general and of adverbials in particular. Within the adverbial class, disjuncts have been argued to enjoy greater flexibility to appear in the periphery of the sentence, either left or rightmost. However, both absolute initial and final positions are implicitly dealt with in most part of the literature as interchangeable and no further discussion is normally raised as to their pragmatic differences. Drawing on the analysis of a sample of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, this paper examines diverse cases in spoken English in which adverbials with the clausal scope take final position. Two major semantic types were analysed, namely certainty and uncertainty epistemic disjuncts. The main claim is that the final position appears as a salient device through which speakers can enrich the discursive force of their arguments by introducing relevant speaker-oriented information before a shift in topic or the closing of a conversational turn. A second claim is that the final position has the function of building up a rein- forced and cohesive discourse, thus conveying pragmatic nuances not so fully available in other slots in the sentence.* Key words: adverbials, disjuncts, modality, position, corpus 1 Introduction This chapter focuses on the analysis and interpretation of adverbials taking up sentence-final position in spoken American English, more specifically on * This contribution is based on research currently carried out within the framework of the project entitled “Development of a subontology in a multilingual context (English, Spanish and Italian): Using FunGramKB in the field of international cooperation in criminal matters: terrorism and organised crime” funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, code no. FFI2010-15983. Additionally, I am truly indebted to my colleagues Encarnación Hidalgo and Leanne Bartley for their valuable reviews on earlier versions of this paper. The usual disclaimers apply. Pedro Ureña Gómez-Moreno, University of Granada
- 50. disjuncts realised by single adverb phrases, as shown in examples (1) and (2) below1: (1) I’m sorry to hear that, naturally. <1994 (19940612)> (2) He would have killed me and her right there, probably. <2008 (080919)> The study of adverbs as regards their position has been recurrently touched upon in the literature by scholars from different persuasions (e.g. Baltin 2007; Austin, Engelberg, and Rauh 2004; Ernst 2002; Kim 2000; Jacobson 1980). In this introduction I will summarise the main points raised both by reference grammars and specialised research, focusing, in so doing, on end-positioning in particular. It should be first noted that in this paper I will follow the morpho- syntactic distinction commonly established between “adverb”, defined as an ele- ment functioning at phrase level, and “adverbial”, referring to a phrasal element functioning at sentence level (Hasselgård 2010). A further note on terminology: I will retain the denomination “disjuncts”, originally posed by Greenbaum (1969) and later endorsed by Quirk et al. (1985), to refer to wide-scope adverbials or sentence modifiers of the type of naturally and probably in (1) and (2) above. Terminology and notational conventions for characterising adverbial posi- tions in the sentence vary from one author to another. The grammar of Quirk et al. (1985: 490) offers one of the earliest and most fine-grained classifications of adverbial placement by distinguishing three basic positions, namely “initial”, “medial” and “end”, as well as four variants of the latter two (“initial medial”, “medial medial”, “end medial” and “initial end”). The examples that they use to illustrate these are well-known2: (3) By then the book must have been placed on the shelf. (I) The book by then must have been placed on the shelf. (iM) The book must by then have been placed on the shelf. (M) The book must have by then been placed on the shelf. (mM) The book must have been by then placed on the shelf. (eM) The book must have been placed by then on the shelf. (iE) The book must have been placed on the shelf by then. (E) (Quirk et al. 1985: 490) 1 The examples in this paper belong to The Corpus of Contemporary American English. See the “data and method” section. Examples appear without any changes on the original. Neverthe- less, suspension dots “[. . .]” are used in some cases to indicate that part of the example has been truncated to shorten its length and facilitate readability. 2 I stands for “initial”, M (or m) for “middle or medial”, and E for “end”. 40 Pedro Ureña Gómez-Moreno
