Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism)

Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse

Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism (HSM) Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism (HSM) publishes research from colloquia on linguistic aspects of multilingualism organized by the Research Center on Multilingualism at the University of Hamburg.

Editors Jürgen M. Meisel Monika Rothweiler Juliane House University of Hamburg Research Center on Mulitlingualism

Volume 5 Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse Edited by Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein and Lukas Pietsch

Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse

Edited by

Jochen Rehbein Christiane Hohenstein Lukas Pietsch Middle East Technical University, Ankara and University of Hamburg

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Connectivity in grammar and discourse / edited by Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein and Lukas Pietsch. p. cm. (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism, issn -3363 ; v. 5) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Connectives. 2. Discourse analysis. I. Rehbein, Jochen. II. Hohenstein, Christiane. III. Pietsch, Lukas. P302.27.C66   2007 415--dc22

2007060663

isbn 978 90 272 1925 1 (Hb; alk. paper) © 2007 – 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 Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

The production of this series has been made possible through financial support to the Research Center on Multilingualism (Sonderforschungsbereich 538 "Mehrsprachigkeit") by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

Table of contents Connectivity as an object of linguistic research in multilingualism Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch

1

Section 1. Aspects of language change and language acquisition Grammaticalization of converb constructions: The case of Japanese –te conjunctive constructions Masayoshi Shibatani Contact, connectivity and language evolution Yaron Matras Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian as donor language Thomas Stolz Some notes on the syntax-pragmatics interface in bilingual children: German in contact with French / Italian Natascha Müller

21

51

75

101

Section 2. Pronouns, topics and subjects Distribution and function of clitic object pronouns in popular 16th-18th century Greek narratives: A synchronic and diachronic perspective Chrystalla A. Thoma Nominative subjects of non-finite clauses in Hiberno-English Lukas Pietsch

139

165

Section 3. Finiteness in text and discourse Aspectotemporal connectivity in Turkic: Text construction, text subdivision, discourse types and taxis Lars Johanson

187

Connectivity by means of finite elements in monolingual and bilingual Turkish discourse Birsel Karakoç

199

 Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse

Section 4. Subordination – coordination Alternative subordination strategies in Turkish Celia Kerslake

231

Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora: Some exemplary analyses from modern and historical, written and spoken corpora Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

259

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk: işte Annette Herkenrath

291

Section 5. Adverbials, particles and constructions Modal adverbs as discourse markers: A bilingual approach to the study of indeed Karin Aijmer

329

„So, given this common theme ...“: Linking constructions in discourse across languages Kristin Bührig and Juliane House

345

An utterance-transcending connector: Particle to in utterance-final position in Japanese business reporting Yuko Sugita

367

Between connectivity and modality: Reported speech in interpretermediated doctor-patient communication Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer

395

Matrix constructions Jochen Rehbein

419

Language index

449

Name index

451

Subject index

457

Connectivity as an object of linguistic research in multilingualism Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch Middle East Technical University, Ankara, and University of Hamburg The contributions in this volume investigate the role played by various linguistic elements in interconnecting units of text and discourse. We discuss this role, the linguistic forms involved and their functions under the term of ‘connectivity’. Connectivity concerns issues of linguistic interaction in its different aspects of grammar, prosody, text and discourse. Since it has repercussions on issues of multilingualism and language contact, as well as language change and language acquisition, the topic of connectivity is of relevance to various research projects working within the Research Center 538 ‘Multilingualism’ in Hamburg, out of which the present collection has developed (cf. House and Rehbein 2004). Of particular interest are the various linguistic means individual languages use to express connectivity. To date, even though connectivity is an area of research that has produced a large number of studies, the field is still rather opaque. Thus, a few structuring and systematic introductory remarks are in order. To begin with, we discuss (1) a general outline of an analytic approach to linguistic connectivity, and (2) different aspects through which it manifests itself in language. In an outline of the book (3), we relate specific fields of linguistic research pertaining to connectivity to the article sections and their main topics. As eminent fields of linguistic research, both language change and language acquisition offer a more general perspective on the role of connectivity and connectives (3.1). The subsequent chapters – ‘Pronouns, topics and subjects’ (3.2), ‘Finiteness in text and discourse’ (3.3), ‘Subordination – coordination ’ (3.4), and ‘Adverbials, particles and constructions’ (3.5) – deal with particular linguistic means which are highly language specific. Accordingly, connectives relating to various grammatical concepts are discussed with regard to their discourse functions and effects.

1. Linguistic connectivity During the 1980s, connectivity was addressed frequently as a connection between “clauses”, and discussed in terms of “subordination” (Mackenzie 1984, König and van der Auwera 1988). Phenomena such as “(hypotactic) clause combining” (Matthiessen



Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch

and Thompson 1988), and procedures of “clause chaining” (Slobin 1988) formed a focus of interest. That is, connectivity between linguistic units internal to the sentence or an utterance, mostly between their constituents, ranked high with a discernible research interest in ‘surface’ structures of language. However, under a contrastive perspective, aiming at the discovery of universals in propositional encoding, entities beyond the clause came into view. Forms used to encode a sequence of propositions were discussed e. g. with regard to the notions of “nexus” (of clauses) and of “linkage” (Foley and Van Valin 1984, Van Valin and LaPolla 1997). Characteristically, utterance-internal connections serve to integrate their conjunct elements into a single, complex hierarchical whole and submit them to a common illocutionary force (cf. Foley and Van Valin 1984: 239f.). Since connectivity is organised in ways highly specific to individual languages, perspectives from non-Indo-European languages and contrastive studies have led to insights in effects on text and discourse structure according to the type of connectivity. For instance, gerund constructions in Japanese, especially the converbial “-te” form, have received a steady and growing interest (cf. Myhill & Hibiya 1988, Hasegawa 1996, Grein 1998, Shibatani, this vol.). Equally, Turkish and Turkic converbs (Johanson 1995) continue to offer new vistas on intricate patternings in discourse up to the point of setting up specific discourse types (cf. Karacoç, this vol.; Johanson, this vol., Kerslake, this vol.). Studies on the phenomenon of textual ‘connexity’ (cf. Conte et al. 1989, Heydrich et al. 1989) and, more prominently, the notions of ‘coherence’ and ‘cohesion’ (Halliday and Hasan 1976) helped to develop a body of research on interrelated topics, dealing with linguistic devices overarching the boundaries of single sentences and single utterances (cf. also, in terms of text linguistics, van Dijk 1979, de Beaugrande 1980, contributions in Cambourian 2001, and others). At the same time, research on “connexion” in terms of information-processing within the confines of sentence-based linguistic units, linking “sentence content”, and leading to “textual coherence”, is still growing (cf. Fabricius-Hansen 2000). – In their extensive study of the language development in English, German, Spanish, Hebrew, and Turkish, based on narratives of frog stories, Berman and Slobin (1994) propose connectivity of the informational structure of discourse as an essential concept of analysis: “... we are studying the development of the capacity to describe situations. We are also concerned with the ways in which individual events are related to each other. That is, we are studying the development of linguistic means to connect events and syntactically “package” them into coherent structures – at the level of scene, episode, and overall plot.” (Berman and Slobin 1994: 1–2). We can conclude that ‘connectivity’ as a notion comprises both utterance-internal and utterance-external linguistic devices of various categories (cf. Rehbein 1999). Cross-linguistically, it can be observed that connectivity manifests itself on the ‘linguistic surface’ along a continuum from subordinating connectives through “serialisation” by means of converbs, to coordinative devices which may span not only clauses and phrases, but may link complete utterances, sentences, even parts of text and dis-



