'Anyway' A Formal Approach to the Syntax and Semantics of Discourse Markers

250 Pages·2009·1.13 MB·English

‘Anyway’ A Formal Approach to the Syntax and
Semantics of Discourse Markers
Miriam Urgelles Coll
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex
February 2009
ABSTRACT
This thesis explores the syntax and semantics of discourse markers. The definition of
discourse marker is problematic since not all discourse markers share a single syntactic
category,thoughagreatnumberofthemareadverbs. Syntactically, mostdiscoursemarkers
are detached from the rest of the sentence they appear in. Semantically, some discourse
markers seem to convey meaning, while others seem to have a pragmatic function only.
The syntactic approach I employ to describe discourse markers is Head-Driven Phrase
Structure Grammar (HPSG) which is relevant in a theory of discourse because it provides
a framework in which all levels of grammar can be integrated. Since discourse markers
operate at discourse level, a well developed discourse theory is required, in this case, I
employ Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (SDRT). The first step taken in this
thesis is to establish an integration of notation between HPSG and SDRT.
I exemplify the approach with an analysis of anyway. This particular adverb has
two main uses: one as an adverbial, and another one as a discourse marker. We argue
that the adverbial uses of anyway have a discourse connectivity property and particular
characteristics in terms of their position in the sentence and their intonation. This type of
use has four different secondary effects that affect the interpretation of the discourse. The
discourse marker use, on the other hand, can indicate a pointer to the end of a discussion
of a particular topic or a closing of a digression. This use shows no discourse continuity
and a different position in the sentence as well as a distinctive marked intonation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of Doug
Arnold,underwhosesupervisionIchosethistopicandbeganthethesis. Ineedtothankthe
endless discussions that we have had around the topic, and many other interesting issues.
I would have not been able to complete this thesis without Doug’s help, encouragement,
and support throughout these years.
Without the extremely helpful discussions with Bob Borsley and Alex Lascarides, this
thesis would have not been completed.
I would also like to thank Louisa Sadler, Maria Flouraki, Kakia Chatsiou, Sylvia Shaw,
and other anonymous reviewers for their comments and their time. I need to thank the
various members of the Language and Computation group and the Constraint-Based Lin-
guistics group for the interesting meetings that have helped me grow as a linguist.
Icannotendwithoutthankingmyfamilyandfriends, onwhoseconstantencouragement
and love I have relied throughout all this time. And finally, I am specially thankful to Billy
who has always believed in me and encouraged me to continue working even when I was
down.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Adverbs: Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 Adverb Semantic Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 The Syntax of Adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.1 Transformational Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.3.2 Constraint-Based Linguistic Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3. Discourse Markers: Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.2 Schiffrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.3 Relevance Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.4 Coherence Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.5 Lexicalized Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4. Segmented Discourse Representation Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.1 Discourse Representation Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.2 Segmented Discourse Representation Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Contents 5
4.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.2 Rhetorical Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.2.3 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.3 Alternative Formal Discourse Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.3.1 Rhetorical Structure Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.3.2 Hobbs [1990] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.3.3 An Intentional Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5. Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.1 HPSG: A System of Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
5.2 Classical Approach to Semantics in HPSG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.3 Minimal Recursion Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6. Anyway: a Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6.2 Literature Review: Various Approaches to Anyway . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.3 Literature Review: Owen [1985] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6.4 Literature Review: Altenberg [1986] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.5 Literature Review: Ferrara [1997] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
6.5.1 Anyway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
1
6.5.2 Anyway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
2
6.5.3 Anyway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
3
6.6 Literature Review: Lenk [1998] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6.7 Literature Review: Takahara [1998] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
6.8 Literature Review: Gonz´alez [2004] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Contents 6
6.9 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.10 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
7. Anyway: Possible Synonyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
7.2 Adverbial Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7.3 Discourse Marker Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
7.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8. Anyway: Key Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.2 Discourse Continuity vs Discourse Discontinuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.3 Ambiguity vs. Vagueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
8.4 The Syntax of Anyway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.4.1 Constituency Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
8.4.2 Word Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
8.5 The Semantics of Anyway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
8.5.1 Semantic Arguments of Anyway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
8.5.2 Truth Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
8.6 Co-occurrence with Other Adverbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
8.7 The Meaning of Any and Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
8.7.1 The Meaning of Any . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
8.7.2 The Meaning of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
8.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
9. Anyway: Our Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
9.1 Anyway: Formal Lexical Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Contents 7
9.2 Adverbial Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
9.3 Discourse Marker Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
9.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
10.Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
1. INTRODUCTION
In this thesis, we will attempt to provide a syntactic and semantic formal analysis of
discourse markers. In particular, we will focus on anyway and its functions. Discourse
markers generally belong to the word class of adverbs. In chapter 2, we will observe that
the adverb category is varied in meaning, and that there have been various attempts to
classify different adverbs in different categories in regards to meaning. Authors have then
related different meanings to different syntactic behavior. It seems that meaning affects
where an adverb appears in a sentence, which other adverbs it can co-occur with, etc. In
the case of anyway, it appears to have a general common meaning, however, it occupies
different positions in the sentence, and due to this different occurrence it has a different
effect in discourse. When it appears in initial sentence position, its function is to close
a topic or digression. On the other hand, when it appears at the end of the sentence, it
has different adverbial meanings that connect the utterance it appears in with a previous
utterance. Inchapter2,wewillalsoreviewtypesofclassificationsofadverbsinordertotest
which categories can co-occur with anyway. The conclusions of this possible co-occurrences
will be drawn in chapter 8.
