Outside the Clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents PDF
Preview Outside the Clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents
Outside the Clause Edited by Gunther Kaltenböck Evelien Keizer Arne Lohmann Outside the Clause Studies in Language Companion Series (SLCS) issn 0165-7763 This series has been established as a companion series to the periodical Studies in Language. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/slcs Founding Editor Werner Abraham University of Vienna / University of Munich Editors Werner Abraham Elly van Gelderen University of Vienna / University of Munich Arizona State University Editorial Board Bernard Comrie Christian Lehmann University of California, Santa Barbara University of Erfurt William Croft Marianne Mithun University of New Mexico University of California, Santa Barbara Östen Dahl Heiko Narrog University of Stockholm Tohuku University Gerrit J. Dimmendaal Johanna L. Wood University of Cologne University of Aarhus Ekkehard König Debra Ziegeler Free University of Berlin University of Paris III Volume 178 Outside the Clause. Form and function of extra-clausal constituents Edited by Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer and Arne Lohmann Outside the Clause Form and function of extra-clausal constituents Edited by Gunther Kaltenböck Evelien Keizer Arne Lohmann University of Vienna John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of 8 the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984. doi 10.1075/slcs.178 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress. isbn 978 90 272 5943 1 (Hb) isbn 978 90 272 6655 2 (e-book) © 2016 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Company · https://benjamins.com Table of contents Extra-clausal constituents: An overview 1 Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann Part 1. The multifunctionality of ECCs Pragmatic markers as constructions. The case of anyway 29 Karin Aijmer The (the) fact is (that) construction in English and Dutch 59 Evelien Keizer Planning what to say: Uh and um among the pragmatic markers 97 Gunnel Tottie Part 2. The diachronic development of ECCs Mirativity and rhetorical structure: The development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder 125 Caroline Gentens, Ditte Kimps, Kristin Davidse, Gilles Jacobs, An Van linden & Lot Brems From clause to adverb: On the history of maybe 157 María José López-Couso & Belén Méndez-Naya Towards a unified constructional characterisation of the nonfinite periphery: On verbal free adjuncts and absolutes in English 177 Carla Bouzada-Jabois & Javier Pérez-Guerra Left-dislocated strings in Modern English epistolary prose: A comparison with contemporary spoken Left Dislocation 203 David Tizón-Couto Part 3. ECCs in bilingual settings Extra-clausal constituents and language contact: The case of discourse markers 243 Bernd Heine The role of extra-clausal constituents in bilingual speech: The emerging of regular patterns in a bilingual corpus 273 Eugenio Goria Table of contents Part 4. ECCs: A grammar of their own? The syntax of confirmationals: A neo-performative analysis 305 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim On the grammatical status of insubordinate if-clauses 341 Gunther Kaltenböck Intensifying adverbs ‘outside the clause’: A cognitive analysis 379 Alexander Haselow Aspects of discourse marker sequencing: Empirical challenges and theoretical implications 417 Arne Lohmann & Christian Koops Index 447 Extra-clausal constituents An overview Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann University of Vienna 1. What are extra-clausal constituents? Extra-clausal constituents (ECCs) have received increased interest in recent years, albeit under various different guises, such as parentheticals, disjuncts, pragmatic/dis- course markers, interjections, tails and afterthoughts, insubordinate clauses, vocatives, left-dislocands, formulae of social exchange. This development is, no doubt, a direct result of the availability of large amounts of spoken data in the form of electronic corpora, which has led to a rethinking of the notions of grammar and grammatical competence. It is now widely believed that an adequate description of a speaker’s com- petence also needs to account for features of spoken interaction and that what has for- merly been seen as distracting “noise” is in fact central for successful communication. Despite their generally acknowledged importance in communication, ECCs are often given short shrift in grammars. As elements which are largely context-dependent and concern speaker-hearer interaction, they clearly represent a challenge for syntac- tic modelling and it is therefore tempting to conveniently relegate them to the domain of pragmatics. One of the first attempts to integrate them into a grammatical model under a common heading is Simon Dik’s (1997) Functional Grammar, which accords them a place of their own as a separate category in addition to, and complementing, that of the clause. Dik (1997: 379) describes them in the following way: Especially in spoken discourse … we often produce a variety of expressions which can be analysed neither as clauses nor as fragments of clauses. These expressions may stand on their own, or precede, follow, and even interrupt a clause, being more loosely associated with it than those constituents which belong to the clause proper. These expressions will here be called extra-clausal constituents (ECCs). While the term still assigns a more central role to the ‘clause’, with ECCs being defined in negative terms as something that is ‘extra’ and ‘outside’ the clause, Dik’s concept for the first time unites a range of different elements under one common heading. Dik doi 10.1075/slcs.178.01kal © 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company 2 Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (1997: 383) distinguishes four types