- 51. These authors define “end” as the part in the sentence following all obligatory elements. They make a generalisation that most semantic types of adverbials can appear in this position, with the exception of modality, and that disjuncts can appear almost anywhere in the sentence, although they most normally do so initially. Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 575) maintain the configuration posed in (3), while introducing a shift in terminology. They postulate three positions that they call “front”, “central” and “end”. According to these authors, “end” is reserved for elements after the verb, and some or all of its dependents. In the same vein, finally, Biber et al. (1999: 772) coincide with the division between the three basic aforementioned positions and, in describing the positional potential of adverbials, their focus is on the frequency analysis of the most recurrent type of adverbials in each of them. They conclude that initial is the most common position for linking adverbials (e.g. nevertheless), mid position is where adverbials expressing stance normally appear (e.g. of course) and final position is mainly the place for circumstance adverbials (e.g. for a week). Addi- tionally, they note that final position is, in comparative terms, less commonly favoured in the case of linking and stance adverbials, although they refer examples that override this tendency, such as the comment clause in (4) and the linking word in (5) below: (4) Most of the others didn’t, I guess. (Biber et al. 1999: 873) (5) Well you didn’t miss much anyway. (Biber et al. 1999: 892) In what follows, I will adhere to the classification among three major positions in the sentence, with the further specification, nevertheless, that this does not only apply to cases where the adverbial is integrated in the structure of the sentence, but also includes cases where the adverbial is either prosodically or orthographically detached from it. I will base this analysis on the assumption that elements peripheral to the contents of the proposition still form a core part of the message and, as a result, depend syntactically and pragmatically on it. Parallel to the study of the distribution potential of adverbials, another related area of adverbial analysis has revolved around the factors either condi- tioning or affecting each position that these units can occupy. Research centred specifically on adverbials has rightly pointed out that there are three main factors governing end positioning. Firstly, adverbials’ overall most frequent place at the end of the sentence relates to the fact that this is the common place for circumstantials, which are in turn the commonest type of adverbials (e.g. Biber et al. 1999: 772; Breivik and Swan 1994: 12). In this regard, it has been noted that this tendency to take up final position responds to the iconic principle Sentence-final adverbials 41
- 52. by virtue of which the speaker uses language structure to depict the normal evolvement of events in a given context (Ji 2010)3. According to this principle, adverbials frequently appear in end position because they follow verbs, which are the units that adverbs normally modify. Secondly, language tends to relegate complex elements to end position, where they are normally processed more easily. This adaptation process of grammar to effective communication has been standardly called the “end-weight principle” (e.g. Costa 2004; Bache and Davidsen-Nielsen 1997; Quirk et al. 1985: 323). Thirdly, in non-marked language, end position is additionally reserved for elements, such as adjuncts, representing new or relevant information, and normally receiving prosodic prominence. By contrast, disjuncts are more likely to appear initially developing a thematic func- tion, with the sentence they are attached to making up the comment (Buysschaert 1990: 45; see also Nevalainen 1987). This chapter explores which discourse factors contribute to the appearance of disjuncts in final position. I will show that, regardless of the aforementioned fair degree of movability of these units, speakers use the final position to convey specific personal attitudes, which are not so markedly supported in other posi- tions. Furthermore, I will argue that not only do attested grammatical variables of the type mentioned above constrain the placement of these adverbs but also that pragmatics represents a decisive factor in the selection of final position. 