Anywaysharescertainprototypicalcharacteristics associatedtodiscourse markers. (We
will review relevant literature on discourse markers in chapter 3). Syntactically, it is
integrated with the rest of the sentence; and it can be omitted without affecting the
grammaticality of the sentence. Semantically, it does not affect the truth conditions of the
proposition it appears in.
1. Introduction 9
In regards to anyway, nearly all literature distinguishes between a discourse marker use
and an adverbial or propositional meaning use. The number of functions and meanings
anyway has is problematic. This is the reason why, we will discuss the functions and
meanings of anyway.
The first set of examples here illustrate the dismissive aspect that anyway brings to
discourse.
(1) And we were coming in aroundthe back side. The little trail that goes up there was
around the back side of the two camps. Anyway, he got up there kind of between
where our cabins were and all at once he yelled ‘Get back! Get back’.1
(2) I was in the fifth grade, or sixth grade, or something; and I was a Brownie. I was
a Brownie at the time so I must have been like in the fifth grade. No. I was a girl
scout. I can’t remember what I was now. Anyway, we went camping in February
and it was cold.2
(3) His dad walked in. His dad said we screwed up, and that we just lost our motor-
cycles. And Gardland starts crying. I could only think what I would say to my
parents. I should say that I lost my motorcycle, it got confiscated. Anyway, we’re
sitting there and I think that the other guy agrees with Gardland’s dad. I think
they were screwing us. Anyway, they told us they would confiscate the bikes if we
got caught again. And they gave us our motorcycles back.3
(4) So the next day when I walked in; they didn’t realize that I was the same person.
And so I started speaking to them. They had spent the whole day with me the
day before; and I walk in the next day; and they didn’t know who I was ((laugh))
1Ferrara [1997]
2Ferrara [1997, 362]
3
Ferrara [1997, 362]
1. Introduction 10
Anyway, they razzed me all week long about my Texas clothes.4
(5) They got up early. That’s rare for them. Anyway, they left at noon.5
(6) a. Joseph: And I jumped out of bed. I was stark naked. I yelled at the top of
my voice. And he fell out the window. And Edwina was jumping and kicking.
She thought I’d gone nuts.
b. Don: ((laugh))
c. Joseph: Anyway, by that time it was almost daybreak. He’d chosen an odd
our for his illegal entry. So I said ‘I’ve killed a man’.6
(7) a. Nader: We were going through customs. And some agents asked our national-
ity, because they saw our passports. They asked if we were Iranian. My mum
and dad said ‘yes’. I didn’t answer cause I was a little kid.
b. Javier: How old were you?
c. Nader: I was eight. Anyway, they took us to their office.7
From all these examples, we can see that anyway dismisses a particular issue under
discussion in order to introduce a new topic, or return to a previous topic. As can be
observed, this happens both in monologue and dialogue. In (1), the speaker finishes a
digression on a background description of the scenery. This digression is marked by the
useofanyway. Thefollowingutteranceisthereforeconsideredthemainstory. Theexample
in (3) is very similar in the sense that the inability to recollect the activity and age of the
speaker is considered a digression by the same speaker when she uses anyway to continue
retelling her story.
4Ferrara [1997, 362]
5Ferrara [1997, 355]
6Ferrara [1997, 363]
7
Ferrara [1997, 364]