Connectivity as an object of linguistics

course to each other (cf. Rudolph 1996, Bisang 1995, 1998b, Johanson 1995, Haspelmath 1995, Kortmann 1996). The phenomenon of connectivity has been receiving increasing attention from linguists, especially from a typological and contrastive perspective (van der Auwera and Bultinck 2001; Behrens and Fabricius-Hansen 2002; Berman 1998; Rehbein 2002; Unger 1996; Verhagen 2001; Grein 1998; Hasegawa 1996; Horie 2000 etc.). Aspects of meaning and formation of discourse particles more and more come into focus (e.g. Mori 1999; Onodera 2004; Park 1998; Fischer 2006). A new domain of connectivity was opened up by the debate about the pragmatics of “small words”, in the English speaking community about ‘discourse markers’ (Schourup 1985, Schiffrin 1985, Fraser 1990 a.o.) and ‘gambits’ (Edmondson 1978, House and Kasper 1981), in the German speaking community about ‘Partikeln’ (cf. e.g. Weydt (ed.) 1979, 1983, 1987). Moreover, connectivity pertains not only to ‘surface’ elements of language such as phrases, clauses, or sentences. It also applies to illocutions, propositions and mental/ cognitive entities, such as particular elements of knowledge, to patterns of (inter-)action and to types of discourse (cf. Hohenstein 2005, 2006 a,b,c, ch. 6.2). This type of mental/cognitive connectivity is established incessantly during the interaction process between speakers and hearers, writers and readers. Thus, “connectivity” is not to be identified with “context” (cf. Rehbein and Kameyama 2003; House 2006). Rather, the development and expansion of linguistic means of connectivity – in diachronic language change and in ontogenetic language development – actually render ‘text’, at least partially, independent of ‘context’. In the following discussion, emphasis will be laid on discursive and textual connections established by the grammatical and interactional potential of more or less complex linguistic devices. While they all serve to connect linguistic actions in their various dimensions, they belong to different formal and functional categories. They are of different internal make-up, and thus constitute different linguistic activities and processes. The guiding hypothesis in this is that connectivity frequently constitutes hinges within the flow of discourse and text (s. Bührig and House, this volume; cf. the German term ‘Scharnier’ as well as Jakobson’s 1957 concept of ‘shifter’).

2. Aspects of connectivity There is no clear-cut division of labour between grammar and discourse in the sense that grammar would exclusively concern the utterance internal connectivity whereas discourse/text concerned that between utterances. Rather, one may say that there is an intertwining of grammar and discourse/text in linguistic connectivity (or: connectives). Therefore, if one looks at the characteristics of connectivity, one should account for both, grammar as well as discourse and text. As for discourse and text, linguistic connectives can generally be described as joining a linguistic action X with a linguistic action Y. Since what is joined are frequently





Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch

not full-fledged linguistic actions, but specific dimensions of these, we speak of “dimension X” and “dimension Y” of different linguistic actions being joined. Dimensions of linguistic actions are: a. Constellation: Speech situation, categories of action space (motivations, needs, interactional space, control field etc.) b. Utterance act: Syntax, morphology, phonetics/phonology, prosody etc. c. Illocutionary act: Illocutions, utterance mode, etc. d. Propositional act: Semantics, argument, predicate, predication, symbol fields, etc. e. Knowledge: Presupposition, elements of knowledge, knowledge space, knowledge structure, expectations, knowledge differential, linguistic knowledge, etc. f. Other mental processes: Evaluation, imagination, understanding, planning, etc. g. Cooperation: Back-channel activities, interaction management, speaker-hearersteering devices, reception, etc. All the dimensions mentioned above can become either starting point or target point of a connective: A connective starts out at a dimension X of one linguistic action as a starting point, and joins it to a dimension Y as the target point of another linguistic action. For instance, in the case of a phoric pronoun the starting point is a nominal or another propositional element, while the target point is the phoric expression, which serves to copy the nominal or propositional element into a different syntagm. Connectivity then manifests itself in the process of coreferring, the phoric procedure. In the case of coordination, one propositional element is the starting point, while the target point is a second propositional element of the same grammatical category; in that case, the connective itself implements the process of joining them under a common category of propositionally based knowledge. Thus, the connective acts as a morphosyntactic trigger element of discursive/textual knowledge building. Prosody may be described as a formal domain of its own, since it interacts with the grammatical components, especially in spoken discourse. Quite often we are dealing with a connection between prosodic units joined into a larger schema (cf. Chafe 1988, 1994). Some of the contributions in this volume take into account the connective functions of prosodic and phonetic / phonological resources (e.g. Kerslake, Matras, Thoma, Sugita, cf. this volume). Thus, connectivity between what we may term as the dimensions of a linguistic action X and a linguistic action Y is established by means of different linguistic devices. With regard to their linguistic form, i. e. to grammar, they can be described according to their phonetics/phonology, morphosyntax, constructional make-up and other criteria, depending on the theoretical background of the analyst. As for the functions of linguistic devices realizing connectivity, these may be found – and diagnosed – if one looks at what is done with the forms on the level of discourse and text. Then, functions of connectives can be characterised as the purpose inherent in their forms. Frequently, these inherent purposes are located in the mental-cognitive processes on the part of the hearer/reader which establish connections between different dimensions of linguistic



Connectivity as an object of linguistics

actions as aspects of their own (Givon 1995 pointed out that the connectivity of a text is based on its “structured mental representation... The more connections a node has... the more mentally-accessible it is.” (Givon 1995: 64)). The majority of connectives involves procedures that are operative, in so far as they work on linguistic dimensions, instructing a hearer/reader to process parts of the propositional act in relation to each other (for the ‘field’ characteristics of linguistic procedures cf. Rehbein this vol.). Composite deictic procedures (Rehbein 1995a; for contrasts in English-German translations, cf. Bührig and House 2004, for a comparative analysis in German and English academic articles, cf. Fandrych and Graefen 2002), and connectives of formal cooperation (back channel cues and the like, cf. Ehlich 1986, 1987), can be regarded as typical cases, since, from the point of view of procedural pragmatics, connective devices are rather complex structures, encompassing multi-procedural components as combination, ensemble, integration etc. of linguistic procedures.

3. Outline of the book 3.1

Language change and language acquisition

Several contributions in this volume investigate the relation between connectivity and language change. For instance, Masayoshi Shibatani demonstrates how Japanese converb constructions with motion verbs (-te iku/kuru, conv go/come) undergo several stages of change before they grammaticalize into a new grammatical class of aspectual suffixes. There are, for instance, stages of a solidification of constructions on the phonetic and syntactic level – depending on sucessive changes in the main verb, e.g. a loss of valency – but not on the morphological level. In other cases there is a decreasing degree of congruity of verb and converb. Actually, both grammaticalization types, gradual and instantaneous grammaticalization, are observed with these Japanese converb constructions. That is, the steps leading up to the point where a construction or a part of it finally changes its grammatical category can be revealed only by fine-grained syntactic analysis and if differential linguistic context is taken into account. If, as Bisang 1998a states with regard to serial and relative clause constructions in various African and Asian languages, “constructions and the human equipment are somehow involved in the propagation of linguistic changes” as well as “the factor of sociolinguistics” (Bisang 1998a: 51), in multilingual communities, language change may be induced by contact due to plurilingual people communicating with each other in the contact languages (cf. Stolz and Stolz 1996/97; Stolz, this volume, Matras 2002 and this volume). Many of the connective procedures are sensitive to contact, insofar as they import linguistic devices from a contact language, copy them, integrate them or modify their own forms under conditions of contact (cf. Johanson 1992b, 1999a, Muysken 2000, Clyne 2003, Heine and Kuteva 2005). New connectives are frequently created in mixed languages (cf. Bakker and Mous 1994, Matras 1996, 2000, Matras and





Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch

Bakker 2003, Bakker 2003, Stolz 2003, etc.). Apparently it is due to the complexity of their linguistic structure (both synchronically and diachronically speaking) and function that connectives are not only sensitive to contact-induced language change but vulnerable to it (Müller 2003). According to Yaron Matras (this volume), certain languages such as Turoyo, Domari, Romani and others have used various languages from their respective environments as sources of new connectives, which belong to the types of coordination, illocutionary modification, and interaction management. The shift of one expression, structure or construction into a new category or a new paradigm often happens in a complex process involving functional shift, splits in syntax, morphology, word boundaries and semantics, to the point of their fusion. Matras also spells out some sociolinguistic conditions for replication and points towards the mental base of contact-induced change: “Connectivity structures, then, appear particularly vulnerable not just to the actual borrowing for formal material such as conjunctions and other particles, but also to the replication of patterns of constituent ordering, agreement and overall form-function mapping that form the mental blueprint from the respective construction.” (Matras, this volume). Thomas Stolz (this volume) points to the interesting fact that the item allora, borrowed from Italian into (Italo-)Greek, (Italo-)Albanian, Cimbrian, Molise Slavic and Maltese, failed to acquire the full range of functions in the receiving languages that it had in the donor language. His findings point to a dominant role played in contact by the category of temporal deixis, which later develops further into functions of coordination and others. In a similar vein, Herkenrath (this volume) observes that the item işte in German Turkish develops a mixed deictic-coordinative type of use, pointing towards an instance of partial contact-induced grammaticalisation. Stolz explains differences observed between contact results in different languages with language-typological as well as sociolinguistic factors. In this respect, his approach differs from that of Matras, who regards interaction management as the dominant category governing contact-induced effects. Ultimately, linguistic elements may shift into a new formal class and thereby change their functional behaviour with respect to connectivity too. Under a functional-pragmatic perspective, grammaticalization can be characterized as a process whereby complex procedures are transposed within a linguistic field or to a new linguistic field (such as procedural ensembles in the case of matrix constructions or composite deictics; cf. Rehbein, this vol., Johnen and Meyer, this vol.). Restructuring within the utterance may then be the consequence of an increase in context dependence, as in the case of shift towards aspect semantics of the converb constructions in Japanese (Shibatani, this vol.). In bilingual language acquisition, connective elements seem to play an important role, all the more so since connective elements make up a large part of all functional elements (Muysken 2000). Natascha Müller (this volume) notes that in certain grammatical domains – e.g. null-subject properties, object clitics, complementation – there is not an absolute separation of languages in bilingual acquisition (cf. Meisel 1989, Genesee 1989, Genesee, Nicoladis and Paradis 1995 etc.), but some amount of positive



Connectivity as an object of linguistics

cross-linguistic influence, which may result in a partial acceleration of acquisition processes on both sides. She relates these findings to the concept of a common syntaxpragmatics interface, where a shared pragmatic module may help in preparing the ground for syntactic acquisition in both languages. Müller also argues, based on Lopez (2003), that “phases” in the sense of Chomsky’s (2001) theory of syntactic derivation can be interpreted pragmatically. Thus, both in German and in French matrix constructions, pragmatically interpreted subordinated structures can be classified as connectives according to factors of presuppositions and language contrast, independently of their formal-syntactic means of expressing subordination (with or without the complementizer dass/que). A comparable finding is the reinterpretation of Turkish aspecto-temporal finite forms as deictic terms in Turkish–German bilingualism (Rehbein and Karakoç 2004, Karakoç, this vol. cf. below).

3.3

Pronouns, topics and subjects

Topic as a central formative element of thematic organization is a subdomain of linguistic information processing. The manifestation of topic connectivity (see e.g. Aarssen 1998) is strongly sensitive to typological parameters. Languages can be ordered typologically along a continuum between “subject-prominent” and “topic-prominent” (cf. Li and Thompson 1976). Of these, the subject-prominent languages make more heavily use of phoric expressions and can therefore also be characterized as “phoric languages”. On this scale, languages like Japanese and Turkish are more on the topicprominent side, while German, English and French are more on the subject-prominent (phoric) side. This distinction partly correlates with the distinction made in UGbased approaches between “Pro-drop” (or “Null Subject”) and “Non Pro-drop” (or “Non-Null Subject”) languages (Jaeggli and Safir 1989, Haegeman 1997, Rizzi 1997). Phoric expressions (~ PRO-elements) are the “pronouns” of the 3rd person (German er, sie, es; English he, she, it; French il, elle; including their case-inflected forms). In many languages these have no free-word counterparts. The difference between phoric and deictic “pronouns” (“pronoms”) was pointed out first by Benveniste (1956). The purpose of phoric expressions is to encode the continuity of a topic in such a way as to keep it mentally activated for the hearer/reader (Hoffmann 1997: 844f.) PRO-elements are thus linguistic devices of connectivity typical of phoric languages. Their syntactic distribution is often identical with that of free noun phrases; in particular, they can take up subject or object positions, typically depending on the valency of the verb. Grammatically, these phoric elements are pronouns in the narrow sense. On the other hand, phoric elements may be clitics (as in the Romance languages, some Semitic languages, or in spoken German): In Greek (Chrystalla Thoma, this volume), cliticized, weak phoric pronouns have developed. They are employed for topicalization procedures under “clitic object doubling” (cf. Haberland and van der Auwera 1990). Thoma states an interrelationship between the preverbal position of unstressed





Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch

third person (weak) pronouns and the deployment of discourse pragmatic functions within the historical language development. “In Early Modern Greek, fronted elements, not necessarily contrastive, attract clitic pronouns to pre-verbal position, until that position becomes the norm and is grammaticalised in Standard Modern Greek. A similar process has taken place in the Romance languages...” (Thoma, this volume; cf. also Janse 2000). It seems to be of high interest that phoric elements of this kind have been developed in an otherwise topic-based language, and despite the fact that other topic based languages were spoken in the environment of the Greek language. An instance where the coding of connectivity is affected by the case-marking on pronouns comes from Irish English (Lukas Pietsch, this volume). In Irish English (Hiberno-English), gerund constructions are found to have changed their syntactic behaviour under contact with Irish. While Standard English in such constructions displays case marking properties that overtly reflect the subordinate character of the construction (either accusative or genitive), Hiberno-English developed a usage of nominative subject pronouns instead. Pietsch argues that this morphological change reflects a change in the underlying syntactic properties of the constructional pattern, obliterating the effect of “subject-to-object raising” (or “exceptional case marking”) that motivates the predominant accusative marking in the Standard English system. Hiberno-English has replicated a pattern from Irish where subject pronouns fail to mark their subordinate status by means of case. Interestingly, Irish itself, while lacking the device of case marking to make this distinction, employs another, syntactic one, marking subordinate clauses by means of different word order. As this syntactic distinction was not replicated in English, the net effect is that the contact variety shows an overall reduction in the overt coding of subordination, having fewer overt formal differences between non-finite subclauses and finite clauses than either of the two source languages have.

3.4

Finiteness in text and discourse

The connectivity created by finite elements (cf. Bisang 2001, Johanson 1994, 1999b) results from the fact that a finite element is characterised by its role as the carrier of predication, the procedure whereby a predicate is assigned to an argument. Lars Johanson (this volume) discusses a type of “chain sentence” characteristic of Turkish literary language, where there is a series of non-finite utterances anchored in the narrative constellation only through the basic finite element at the very end, thus establishing aspectual/temporal, modal and illocutionary features of the earlier utterances only in retrospect. The role of finiteness may also be sensitive to parameters of text and discourse type. For instance, as Johanson remarks, there was an influence of French prose on the structuring of connectivity in late Ottoman literature. (Cf. also Johanson 1971, 1992a). Birsel Karakoç (this volume) finds that bilingual German-Turkish children acquire finite elements in Turkish later than monolingual Turkish children. In monolingual Turkish these finite elements have a function of establishing connectivity on a discourse-type



Connectivity as an object of linguistics

level. In contrast, the bilinguals develop a stronger use of a range of temporal deictic expressions to extend their linguistic capabilities in Turkish. The difference is most marked in the use of the Turkish evidential suffixes. (Cf. also Rehbein and Karakoç 2004).

3.5

Subordination – coordination

Subordination includes phenomena such as attribution, relativization, and complementation. Depending on the language, these phenomena may manifest themselves in grammatical elements such as complementizers, relativizers, wh-elements, case, non-finiteness, or syntactic position (Mackenzie 1984, Haiman and Thompson 1988, Redder 1990, Fabricius-Hansen 1992, Müller 1993, Verhagen 2001 a.o.). An important typological parameter in this respect is that of “deranking” of verb forms, which can be described along a cline from finite through subjunctive to nonfinite (cf. Croft 2001, ch. 9). Celia Kerslake (this volume) presents a classification of subordinate clauses in Turkish. Of special interest is a type of finite subordinate clause with a subordinator in the initial position, because it does not fit the canonical typological classificatory assumptions of Turkish as a left-branching word order language. This phenomenon is contact-related, as the subordinator in question, ki, which introduces subordinate clauses with a postnominal or postpredicative placement, is borrowed from Persian. In Persian its meanings include ‘that’, ‘who’, ‘which’, ‘when’, ‘so that’, etc. Kerslake concludes: that “wherever Turkish (or another Turkic language) is exposed to prolonged contact with a politically and/or demographically dominant Indo-European language (Iranian, Slavic, Germanic, etc), there is a strong tendency for attrition to occur in the indigenous (left-branching, non-finite) type of subordinate clause in favour of finite right-branching clauses introduced by a subordinating conjunction [...]” (Kerslake, this vol.; for the grammatical background, s. Göksel and Kerslake 2005). In Turkish, ki-constructions serve the language-internal management of pragmatic and rhetorical purposes, in a way that meets psycholinguistic (universal) requirements of language processing in spoken language. This renders ki a linker of finite clauses to a postpredicative subordination and, in this way, enables speakers to process unplannend propositions in a syntactic-semantic relationship. Coordinating connectivity is often described as symmetric, but it may actually link any kind of element (conjunct) to any kind of preceding element (conjunct) (cf. Haspelmath ed. 2004). Coordination is mostly concerned with the linking of propositional elements (cf. Redder 2006). Through coordination, that conjunct which is set off from the coordinator through a structural cesura is categorially upgraded and turned into the lead category for the other conjunct (cf. Matras 1997, 1998). While coordinating connectivity may join individual words or phrases within an utterance, it can also join entire utterances, illocutionary acts or even whole linguistic actions to each other. Annette Herkenrath (this volume), in a corpus-based study comparing bilingual acquisition of Turkish and German in Germany with monolingual acquisition of Turkish in Turkey, finds differences in the functional diversification of the discourse con-





Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch

nective işte. A specific coordinative use abundant in Turkish narrative discourse seems to be lost or play a minor role in German Turkish (cf. Herkenrath, Karakoç and Rehbein 2003). Acquired late even by monolinguals as a linguistic device of sequential and concatenative discourse connectivity (cf. Özbek 2000, Yılmaz 2004), this kind of discourse coordination thus may be undergoing functional change in German Turkish. Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert (this vol.) conduct a corpus-based study of functional characteristics of coordinating elements in diverse languages – Modern English and German, Old Swedish and Turkish. They demonstrate how such an approach can lead to conclusions with regard to more general insights into coordination. Thus, they hypothesize that coordinating connectives may undergo functional innovation or diversification triggered by coordination on macrosyntactic textual and discourse level. They also consider general issues regarding computer­aided quantitative and qualitative methods of corpus analysis.

3.6

Adverbials, particles, and constructions

Adverbial constructions (cf. e.g. van der Auwera 1998) serve to relate a base construction to preestablished knowledge, and to add a new knowledge relation or evaluation to it. Karin Aijmer (this volume) focusses on the range of functions displayed by the item indeed, drawing particular attention to a number of rhetorical functions associated with it (cf. White 2003). Through a process of gradual grammaticalization, this item has developed functions as a discourse marker (cf. Schiffrin 1987, Fraser 1990, Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen 2006). Observing textual choices made by translators, Aijmer finds that indeed tends to attract special attention when used as an adverbial, as it tends to be explicitly rendered more regularly than other types of connectives, which are often omitted in translation. Complex composite adverbials, like in fact, any time, in addition, often stand extra­ posed at the sentence periphery, joining the base construction to which they are attached, with overarching large-scale textual segments. Thus they act as hinges, joining larger propositional structures (such as argumentations) with the more specific speech actions of which they are part. Kristin Bührig and Juliane House (this volume) call such connectives “linking constructions” (cf. also Bührig 2003, Leuschner 1998 on options of these constructions for grammaticalization). In complex texts, they can also be used as advance organizers which vary cross-linguistically (cf. Gülich 1970, Clyne 1987 a.o.). Particles form another subgroup of connectives to be mentioned here (for literature in a cross-linguistic/contrastive perspective, cf. Fischer 2006, Weydt 1983, 1987, König 1991, Liedke 1994, Nekula 1996, Cardenes Melián 1997, van der Wouden, Foolen and van de Craen 2003, and others). Generally speaking, particles stand in a threefold relation: (1) they establish a relation to a preceding linguistic action, mostly in propositional and illocutionary terms; (2) they modify the propositional content of the utterance of which they are part, by taking a certain part of the propositional content



Connectivity as an object of linguistics

of their utterance into their scope; (3) in addition, they link the content of the utterance with the knowledge of the hearer, especially with respect to the evaluation of the propositional content being received; in doing so they act upon the illocution of the speech action in which they are used. The Japanese language is notorious for its manifold particles, whose functions range from purely grammatical operations, such as ‘case’, to illocutionary tasks, such as ‘interrogative’, and many more. Yuko Sugita (this volume) investigates a functional expansion observed in the Japanese mono-moraic and pitchless ‘quotative’ particle to in oral business reports. She finds that this complementizer is used recurrently in utterance final position, serving as a device for non-linear information processing over larger parts of interrelated concatenative discourse. Matrix constructions, a class of complex formulae which often comprise constructions of reported speech, have connective functions not necessarily limited to the scope of a single utterance. The study of Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer (this volume) on interpreted doctor-patient communication shows that different grammatical parts of the reported speech construction may realize different functions in discourse. Especially the lexical (symbol field) component of the matrix reflects the attitude of the interpreter towards what s/he reports in order to qualify the reported information for the hearer-patient: “Whereas Turkish diyor and Portuguese dizer que (to say) are mainly used to trace propositional parts to their source, thus indicating reliability, the German meinen with third person (he/she means) is used mainly to refer to some kind of deficiency in the source language discourse.” (Johnen and Meyer, this vol.). Matrix constructions establish utterance-internal connections between propositional acts and expressions of thinking, believing, speaking, feeling and the like (i.e. the symbol field of knowledge and its verbalization), employing a wide possible range of language-specific means (for a comparative analysis of Japanese and German matrix constructions cf. Hohenstein 2004). Their utterance-external connective function in discourse and text is concerned with joining hearer knowledge unto the speaker knowledge related to the current utterance. Following a proposal by Bührig (2002), this function can be characterized as “interaction coherence” (Jochen Rehbein, this volume). This book assembles a broad range of topics in the domain of connectivity in multilingual constellations and/or in a cross-linguistic perspective. Future research, then, might be directed at establishing a theoretically and empirically based classification of connectives and at elaborating the systematic (and maybe partly universal) architecture of their grammatical forms and communicative functions across languages. Such a classification might also contribute to a better understanding of multilingual language acquisition, of language contact and of the finely granulated stages of grammaticalization, whether instantaneous or gradual. We wish to conclude by deeply thanking our colleagues who agreed to anonymously review the articles in this collection and who by their critical comments and their suggestions helped to achieve a higher degree of clarity and precision. It goes





Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch

without saying that the responsibility for any mistakes that may have been overlooked lies with the authors and ourselves.

References Aarssen, J. 1998. Acquisition of topic continuity in Turkish children’s narratives. In The Mainz Meeting. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, L. Johanson (ed.), 501–516. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A. (eds). 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bakker, P. and Mous, M. (eds.). 1994. Mixed Languages. 15 case studies in language intertwining. Amsterdam: IFOTT. Bakker, P. 2003. Mixed languages as autonomous systems. In The Mixed Language Debate. Theoretical and empirical advances, Matras, Y. and Bakker, P. (eds.), 107–151. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Behrens, B. and Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2002. Connectives in Contrast: A discourse semantic study of elaboration based computer research. In Information Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, H. Hasselgard, S. Johansson, B. Behrens and C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds), 45–61. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Benveniste, É. 1956. �������������������������� La nature des pronoms. In Problèmes de linguistique générale, 251–257. Paris: Gallimard. Berman R. A. 1998. Typological perspectives on connectivity. In Issues in the theory of language acquisition, N. Dittmar and Z. Penner (eds), 203–224. Bern: Peter Lang. Berman R. A. and Slobin, D. (ed.). 1994. Relating Events in Narrative. A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bisang, W. 1995. Verb serialization and converbs – differences and similarities. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds –, M. Haspelmath, and E. König (eds), 137–188. Berlin: �������������������������� Mouton de Gruyter. Bisang, W. 1998a. Grammaticalization ������������������������������������������������������������������������� and language contact, constructions and positions. In The Limits of Grammaticalization, A. G. Ramat and P. J. Hopper (eds), 13–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bisang, W. 1998b. Structural similarities of clause combining in Turkic, Mongolian, ManchuTungusic and Japanese – a typological alternative to the hypothesis of a genetic relationship. In The Mainz Meeting. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, L. Johanson (ed.), 199–223. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bisang, W. 2001. ������������������������������������ Finite vs. non finite languages. ��� In Language Typology and Language Universals, M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible, W. (eds), 1400–1413. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bührig, K. 2002. Interactional coherence in discussions and everyday story telling: On considering the role of ‘auf jeden Fall’ and ‘jedenfalls’. In ��� Rethinking Sequentiality, A. Fetzer and C. Meierkord (eds)������������������������������������� , 273–290. Amsterdam: �������������������������� John Benjamins. Bührig, K. 2003. ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� Zur Funktionalität von ‘auf jeden Fall’ und ‘jedenfalls’. Untersuchungen ������������������� zur Zusammenhangbildung in Text und Diskurs. Universität Hamburg: Habilitationsschrift.