2 Data and method This chapter relies on the study of a sample dataset drawn from the spoken component of the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). This refer- ence corpus contains 410 million words, out of which 85 million belong to the spoken mode, mainly broadcasted and conversational language, while the rest corresponds to the written mode in some of its most representative genres, such as academic writing, in-press journalistic language and fictional literature. In order to collect a pertinent sample of sentence-final adverbials, I followed a heuristic method. Using the interface to COCA and relying on the morphological tags in the corpus, I ran a random query to include any -ly adverb preceded by a weak pause (a comma) and followed by a strong pause (a full stop). This rule of thumb allowed not only to restrict the results to end-sentence adverbials, but also to minimise the possibilities of retrieving instances of pure-manner adverbs, 3 The concept “speaker” will be used here to include any type of addresser who directs his/her message to a “listener” or “interlocutor”, either in the written or the spoken language. 42 Pedro Ureña Gómez-Moreno
- 53. which normally appear in final position. The resulting sample consisted of a list of 100 adverbs amounting to more than 10,000 examples. For the purpose of this study, this sample was further restricted to include, specifically, two of the most outstanding semantic groups of final adverbials, which were found to be made up by disjuncts showing certainty and disjuncts of uncertainty. Therefore, the final sample for the analysis contained 22 final disjuncts totalling 200 examples (100 out of each of the two semantic groups). Table 1 contains a summary of the units analysed: Table 1: Elements appearing in final position in the COCA Certainty Occurrence Uncertainty Occurrence Absolutely 2,201 (25.26) Probably 178 (2.04) Exactly 1,127 (12.94) Apparently 148 (1.70) Obviously 593 (6.81) Hopefully 60 (0.69) Definitely 520 (5.97) Possibly 37 (0.42) Certainly 289 (3.32) Initially 17 (0.20) Clearly 71 (0.81) Potentially 17 (0.20) Totally 43 (0.49) Supposedly 17 (0.20) Naturally 31 (0.36) Luckily 13 (0.15) Completely 21 (0.24) Presumably 12 (0.14) Surely 16 (0.18) Evidently 14 (0.16) Easily 14 (0.16) Effectively 4 (0.05) Note: The number in parentheses indicates figures per million words 3 Final disjuncts across modes and genres This section presents an overview of the type of disjuncts found in end position in the sample and an account of their frequencies. Previous work has argued that final disjuncts mostly take place in spoken language (e.g. Biber et al. 1999). The overall distribution of -ly final disjuncts in the COCA confirms this tendency, with a majority of cases belonging to this language mode, and the remainder of the uses clustering around the fiction, academic, magazine and newspaper written genres, respectively. Table 2 below shows the distribution as it appears in the corpus: Sentence-final adverbials 43
- 54. Table 2: Occurrences of final disjuncts in the COCA -ly items in sentence end position Freq Freq pmw. Total section Spoken 10,602 (45.3%) 121.70 ~87 m. Fiction 6,618 (28.3%) 80.98 ~82 m. Academic 2,477 (10.6%) 29.87 ~83 m. Magazine 2,018 (8.6%) 23.15 ~87 m. Newspaper 1,704 (7.2%) 20.40 ~83 m. Note: “pmw.” stands for “per million words” and “m” stands for “million” The normalised counts in each of the sections allow to conclude that the fre- quency of final disjuncts in the spoken genre is more than twice the amount of the same units in the fiction genre, the written section that sums the greater percentage of these units. This quantitative profile proves useful to show that the usage of these units must be explained mostly against the background of spoken and conversational discourse strategies. 4 Pragmatic and conversational effects In broad terms, final position gains special importance when compared to initial and medial, insofar as only the former allows the speaker to include last-minute information to discourse, usually short sentences or phrases containing either content-related assessments or personal comments as to the style and/or the truth of the proposition. The readings of sentence-end adverbs are not necessarily univocal, however, with some adverbs conveying multifarious nuances of mean- ing depending on the context. This section delves into a more qualitative and interpretative analysis of modal disjuncts by trying to answer the question of why these appear rightmost in the utterance and what their associated pragmatic effects are. 4.1 Certainty One of the main discursive functions of certainty disjuncts appearing at end position consists in seeking agreement with the interlocutor by establishing infor- mative and emotional involvement with him/her. The sample corpus studied contains five markedly agreeing words among the first ten most frequent words, 44 Pedro Ureña Gómez-Moreno