of ECCs, depending on their position in relation to the clause: (i) Absolute or free-standing ECCs, (ii) Preclausal ECCs, (iii) Clause- internal or parenthetical ECCs, and (iv) Postclausal ECCs. They fulfil a variety of dif- ferent functions (see Section 4), but all share the following typical properties: (1) Recurrent properties of ECCs (Dik 1997: 380–381) a. They either occur on their own, or are typically set off from the clause proper by breaks or pause-like inflections in the prosodic contour. b. They are never essential to the internal structure of the clause with which they are associated; when they are left out, the clause still forms an integral whole. c. They are not sensitive to the grammatical rules which operate within the limits of the clause, although they may be related to the clause by rules of coreference, parallelism, and antithesis. d. They are especially common in the spoken register. e. They are typical of linguistic expressions in ongoing discourse. f. They are rather loosely associated with the clause, and cannot easily be described in terms of clause-internal rules and principles. g. They can only be understood in terms of pragmatic rules and principles. In a similar vein, Biber et al.’s (1999: 1082ff) reference grammar acknowledges the existence of units outside the clause. This is not entirely surprising given their corpus- based approach and attention to spoken language. Unlike Dik (1997), however, they limit their discussion to units which are outside the clause category by virtue of their internal form: “segments consisting entirely or partly of non-clausal material” (Biber et al. 1999: 1069). These ‘non-clausal units’ come in two different categories: (i) inserts and (ii) syntactic non-clausal units. Inserts are single words like Hi, which stand alone and “are characterized in general by their inability to enter into syntactic relations with other structures” (ibid.). They include interjections (oh, ugh), greetings and fare- wells (hi, good morning, bye), discourse markers (well, right), attention signals (hey, yo), response elicitors (eh? see?), response forms (yeah, okay, mhm), hesitators (uh), various polite speech-act formulae (please, thanks, excuse me), and expletives (God, damn). Syntactic non-clausal units, on the other hand, “differ from inserts in that they can be given a syntactic description in terms of the structures and categories of sen- tence grammar” (ibid.: 1099). Typical examples are, for instance, elliptic replies (A: Where did you guys park? B: Right over here), condensed questions (Not your thing?), echo questions, exclamations (That boy!), and vocatives (darling). A grammatical category which is in essence similar to that of Dik’s ECCs is that of ‘supplementation’ in Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1350–62). Supplements are syntactically not integrated into the host construction and as such unable to function Extra-clausal constituents 3 as a dependent to any head. Consequently, they are elusive to an analysis in terms of coordination or subordination, or of parataxis or hypotaxis. They are also intonation- ally separate from the host clause (or set off in writing by punctuation) and semanti- cally non-restrictive. In terms of position, supplements are either interpolated in or appended to some host clause, but do not include stand-alone elements as in Dik’s cat- egory. Typical forms of supplements are non-restrictive relative clauses, appositions, content clauses (The excuse he gave – that the train had been late – seemed to satisfy his boss), interjections, non-finite clauses (all things considered), PPs like in my opinion and AdvPs like frankly. A more recent attempt to capture the category of ECCs is the concept of Theti- cal Grammar (Kaltenböck et al. 2011; Heine et al. 2013). Although building on the notions of ECCs and supplements, the term ‘thetical’ is adopted as a reduced form of parenthetical. This is to reflect that not all instances of this category are in fact parenthetical in the sense that they are interpolated in a host clause or require a host clause in the first place. Crucially, however, Kaltenböck et al. (2011) reject the terms ECC and supplement as they imply a privileged status of the clause or, more gener- ally, Sentence Grammar, vis-à-vis theticals (ibid.: 2011: 856). Instead, theticals are seen here as belonging to a separate domain of grammar, Thetical Grammar, which is on a par with Sentence Grammar, rather than an appendix to it. In principle, any element (a word, a phrase, a clause) can be used as a thetical, which can be identified by the following properties. (2) Properties of theticals (Kaltenböck et al. 2011: 857; Heine et al. 2013: 159) a. They are syntactically independent from their environment. b. They are set off prosodically from the rest of the utterance. c. Their meaning is non-restrictive. d. They tend to be positionally mobile. e. Their internal structure is built on principles of SG but can be elliptic. Linguistic categories identified as theticals include comment clauses, vocatives, for- mulae of social exchange, imperatives, interjections, left/right-dislocands, non- restrictive relative clauses, discourse markers, phrasal appositives, tag questions, and afterthoughts. The concept of Thetical Grammar is thus more encompassing than that of ECCs or supplements. Although, as we have seen, various labels have been used to describe elements that are extraneous to the clause,1 we have, for the purpose of the present volume chosen 1. In addition to the concepts of ECCs, non-clausal units, supplements and theticals, as dis- cussed above, various other labels have been used. These include, for instance, parenthetic adjunct (Corum 1975), disjunct (Quirk et al. 1972: 507–20; 1985: 612–31; Espinal 1991), jux- taposed element (Peterson 1999: 237), epistemic adverbial phrase (Thompson & Mulac 1991;
The list of books you might like