Connectivity as an object of linguistics

Bührig, K. and House, J. 2004. Connectivity in translation. Transitions from orality to literacy. In Multilingual Communication, J. House and J. Rehbein (eds), 87–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cambourian, A. (ed.). 2001. ������ Textkonnektoren und andere textstrukturierende Einheiten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Cardenes Melián, J. 1997. Aber, denn, doch, eben und ihre spanischen Entsprechungen. Eine funktional-pragmatische Studie zur Übersetzung deutscher Partikeln. Münster: ���������������� Waxman. Chafe,W. 1988. Linking intonation units in spoken English. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds), 1–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Clyne, M. 1987. Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 211–247. Clyne, M. 2003. Dynamics of Language Contact. English and immigrant languages. Cambridge: CUP. Conte M., Petöfi, J. and E. Sözer, E. 1989. Text and Discourse Connectedness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. de Beaugrande, R. 1980. Text, Discourse, and Process. Toward a multidisciplinary science of texts. London: Longman/Ablex. Edmondson, W.J. 1978. A note on pragmatic connectives. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, Utrecht 1978: 100–106. Ehlich, K. 1986. Interjektionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ehlich, K. 1987. Kooperation und sprachliches Handeln. In Kommunikation und Kooperation, F. Liedtke and R. Keller (eds), 17–32. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ehlich, K. 1991. Funktional-pragmatische Kommunikationsanalyse. Ziele und Verfahren. In Verbale Interaktion, D. Flader (ed.), 17–32. Stuttgart: Metzler. Fabricius-Hansen, C. 1992 Subordination. In Deutsche Syntax. Ansichten und Aussichten, L. Hoffmann (ed.), 458–483. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2000. Formen der Konnexion. In Text- und Gesprächslinguistik, Vol. I., K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann and S. F. Sager (eds), 331–343. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fandrych, C. and Graefen, G. 2002. Text commenting devices in German and English academic articles. Multilingua 21: 17–43. Fischer, K. (ed.). 2006. Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1]. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Foley, W. A. and Van Valin, R. D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383–395. Genesee, F. 1989. Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of Child Language 16: 161–179. Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E. and Paradis, J. 1995. Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language 22: 611–631. Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Givón, T. 1991. Serial verbs and the mental reality of ‘event’: Grammatical vs. Cognitive Packaging. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. I, E. Traugott and B. Heine (eds). 81–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.





Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch Givón, T. 1995. Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In Coherence in Spontaneous Text, M. A. Gernsberg and T. Givón (eds), 59–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grein, M. 1998. Mittel der Satzverknüpfung im Deutschen und im Japanischen. Eine typologischkontrastive Analyse. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag. Gülich, E. 1970. Makrosyntax der Gliederungssignale im gesprochenen Französisch. München: Fink. Haberland, H. and van der Auwera, J. 1990. Topics and clitics in Greek relatives. International Journal of Linguistics, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. Copenhagen: The Linguistic Circle of Copenhagen: 127–157. Haegeman, L. (ed.). 1997. The New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman. Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. A. (eds). 1988. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hasegawa, Y. 1996. A study of Japanese clause linkage: The connective TE in Japanese. Stanford: CSLI. Haspelmath, M. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Converbs in CrossLinguistic Perspective. Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms – Adverbial Participles, Gerunds –, M. Haspelmath, and E. König (eds), 1–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haspelmath, M. 2004. Coordinating Constructions: An overview. In Coordinating Constructions, id. (ed.), 3–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2005. Language Contact and grammatical Change. Cambridge: CUP. Herkenrath, A., Karakoç, B. and Rehbein, J. 2003. Interrogative elements as subordinators in Turkish – Aspects of Turkish-German bilingual children’s language use. In (In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism I], N. Müller (ed.), 219– 267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heydrich, W., Neubauer, F., Petöfi, J. S. and E. Sözer (eds). 1989. Connexity and Coherence: Analysis of text and discourse. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hohenstein, C. 2004. A comparative analysis of Japanese and German complement constructions with matrix verbs of thinking and believing: To omou and ich glaube. In Multilingual Communication [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 3], J. House and J. Rehbein (eds), 303–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hohenstein, C. 2005. Interactional expectations and Linguistic Knowledge in academic expert discourse (Japanese/German), International Journal of the Sociology of language, 175/176: 285–306. Hohenstein, C. 2006a. Kausale konnektivität in der deutschen un der japanischen Wissenschaftssprache. In Mehrsprachige individuenrechtsprachige Gesellschaften, D. Wolff (ed.), 155–178. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Hohenstein, C. 2006b. Sind Handlungsmuster mehrsprachig? Erklären im Wissenschaftlichen Vortrag deutsch/japanisch. In Praxen der Mehrsprachigkeit. K. Ehrlich and A. Hornung (eds), 155–194, Münster-Waxmann. Hohenstein, C. 2006 c. Erklärendes Handeln im ‘Wissenschaftlichen Vortrag’: Ein Vergleich des Deutschen mit dem Japanischen. München: Iudicium. Hoffmann, L. 1997. Thematische Organisation von Text und Diskurs. In Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, G. Zifonun, L. Hoffmann and B. Strecker (eds), 507–591. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Horie, K. (ed.). 2000. Complementation: Cognitive and functional perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins House, J. 2006. Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 338–358.



Connectivity as an object of linguistics

House, J. and Kasper, G. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In Conversational Routine. Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech, F. Coulmas (ed.), 157–185. The Hague: Mouton. House, J. and Rehbein, J. 2004. What is ‘multilingual communication’? In Multilingual Communication [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 3], J. House and J. Rehbein (eds), 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jaeggli, O. and Safir, K. J. 1989. The null subject parameter and parametric theory. In The Null Subject Parameter, O. Jaeggli and K. J. Safir (eds), 1–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Jakobson, R. 1957 [1971]. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected Writings II. 130–147. The Hague: Mouton. Janse, M. 2000. Convergence and divergence in the development of the Greek and Latin pronouns. In Stability, Variation and Change of Word-Order Patterns over Time, R. Sornicola, E. Poppe and A. Shisha-Halevy (eds) 230–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Johanson, L. 1971. Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems. Uppsala: Alquist and Wiksell. Johanson, L. 1992a. Periodische Kettensätze im Türkischen. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 82: 201–211. Johanson, L. 1992b. Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten. Stuttgart: Steiner Johanson, L. 1994. Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora. In Tense Systems in European Languages, R. Thieroff and J. Ballweg (eds), 247–266. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Johanson, L. 1995. On Turcic converb clauses. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – Adverbial participles, gerunds –, M. Haspelmath, and E. König (eds), 313–347. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Johanson, L. 1999a. The dynamics of code-copying in language encounters. In Language Encounters across Time and Space. Studies in language contact, B. Brendemoen, B. and E. Lanza (eds), 37–62. Oslo: Novus. Johanson, L. 1999b. Viewpoint operators in European languages. In Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, Ö. Dahl (ed.), 27–187. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kerslake, C. 1996. The role of connectives in discourse construction in Turkish. In Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics, A. Konrot (ed.), 77–104. Eskişehir: Anadolu University. König, E. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge. König, E. and van der Auwera, J. 1988. Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds), 101–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kortmann, B. 1996. Adverbial Subordination. A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Leuschner, T. 1998. At the boundaries of grammaticalization. What interrogatives are doing in concessive conditionals. In The Limits of Grammaticalization, A. G. Ramat and P. J. Hopper (eds), 159–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Li, Ch. N. and Thompson, S. A. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Subject and Topic, C. N. Li (ed.), 457–489. New York: Academic Press. Liedke, M. 1994. Die Mikro-Organisation der Verständigung. Diskursuntersuchungen zu griechischen und deutschen Partikeln. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. López, L. 2003. Steps for a well-adjusted dislocation. Studia Linguistica 57(3): 193–231. Mackenzie, J. L. 1984. Communicative functions of subordination. In English Language Research: The Dutch contribution 1, J. L. Mackenzie and H. Wekker (eds), 67–84. Amsterdam: Vrije Uni Press.





Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch Matras Y. 1996. Prozedurale Fusion: Grammatische Interferenzschichten im Romanes. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49(1): 60–78. Matras Y. 1997. The function and typology of coordinating conjunctions: Evidence from discourse and language-contact situations. In Discourse and Pragmatics in Functional Grammar, J. H. Connolly, R. M. Vismans, C. S. Butler and R. A. Gatward (eds), 177–191. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Matras, Y. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals as grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36: 281–331. Matras, Y. 2000. Mixed languages: A functional-communicative approach. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3: 79–99. Matras, Y. 2002. Romani. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: CUP. Matras, Y. and Bakker, P. (eds) 2003. The Mixed Language Debate. Theoretical and empirical advances. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Matthiessen, C. and Thompson, S. A. 1988. The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson, S. A. (eds), 275–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meisel, J. M. 1989. Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In Bilingualism across Lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity and loss, K. Hyltenstam and L. Obler (eds), 13–40. Cambridge: CUP. Mori, J. 1999. Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective expressions and turn construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Müller, N. 1993. Komplexe Sätze. Der Erwerb von COMP und von Wortstellungsmustern bei bilingualen Kindern (Französisch/Deutsch). Tübingen: Narr. Müller, N. (ed.) 2003. (In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism [Hamburg Studies in Multilingualism 1]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Muysken, P. 2000. Bilingual Speech. A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: CUP. Myhill J. and J. Hibiya 1988. The discourse function of clause-chaining. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds), 361–398. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nekula, M. 1996. System der Partikeln im Deutschen und Tschechischen. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Abtönungspartikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Onodera, N. 2004. Japanese Discourse Markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Özbek, N. 2000. Yani, işte, şey, ya: Interactional markers of Turkish. In Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, A. Göksel and C. Kerslake (eds), 393–401. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Park, Y.Y. 1998. A discourse analysis of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation: With special reference to the context of dispreferred responses. In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and theory, A.-H. Jucker and Y. Ziv (eds), 277–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Redder, A. 1990. Grammatiktheorie und sprachliches Handeln: ’denn’ und ‘da’. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Redder, A. 2006. Konjunktor. To appear in Handbuch Wortarten, L. Hoffmann (ed.). Berlin: de Gruyter Rehbein, J. 1995a. Über zusammengesetzte Verweiswörter und ihre Rolle in argumentierender Rede. In Wege der Argumentationsforschung, H. Wohlrapp (ed.), 166–197. Stuttgart-BadCannstatt: Frommann-holzboog. Rehbein, J. 1995b. Grammatik kontrastiv – am Beispiel von Problemen mit der Stellung finiter Elemente. Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache 21: 265–292.



Connectivity as an object of linguistics 

Rehbein, J. 1999. Zum Modus von Äußerungen. In Grammatik und mentale Prozesse, A. Redder and J. Rehbein (eds), 91–139. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Rehbein, J. 1999a. Konnektivität im Kontrast. Zu Struktur und Funktion türkischer Konverbien und deutscher Konjunktionen, mit Blick auf ihre Verwendung durch monolinguale und bilinguale Kinder. In Türkisch und Deutsch im Vergleich, L. Johanson and J. Rehbein (eds), 189–243. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rehbein, J. 2002. Pragmatische Aspekte des Kontrastierens von Sprachen – Türkisch und Deutsch im Vergleich. Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B (Nr. 40). In Eröffnungsreden und Tagungsbeiträge des VII. Türkischen Germanistikkongresses, S. Yıldız, N. Ülner, K. Halm Karadeniz u.a. (eds), 15–58. Ankara: Hacettepe University. Rehbein, J. and Kameyama, S. 2003. Pragmatik. In Sociolinguistics / Soziolinguistik. An international handbook of the science of language and society, (2nd ed.), U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier and P. Trudgill (eds), 556–588. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Rehbein, J. and Karakoç, B. 2004. On contact-induced language change of Turkish aspects: Languaging in bilingual discourse. In Languaging and Language practices [Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism 36], C. B. Dabelsteen and N. Jørgensen (eds), 129–155. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. Rizzi, L. 1997a. A parametric approach to comparative syntax: Properties of the pronominal system. In The New Comparative Syntax, L. Haegeman (ed.), 268–285. London: Longman. Rudolph, E. 1996. Contrast. Adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on sentence and text level. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. Schourup, L. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation: like, well, y’know. New York NY: Garland. Slobin D. I. 1988. The development of clause chaining in Turkish child language. In Studies on Turkish linguistics, S. Koç (ed.), 27–54. Ankara: Middle East Technical University (METU). Stolz, T. 2003. Not quite the right mixture: Chamorro and Malti as candidates for the status of mixed language. In The Mixed Language Debate. Theoretical and empirical advances, Y. Matras and P. Bakker (eds), 271–315. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Stolz, C. and Stolz, T. 1996/1997. Universelle Hispanismen? Von Manila über Lima bis Mexiko und zurück. Muster bei der Entlehnung spanischer Funktionswörter in die indigenen Sprachen Amerikas und Austronesiens. Orbis XXXIX, 1996–1997, 1–77. Unger, C. 1996. The scope of discourse connectives. Implications for discourse organization. Journal of Linguistics 32(2): 403–438. van der Auwera, J. 1998. Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. van der Auwera, J. and Bultinck, B. 2001. On the lexical typology of modals, quantifiers, and connectives. In Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse, I. Kenesei, R. Harnish and J. Gervain (eds), 173–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van der Wouden, T., Foolen, A. and van de Craen, P. (eds.). 2003. Particles. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16. van Dijk, T. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 447–456. van Valin R. D. and R. J. LaPolla 1997 Syntax. Structure, meaning and function, Cambridge: CUP. Verhagen, A. 2001. Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited: Or, why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements. In Text Representation: Linguistic and psy-



Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein, Lukas Pietsch cholinguistic aspects, T. Sanders, J. Schilperood and W. Spooren (eds), 337–357. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Weydt, H. (ed.). 1979. Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Weydt, H. (ed.). 1983. Partikeln und Interaktion. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Weydt, H. 1987. Partikel-Bibliographie: Internationale Sprachenforschung zu Partikeln und Interjektionen. Frankfurt: PeterLang. White, P. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2): 259–284. Yılmaz, E. 2004. A Pragmatic Analysis of Turkish Discourse Particles: yani, işte, and şey. PhD dissertation. Ankara: Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical University.

section 1

Aspects of language change and language acquisition

Grammaticalization of converb constructions The case of Japanese -te conjunctive constructions Masayoshi Shibatani Rice University, Austin

This paper examines the patterns of grammaticalization of motion verbs (verbs of coming and going) in Japanese converb complex predicate constructions. The -te converb form is the most widely used connective device in Japanese, and the forms combining with motion verbs are among the most frequently used converb constructions in the language. Among the -te converb constructions involving motion verbs, those that appear to have grammaticalized are most numerous in the corpus data. Detailed examinations of the decategorialization pattern of the motion verbs involved indicate a clear cline of grammaticalization, which contradicts some earlier studies such as Teramura (1984) and Hasegawa (1996). The paper also addresses a number of important issues in grammaticalization studies and questions some of the current understandings of them, which include the following: (1) What drives grammaticalization – frequency of use and metaphor (Traugott and Heine 1991; Heine, Claudi, and Hünnemeyer 1991)? (2) What are the possible paths of grammaticalization in the development of temporal meanings from motion verbs (Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994)? (3) Are grammaticalization processes always gradual (Bybee, Pagliuca and Perkins 1991; Brinton and Traugott 2005)?

1. Introduction Japanese -te conjunctive constructions, illustrated in (1) below, share functional similarities with both converb constructions of the Altaic family (e.g., Turkic converb constructions) and verb serialization constructions widely observed across languages. Indeed, a legitimate typological question is whether there is any substantial difference between these two types of constructions.1 (1) a. Wareware-wa eki-kara densya-ni not-te Ochanomizu-made it-ta. we-TOP station-from train-on ride-CON Ochanomizu-up to go-PAST ‘We rode on a train and went to Ochanomizu.’