- 55. Random documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
- 56. 1694-97. Flanders. 1694. Moorslede. 1695. Namur. 1711-13. Germany. 1715. Jacobite Rising. 1742-49. Flanders. *1743. Dettingen. 1745. Fontenoy. 1746. Roucoux. 1747. Laffeldt. 1760-63. Germany. 1760. Warbourg. 1762. Wilhelmstahl. 1793-95. Flanders. 1793. Valenciennes. 1794. Cateau. 1794. Nimeguen. 1795. Guildermalsen. 1799. Bergen. 1799. Egmont-op-Zee. 1799. Alkmaer. *1808-09. Peninsula. 1808. Sahagun. 1809. Carrion. 1809. Benevente. 1809. Corunna. 1813-14. Peninsula. *1814. Orthes. 1814. Toulouse. *1815. Waterloo. 1815. Netherlands. 1838-39. Canada. 1858. Indian Mutiny. *1858. Lucknow. 1881. Transvaal. 1896. Rhodesia. Uniform.—Scarlet (1690-1784); Blue (1784-1830); Scarlet (1830-41); Blue (from 1841). Facings, White (1690-1818); Blue (from 1818). Helmet-plume, White. Regimental Badge.—"The Royal Cypher within the Garter." Nicknames.—"The Old Saucy Seventh" (in the Peninsula), "The Lily- white Seventh" (from its light blue uniform and white facings, before 1818), "Young Eyes"; also "Old Straws" or "Strawboots" (for substituting, at Warbourg, 1760, strawbands for worn-out boots). Notes.—Formed in Scotland from Independent Troops of Horse that fought at Killiecrankie. Disbanded in 1713, but restored two years later, mainly from two troops of the present 1st, and three
- 57. troops of the present 2nd Dragoons. It suffered severely at Waterloo, and distinguished itself in the Mutiny. Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 7th, or Queen's Own Regiment of Hussars. 1690-1842. Illustrated with a plate. [London: Parker. 1842]
- 58. The Eighth (The King's Royal Irish) Hussars. "Pristinæ virtutis memores." The Harp and Crown. TITLES. 1693-1751. Colonel Henry Cunningham's [or its Colonel's name] Regiment of Dragoons; "St. George" from 1740-51. 1751-75. The 8th Dragoons. 1775-77. The 8th Light Dragoons. 1777-1822. The 8th, or The King's Royal Irish Light Dragoons. 1822 (from). The 8th, The King's Royal Irish Hussars. PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c. * "Honours" on the Colours.
- 59. 1704-13. Spain. 1706. Barcelona. 1707. Almanza. 1710. Almanara. 1710. Saragossa. 1710. Brehuega. 1794-95. Flanders. 1795. Cape of Good Hope. 1800. Kaffir War. 1801. Egypt. 1802-22. Hindoostan. *1803. Leswarree. 1803. Agra. 1804. Aurungabad. 1804. Ferruckabad. 1804. Deeg. 1805. Bhurtpore. *1854. Alma. *1854. Balaclava. *1854. Inkerman. 1855. Eupatoria. *1855. Sevastopol. 1858. Indian Mutiny. *1858. Central India. *1879-80. Afghanistan. 1900. South Africa. Uniform.—Scarlet (1693-1784); Blue (1784-1802); Light Blue or Cavalry Grey (1802-22); Dark Blue (from 1822). Facings, Yellow (1693-1777); Blue (1777-84); Scarlet (1784-1822); Blue (from 1822). Helmet-plume, Red and White. Regimental Badge.—"The Harp and Crown." Motto: "Pristinæ virtutis memores." Nickname.—"The Cross Belts" (1768), from its privilege of wearing the sword-belt over the left shoulder, in recognition of services at Saragossa, where it took the belts of the Spanish Cavalry; of this fact, however, there is no official record; also "The Georges" (from its Colonel's name, 1740-51); also "The Dirty Eighth." Notes.—Composed originally of loyal Protestants who had fought at the Boyne. It gained much distinction in Spain and Flanders; and received its title, crest, and motto in 1777 as special marks of Royal favour. It shared largely in the glory of Leswarree and other Indian actions—in short, few regiments can boast a more honourable record than "The Royal Irish."
- 60. Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 8th, or King's Royal Irish Regiment of Hussars. 1693-1843. Illustrated. [London: Parker. 1844.] Historical Record of the 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars. To 1803. By John Francis Smet, M.D., late Surgeon, 8th Hussars. [London: Mitchell. 1874.]
- 61. The Ninth (The Queen's Royal) Lancers. The Royal Cypher within the Garter. TITLES. 1715-51. Major-General Owen Wynne's (or its Colonel's name) Regiment of Dragoons. 1751-83. The 9th Dragoons. 1783-1816. The 9th Light Dragoons. 1816-30. The 9th Lancers. 1830 (from). The 9th, or Queen's Lancers; and (shortly afterwards) The 9th (Queen's) Royal Lancers. PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c. * "Honours" on the Colours.
- 62. 1715. Jacobite rising. 1798. Irish Rebellion. 1806. Buenos Ayres. 1807. Monte Video. 1809. Flushing. *1811-13. Peninsula. *1843. Punniar. *1846. Sobraon. *1848-49. Punjaub. *1849. Chillianwallah. 1849. Goojerat. 1857-58. Indian Mutiny. *1857. Delhi. *1858. Lucknow. *1878-80. Afghanistan. *1879. Charasiah. *1879. Kabul. *1880. Kandahar. 1900. South Africa. Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-84); Blue (1784-1830); Scarlet (1830-41); Blue (from 1841). Facings: Buff (1715-1805); Crimson (1805- 30); Blue (1830-41); Scarlet (from 1841). Lancer-cap plume, Black and White. Regimental Badge.—"The Royal Cypher within the Garter." Nickname.—"The Delhi Spearmen" (a native sobriquet). Notes.—The senior of several regiments of Dragoons restored in 1715, which had been disbanded after Utrecht. Raised in the southern counties, it served uninterruptedly in Ireland for eighty-six years to 1803, and in its title received special favour at the hands of Queen Adelaide in 1830. It gained distinction for service during the Indian Mutiny, and is the only British cavalry regiment with "Charasiah," "Kabul, 1879," and "Kandahar, 1880" on its Colours. Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 9th, or Queen's Royal Regiment of Light Dragoons (Lancers). 1715-1841. Illustrated with a plate. [London: Parker. 1841.]
- 63. The Tenth (The Prince of Wales's Own Royal) Hussars. The Plume of the Prince of Wales. The Rising Sun. The Red Dragon. TITLES. 1715-51. Colonel Humphrey Gore's (or its Colonel's name) Regiment of Dragoons. 1751-83. The 10th Dragoons. 1783-1806. The 10th, or Prince of Wales's Own Light Dragoons. 1806-11. The 10th, or Prince of Wales's Own Hussars. 1811 (from). The 10th, The Prince of Wales's Own Royal Hussars. PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c. * "Honours" on the Colours.
- 64. 1746. Falkirk. 1746. Culloden. 1758-63. Germany. 1759. Minden. 1760. Warbourg. 1760. Campen. 1761. Kirk Denkern. 1762. Wilhelmstahl. 1763. Grœbenstein. *1808-14. Peninsula. 1808. Sahagun. 1809. Benevente. 1809. Corunna. 1813. Morales. 1813. Vittoria. 1813. Pyrenees. 1814. Orthes. 1814. Toulouse. *1815. Waterloo. 1855. Eupatoria. *1855. Sevastopol. *1878-79. Afghanistan. *1878. Ali Masjid. *1884. Egypt. 1900. South Africa. Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-83); Blue (from 1784). Facings, Deep Yellow (1715-1811); Scarlet (1811-1819); Blue (from 1819); Helmet- plume, Black and White. Regimental Badges.—"The Prince's Plume," "The Rising Sun," "The Red Dragon" (from 1783, ancient Badges of the Princes of Wales). Also "The White Horse." Nicknames.—"Baker's Light Bobs" (when under the command of Valentine Baker). "The Don't Dance Tenth" (an officer told his hostess at a ball, "The Tenth Don't Dance"). "The Chainy Tenth" (from the pattern of the pouch belt). Notes.—Raised in Hertfordshire and adjoining counties; the regiment received its "baptism of fire" in the Jacobite rising of 1745. Since then its colours show its record. Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 10th, The Prince of Wales's Own Royal Regiment of Hussars. 1715-1842. Illustrated with plates. [London: Parker. 1843.] The Memoirs of the 10th Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales's
- 65. Own). By Colonel R. S. Liddell, late 10th Hussars. Illustrated. [London: Longmans. 1891.] The White Horse (of Hanover).
- 66. The Eleventh (Prince Albert's Own) Hussars. "Treu und Fest." The Crest and Motto of the late Prince Consort. The Sphinx. TITLES. 1715-51. Brigadier-General Philip Honeywood's (or its Colonel's name) Regiment of Dragoons. 1751-83. The 11th Dragoons. 1783-1840. The 11th Light Dragoons. 1840 (from). The 11th Prince Albert's Own Hussars. PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c. * "Honours" on the Colours.