Masayoshi Shibatani

b. Midori-wa sanzi-sugi-ni kaet-te ki-ta. Midori-TOP three-past-LOC return-CON come-PAST ‘Midori returned (return come) at past three o’clock.’ (Haruki Murakami Norwegian Wood) A major reason for our using the label “converb construction” (as opposed to “serial verb construction”) for the Japanese construction involving -te – a conjunctive particle in the parts-of-speech classification of traditional Japanese grammar – is to highlight the presence of this particle, which marks the non-finiteness of the clause, thereby signaling the existence of a following finite verb or (truncated) clause. The presence of the marker with varying names such as conjunction, linker, converb ending, non-finite marker, etc. is relevant to the general discussion of the grammaticalization process of converb and serial verb constructions. In his discussion of the grammaticalization of motion and other types of verbs in Lhasa Tibetan, DeLancey (1991) recognizes a stage where the non-finite marker is lost and a contiguous verb sequence is created. This is an important step in the chain of reanalysis from clause chaining constructions to verb serialization and to auxiliarization of relevant types of verb. A similar verb contiguity requirement is stipulated by Foley and Olsen (1985:45–46) in their reanalysis of core layer junctures to nuclear layer junctures, whereby a verb sequence is created from VP-like conjunctions (see also Lord 1993, Hopper and Traugott 1993). This paper shows that, contrary to these assumptions, both complex predicates and their grammaticalization obtain across a conjunctive or non-finite marker (see Shibatani and Chung 2005). The grammaticalization of certain converb constructions is implied by the term hozyo-doosi ‘helping verbs’ in traditional Japanese grammar in reference to the finite verb involved in these constructions. That is, by calling the verbal form ki-ta ‘comePAST’ in (1b) above a helping verb as opposed to a (main) verb, traditional grammar recognizes some degree of decategorialization of this form in contradistinction to the full verb status accorded to it-ta ‘go-PAST’ in (1a), where no grammaticalization is involved. This paper is concerned with the grammaticalization of converb constructions involving specifically motion verbs of coming (kuru) and going (iku) as in (1) above. The rationale for this focus is manifold, but we first note the fact that converbs are among the most widely used clause linkage devices in Japanese (see Table 1 below). Secondly, according to Grein’s (1998:284) count, 136 out of 203 occurrences of converb forms in her data were instances of the -te form.



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

Table 1.  Distribution of clause-linkage devices in Japanese (adapted from Grein 1998:286) Device

Number

Percentage

203 154

40.1% 30.4%

68 50 31 506

14.2% 9.6% 5.7% 100.0%

Converbs Functional nouns Adverbial subordinators Complementizers Coordinators TOTAL

Thirdly, it is also noteworthy that grammaticalized -te constructions most frequently occur in this construction type, as can be seen from the following table from Schmidt (2004), which describes the distribution of different functions in -te converb constructions. Table 2. ���������������� Function of the -te converb (based on Schmidt 2004) Function

Text A

Text B

Text C

Grammaticalized Narrative Subordinate Symmetric

181 102 27 0

54.4% 32.9% 8.7% 0.0%

335 100 34 0

71.4% 21.3% 7.3% 0.0%

80 31 15 0

65.1% 23.5% 11.4% 0.0%

TOTAL

309

100.0%

468

100.0%

132

100.0%

Finally, constructions involving verbs of coming and going are among the most frequently seen in the grammaticalized usage of the -te converb form (see Table 3). The goal of this paper is to explicate the nature and pattern of grammaticalization in converb constructions involving the two motion verbs of iku ‘go’ and kuru ‘come’. This, in turn, will help us better understand the process of “auxiliarization” implicit in the term hozyo doosi ‘helping verb’ in traditional Japanese grammatical terminology. Theoretical questions of wider relevance raised in this paper include the form-function correlation of connected events, instantaneous vs. gradual grammaticalization, contexts facilitating grammaticalization, and the paths of grammaticalization.



Masayoshi Shibatani

Table 3.  Token frequency of grammaticalized converb constructions in three texts (according to Christopher Schmidt’s unpublished survey) V-te iru ‘exist’ V-te oru ‘exist’

301 1

(progressive/resultative) (progressive/resultative)

V-te iku ‘go’ V-te kuru ‘come’

48

(deictic)

47

(deictic)

V-te simau ‘finish’

27

(completive)

V-te kureru ‘be given’ V-te yaru ‘give’ V-te sasiageru ‘give’

23

(benefactive)

4 1

(benefactive) (benefactive)

V-te miru ‘look’ V-te goran ‘look’ V-te miseru ‘show’

18

‘try doing V’

V-te morau ‘receive’ V-te ii ‘good’

12

(self-benefactive)

12

‘may V’

V-te oku ‘put’

10

‘V in preparation of X’

V-te aru ‘exist’

9

(resultative)

A-te naranai I ‘won’t

5

‘cannot help but being A’

V-te hosii ‘want�’

1

(desiderative)

1 1

‘try doing V’ ‘show off V-ing’

Topics bearing on the central theme of this paper include the relationship between the grammaticalized constructions and clause chaining constructions of the following type: (2) Sorekara watasitati itumono-yooni syokudoo-de and then we as usual dinning room-in gohan-o tabe-te, ohuro hait-te, sorekara totteokino meal-ACC eat-CON bath enter-CON and then choicest zyootoono wain ake-te hutari-de non-de, superior wine open-CON two-by drink-CON watasi-ga gitaa hii-ta no. I-NOM guitar play-PAST FP ‘And then we ate our meal in the dining room, took a bath, and then opened the choicest super-quality wine (and we) two drank, (and) I played the guitar. ’ (Haruki Murakami Norwegian Wood)



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

Prevailing views (DeLancey 1991 and others) in the field hold that grammaticalized converb/serial verb constructions arise from clause-chaining constructions via reanalysis. While it is necessary for us to contrast grammaticalized constructions with clausal conjunctions throughout this paper, we will not directly address this important question here and refer the readers to Shibatani and Chung (2005), which casts doubt on the reanalysis hypothesis.

2. Grammaticalized converb constructions as complex predicates Before discussing the grammaticalization patterns of converb constructions, it is necessary to point out that there are two kinds of possible verb sequence which are rendered similarly in orthographic or transliterated form. (3) a. Taroo-wa ringo-o tabe-te it-ta. Taroo-TOP apple-ACC eat-CON go-PAST ‘Taro ate an apple (and went away).’ b. Taroo-wa gakkoo-e ringo-o tabe-te, it-ta. Taroo-TOP school-to apple-ACC eat-CON go-PAST ‘Taro, having eaten an apple, went to school.’ c. [ Taroo-wa [ ringo-o tabe-te] gakoo-e it-ta] Taroo-TOP apple-ACC eat-CON school-to go-PAST ‘Taro, having eaten an apple, went to school.’ While (3a) and (3b) have the same verbal series of tabe-te it-ta ‘eat-CON go-PAST’, only the former instantiates a grammaticalized construction whose formal property is in constituting a single complex predicate. (3b) is a paraphrase of (3c), obtainable by moving the goal nominal gakoo-e ‘to school’ to position immediately before the subordinate clause. Indeed, the verb sequences in (3a) and (3b) differ both phonologically and grammatically. In the former, the sequence manifests the pitch pattern of a single word, whereas in the latter the two verbs retain their own pitch patterns: (4) a. b.

tabe-te it-ta ‘ate (and went away)’ LHHHH tabe- te it-ta ‘ate and went’ H L L LH

The Tokyo dialect is typical of many Japanese dialects in allowing a phonological word to have at most one stretch of high-pitched morae; accordingly, once a pitch fall occurs within a word, it can never rise in the subsequent morae of the same word. In (4b) for (3b) we see two high-pitched morae divided by a stretch of low-pitched morae indicating two (phonological) words. In (4a) for (3a), on the other hand, there is only one