- 67. 1715. Jacobite rising. 1746. Culloden. 1760-63. Germany. 1760. Warbourg. 1760. Cassel. 1761. Kirk Denkern. 1762. Wilhelmstahl. 1762. Capelnhagar. 1762. Foorwohle. 1763. Grœbenstein. 1793-95. Flanders. 1793. Famars. 1793. Valenciennes. 1794. Cateau. 1794. Villers-en-Couché. 1794. Tournay. 1794. Martinique. 1794. Guadaloupe. 1795. Guildermalsen. 1799. Bergen. 1799. Egmont-op-Zee. 1799. Alkmaer. *1801. Egypt. 1801. Aboukir. 1801. Mandora. 1801. Alexandria. 1805. Hanover. *1811-13. Peninsula. 1811. El-Bodon. *1812. Salamanca. 1812. Burgos. 1815. Quatre Bras. *1815. Waterloo. 1815. Netherlands. *1826. Bhurtpore. *1854. Alma. *1854. Balaclava. *1854. Inkerman. 1855. Eupatoria. *1855. Sevastopol. Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-83); Blue (1783-1830); Scarlet (1830-40); Blue (from 1840). Facings: Buff (1715-1840); Blue (from 1840). Plume, Crimson and White. Regimental Badges.—"The Crest and Motto (Treu und Fest) of the late Prince Consort"; also "The Sphinx" for Egypt (1801). Nicknames.—"The Cherry-pickers" (from Peninsula times, a detachment having been taken prisoners in a fruit-garden during the campaign). "The Cherubims" (from the crimson overalls). Notes.—Raised in Essex and adjoining counties. It is stated the regiment was first mounted on grey horses, and bore the motto,
- 68. "Motus Componere." Its present title was bestowed because it escorted the Prince Consort on the occasion of his marriage to Her Majesty. Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 11th, or Prince Albert's Own Regiment of Hussars. 1715-1842. [London: Parker. 1843.]
- 69. The Twelfth (The Prince of Wales's Royal) Lancers. The Plume of the Prince of Wales. The Rising Sun. The Red Dragon. TITLES. 1715-51. Colonel Phineas Bowles's [or its Colonel's name] Regiment of Dragoons. 1751-68. The 12th Dragoons. 1768-1816. The 12th (The Prince of Wales's) Light Dragoons. 1816-17. The 12th (The Prince of Wales's) Lancers. 1817 (from). The 12th (The Prince of Wales's Royal) Lancers. PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c. * "Honours" on the Colours.
- 70. 1795. Corsica. *1801. Egypt. 1801. Aboukir. 1801. Mandora. 1801. Alexandria. 1809. Walcheren. *1811-14. Peninsula. 1812. Salamanca. 1813. Vittoria. 1814. Bayonne. *1815. Waterloo. 1815. Netherlands. *1851-53. South Africa. 1855. Eupatoria. *1855. Sevastopol. 1858. Indian Mutiny. *1858. Central India. 1900. South Africa. Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-84); Blue (1784-1830); Scarlet (1830-42); Blue (from 1842). Facings, White (1715-68); Black (1768-84); Yellow (1784-1817); Scarlet (1817-30); Blue (1830-42); Scarlet (from 1842). Plume, Scarlet. Regimental Badges.—"Plume of the Prince of Wales," "The Rising Sun," "The Red Dragon" (in honour of the Prince of Wales, afterwards George IV., whose crests they were); also "The Sphinx," for Egypt (1801). Nickname.—"The Supple Twelfth." Notes.—Originally raised in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Hampshire, it served in Ireland, from 1717, for seventy-six years. In Egypt it captured a French Convoy with Colours. Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 12th, Prince of Wales's Royal Regiment of Lancers. 1715-1842. Illustrated with a plate. [London: Parker. 1842]
- 71. The Sphinx.
- 72. The Thirteenth Hussars. "Viret in Æternum." The Royal Cypher and Crown. TITLES. 1715-51. Colonel Richard Munden's [or its Colonel's name] Regiment of Dragoons. 1751-83. The 13th Dragoons. 1783-1861. The 13th Light Dragoons. 1861 (from). The 13th Hussars. PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c. * "Honours" on the Colours.
- 73. 1715. Jacobite rising. 1745. Jacobite rising. 1796. Jamaica. *1810-14. Peninsula. 1811. Campo Mayor. *1811. Albuera. 1811. Arroyo dos Molinos. 1812. Badajos. *1813. Vittoria. *1814. Orthes. *1814. Toulouse. *1815. Waterloo. 1815. Netherlands. *1854. Alma. *1854. Balaclava. *1854. Inkerman. *1855. Sevastopol. 1900. South Africa. Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-84); Blue (1784-1832); Scarlet (1832-40); Blue (from 1840). Facings, Green (1715-84); Pale Buff (1784- 1836); Green (1836-40); Buff (from 1840). Plume, White. Regimental Badge.—None recognised in Regulations, but "The Royal Cypher and Crown" appear on appointments. The motto, "Viret in Æternum," has been borne since its formation. Nicknames.—Familiar in 18th century as "The Green Dragoons" (from the facings); "The Ragged Brigade" (during the Peninsular War, when its arduous services debarred much attention to appearances); "The Evergreens" (from its facings and punning motto); "The Geraniums" (for smartness of appearance); and "The Great Runaway Prestonpans" (in allusion to the panic which seized some of the men in the fight with the Jacobite rebels). Notes.—Raised in the Midlands, the services of this regiment have been of the most distinguished order. It formed part of the Balaclava Light Brigade. In the Peninsula it served in no less than thirty-two affairs, not counting general actions, losing 274 men and 1,009 horses. Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 13th Regiment of Light Dragoons. 1715-1842. [London: Parker. 1842.]
- 74. The Fourteenth (The King's) Hussars. The Prussian Eagle. The Royal Crest within the Garter. TITLES. 1715-20. Brigadier-General James Dormer's Regiment of Dragoons. 1720-76. The 14th Dragoons; also frequently by its Colonel's name. 1776-98. The 14th Light Dragoons. 1798-1830. The 14th, or Duchess of York's Own Light Dragoons. 1830-61. The 14th King's Light Dragoons. 1861 (from). The 14th, The King's Hussars. PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c. * "Honours" on the Colours.
- 75. 1715. Jacobite rising. 1746. Culloden. 1794-95. Flanders. 1796. West Indies. *1808-14. Peninsula. *1809. Douro. *1809. Talavera. 1809. Oporto. 1810. Busaco. 1810. Barca de Avintas. *1811. Fuentes d'Onor. 1812. Badajos. 1812. Burgos. 1812. Salamanca. *1813. Vittoria. *1814. Orthes. 1814. Tarbes. 1814. Toulouse. 1815. New Orleans. *1848-49. Punjaub. *1849. Chillianwallah. *1849. Goojerat. *1856. Persia. 1858. Indian Mutiny. *1858. Central India. 1900. South Africa. Uniform.—Scarlet (1715-84); Dark Blue (1784-1830); Scarlet (1830- 40); Blue (from 1840). Facings, Lemon Yellow (1715-1798); Orange (the livery of Brandenburg, 1798-1830); Scarlet (in 1830), and shortly afterwards Blue (1830-40); Scarlet (1840- 61); Blue (from 1861). Plume, White. Regimental Badges.—"The Royal Crest within the Garter," also "The Prussian Eagle" (adopted in 1798 in honour of the Duchess of York, the Princess Royal of Prussia). Nicknames.—"The Ramnuggur Boys" (having encountered enormous odds at the battle in question); "The Emperor's Chambermaids" (bestowed while in India). Notes.—Raised in the South of England by Colonel Dormer (see Royal Warwickshire Regiment). Its record of services shows its fame. Especially in the Peninsula, in the Punjaub, in Persia, and in Central India has it gained distinction. Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 14th, or the Kings Regiment of Light Dragoons. Illustrated with plates. [London: Parker. 1847.]
- 76. The Fifteenth (The King's) Hussars. "Merebimur." The Crest of England within the Garter. TITLES. 1759-66. The 15th Light Dragoons; also (popularly) Eliott's Light Horse (from its Colonel's name). 1766-69. The 1st, or The King's Royal Light Dragoons. 1769-1806. The 15th, or The King's Royal Light Dragoons. 1806 (from). The 15th, The King's Hussars. PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c. * "Honours" on the Colours.
- 77. 1760-63. Germany. *1760. Emsdorf. 1762. Wilhelmstahl. 1762. Friedburg. 1763. Grœbenstein. 1793-95. Flanders. 1793. Valenciennes. 1794. Cateau. 1794. Villers-en-Couché. 1794. Tournay. 1794. Nimeguen. 1795. Guildermalsen. *1799. Egmont-op-Zee. 1799. Alkmaer. *1808-14. Peninsula. *1808. Sahagun. 1809. Benevente. 1813. Morales. *1813. Vittoria. 1813. Nivelle. 1814. Orthes. 1814. Toulouse. *1815. Waterloo. 1815. Cambray. 1815. Netherlands. *1878-80. Afghanistan. 1881. Transvaal. Uniform.—Scarlet (1759-84); Blue (from 1784). Facings, Green (1759-66); Dark Blue (1766-84); Scarlet (1784-1822); Blue (from 1822). Plume, Scarlet. Regimental Badge.—"The Crest of England within the Garter." Motto: "Merebimur," for valour, in Germany in 1766; also a helmet inscription: "Five Battalions of Foot defeated and taken by this Regiment, with their Colours and nine pieces of Ordnance, at Emsdorf, 16 July, 1760." The scarlet plume was also conferred in 1799 as a distinction. Nicknames.—"The Fighting Fifteenth." Notes.—This notable regiment was raised near London, and commenced its distinguished career the following year at Emsdorf (see above). Subsequently, at Villers-en-Couché, where it captured three guns, in Holland (1799), and in the Peninsula campaigns it gained further renown.
- 78. Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 15th, or King's Regiment of Light Dragoons (Hussars). 1759-1841. [London: Parker. 1841.]
- 79. The Sixteenth (The Queen's) Lancers. "Aut Cursu, aut Cominus Armis." The Royal Cypher within the Garter. TITLES. 1759-66. The 16th Light Dragoons; also (popularly from its Colonel's name) Burgoyne's Light Horse. 1766-69. The 2nd, Queen's, Light Dragoons. 1769-1815. The 16th, or The Queen's Light Dragoons. 1815 (from). The 16th, The Queen's Lancers. PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES, &c. * "Honours" on the Colours.
- 80. 1761. Belle-Isle. 1762. Portugal. 1775-78. America. 1776. Brooklyn. 1776. White Plains. 1777. Brandywine. 1777. Germantown. 1778. Freehold. 1793-96. Flanders. 1793. Valenciennes. 1793. Dunkirk. 1794. Cateau. 1794. Tournay. 1794. West Indies. 1809-14. Peninsula. *1809. Talavera. *1811. Fuentes d'Onor. 1812. Llereena. *1812. Salamanca. *1813. Vittoria. *1813. Nive. *1815. Waterloo. 1815. Netherlands. *1826. Bhurtpore. *1839. Afghanistan. *1839. Ghuznee. *1843. Maharajpore. *1846. Aliwal. *1846. Sobraon. 1897. Dargai. 1900. South Africa. Uniform.—Scarlet (1759-83; possibly for a year or two after formation this may have been red with yellow facings); Blue (1783-1832); Scarlet (from 1832). Facings, Black (1759-66, but see above); Dark Blue (1766-83); Scarlet (1783-1832); Blue (from 1832). Plume, Black. Regimental Badge.—"The Royal Cypher within the Garter." Motto, "Aut cursu, aut cominus armis" (bestowed in 1766 for services in Portugal on the regiment becoming "The Queen's.") Nickname.—"The Red (or Scarlet) Lancers"; being the only Lancers with the scarlet tunic. Notes.—Raised near London during the Seven Years' War. The first Lancer regiment to serve in India. Bibliography.—Historical Record of the 16th, or Queen's Regiment of Light Dragoons (Lancers). 1759-1841. Illustrated with a plate.
- 81. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com