Masayoshi Shibatani

stretch of high-pitched morae indicating that the verb sequence here forms a single phonological word. There is further indication that the verb sequence in (3a) forms a single predicate, while the similar sequence in (3b) and (3c) does not. Indirect evidence for this comes from the fact that (3a) is a single clause expression, while (3b) and (3c) involve a biclausal structure. The negative polarity item sika ‘only, save’ requires the presence of the negative morpheme –nai ‘not’ in its own clause at some stage of derivation.2 (5) a. *Taroo-wa [ Hanako-sika kit-a] =koto-o sir-ana-katta. Taro-TOP [ Hanako-only come-PAST] -COMP-ACC know-NEG-PAST ‘Taro didn’t know that only Hanako came.’ b. Taroo-wa [ Hanako-sika ko-na-katta] =koto-o sit-ta. Taro-TOP [ Hanako-only come-NEG-PAST] -COMP-ACC know-PAST ‘Taro found out that only Hanako came/(lit.) Taro knew that everyone save Hanako didn’t come.’ c. Taroo-sika [ Hanako-ga kita] =koto-o sir-ana-katta. Taro-only [ Hanako-NOM come-PAST] -COMP-ACC know-NEG-PAST ‘Only Taro knew that Hanako came/ (lit.) Everyone save Taro didn’t know that Hanako came.’ Now (6a) based on (3a) below is perfectly fine, indicating that sika and the negative ana occur in a single clause. But (6b) and (6c) – based on (3b) and (3c), respectively – are ungrammatical, indicating that sika and the negative morpheme occur in two separate clauses. (6) a. Taroo-wa ringo-sika tabe-te ik-ana-katta. Taro-TOP apple-only eat-CON go-NEG-PAST ‘Taro ate only an apple (and went away)/(lit.) Taro didn’t eat-go anything but an apple.’ b. *Taroo-wa gakkoo-e ringo-sika tabe-te ik-ana-katta. Taro-TOP school-to apple-only eat-CON go-NEG-PAST ‘Taro ate only an apple and didn’t go to school.’ c. *Taroo-wa ringo-sika tabe-te gakkoo-e ik-ana-katta. Taro-TOP apple-only eat-CON school-to go-NEG-PAST ‘Taro ate only an apple and didn’t go to school.’ What is particularly interesting about grammaticalized constructions in Japanese is that while they are words in both phonological and syntactic senses, they do not form morphological words. That is, they do not show the property of lexical integrity characteristic of morphological words. For example, (complex) morphological words involving suffixation and compounding do not permit insertion of a particle or word even at the morphological boundaries, but the converbs under consideration do, as shown below:



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

(7) a. tabe-rare-ru eat-PASS-PRES ‘to be eaten’

a’. *tabe-wa-rare-ru eat-TOP-PASS-PRES

b. tabe-aruk-u b’. *tabe-wa-aruk-u eat-walk-PRES eat-TOP-walk-PRES ‘walk around eating here and there’ c. tabe-te ik-u c’. tabe-te-wa ik-u (keredo) eat-CON go-PRES eat-CON-TOP go-PRES (although) ‘eat (and go away)’ ‘(although) (I) eat (and go away)’ (7a’) and (7b’) are impossible forms, whereas (7c’) is a perfectly formed expression with the topic marker wa inserted between the two verbal forms. Similarly, while morphological words do not permit modification of their parts, converbs permit such modification. For example, the compound form in (8a) below does not allow its second member to undergo the honorification process, although the honorification of the whole word is possible, as in (8a”). In contrast, an honorified finite verb within a converb construction is perfectly well-formed, as in (8b’). Notice furthermore that an entire converb construction cannot be honorified as a whole – see (8b”). (8) a. moti-age-ru a’. *moti-o-age-ni nar-u hold-raise-PRES ‘hold up (something)’

a”. o-moti-age-ni nar-u

b. mot-te ik-u hold-CON go-PRES ‘take (away)’

b”. *o-mot-te iki-ni nar-u

b’. mot-te o-iki-ni nar-u

The morphological modification patterns of the above type provide crucial tests for the degree of grammaticalization of the relevant converb constructions below. Grammaticalized converb constructions are thus interesting linguistic objects; they are words under both phonological and syntactic criteria, but not under morphological criteria.

3. The syntax of grammaticalized converb constructions 3.1

Teramura (1984) and Hasegawa (1996)

Teramura (1984) represents an early effort toward the understanding of the grammatical properties of grammaticalized converb constructions. First, with regard to the question of combinatorial possibilities of iku ‘go’ and kuru ‘come’ with various converbs, he presents the following table, intended to show the combinations of the two motion verbs with different kinds of verb as converbs:



Masayoshi Shibatani

Table 4.  Combinatorial possibilities of grammaticalized converb constructions according to Teramura (1984:163)

-te kuru ‘come’ -te iku ‘go’

umareru ‘to be born’

sinu ‘die’

mieru/kikoeru ‘visible/audible’

toozakaru ‘go away’

〇

×

〇

×

×

〇

×

〇

While the restrictions noted by Teramura appear to be correct, a quick Google search reveals that in fact all combinations noted in the table are possible. Teramura’s intuitions on the combinatorial possibilities appear to reflect the typicality of perspective chosen by native speakers rather than grammatical restrictions. For example, in the combinations of umareru ‘to be born’ and the two motion verbs, we are likely to view the birth of an entity from the perspective at which an entity emerges; hence the choice of kuru ‘come’ indicates that a movement toward the speaker is preferred. For verbs of disappearance such as sinu ‘die’, the entity disappearing is viewed from the perspective of existence; hence iku ‘go’ is preferred with such expressions. The following examples from Google indicate that speakers of Japanese can easily reverse these conventional perspectives, however, and allow various combinations that are identified as impossible by Teramura. (9) a. inoti-o sukuu-tabi kiboo-ga umare-te ik-u. life –ACC save-every.time hope-NOM be.born-CON go-PRES ‘Each time a life is saved, a hope is born.’ b.

gen-ga sin-de ku-ru =to rensyuusuru string-NOM die-CON come-PRES =when practice ki-ga use-te ku-ru... motivation-NOM lost-CON come-PRES ‘When strings [of a musical instrument] begin dying, motivation to practice becomes lost…’

c.

tamenteki, bunsekiteki-ni miru =koto-niyotte, zinkenkyooiku-no many.sided analytical-ADV look =COMP-by human.right.education-GEN genzyoo-to kadai-ga yori senmeini mie-te ik-u current.state-COM issues-NOM more clearly visible-CON go-PRES ‘By looking (at the problems) from a many sided and analytical angle, the current state and the issues of human rights education become visible even more clearly.’

d.

Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

kyuukyuusya-ga hanare-te ik-u =to sono sairen-no oto-wa ambulance-NOM go.away-CON go-PRES =when its siren-GEN sound-TOP tiisaku kikoe-te ik-u faintly audible-CON go-PRES ‘When the ambulance goes far way, the sound of its siren goes on being audible ever more faintly.’

e. haru-ga tikazui-te samusa-ga toozakat-te ku-ru=to… spring-NOM come.near-CON coldness-NOM go.far-CON come-PRES=when ‘When spring comes near and the coldness goes far away…’ These examples indicate one functional domain in which converb constructions have grammaticalized with a functional shift from a physical spatial domain to an abstract aspectual domain. Our initial focus in this paper, however, is on the degrees of grammaticalization seen in the spatial domain, where their patterns are harder to discern, due to the fact that the relevant motion verbs retain to a greater or lesser extent the original meaning of physical motion. In particular, we are concerned with the following types of expression, for which Teramura (1984) offers an analysis (indicated in the parentheses): (10) a. Taroo-wa koohii-o non-de ki-ta. (V-V) Taro-TOP coffee-ACC drink-CON come-PAST ‘Taro drank coffee (and came).’ b. Taroo-wa gakkoo-e arui-te it-ta. (v-V) Taro-TOP school-to walk-CON go-PAST ‘Taro walked (walk went) to school.’ c. Taroo-ga heya-ni hait-te ki-ta. (V-v) Taro-NOM room-to enter-CON come-PAST ‘Taro came (enter came) into the room.’ According to Teramura (1984: 157ff), expressions like (10a) depict two sequentially ordered actions; accordingly, both the converb and the finite motion verb function like main verbs (indicated by the capital V) connected by -te. In (10b), on the other hand, the converb modifies the motion verb, specifying in this example the manner of the going motion; accordingly, the relevant verbs are connected in a subordinate-main relationship, where the converb is subordinated (as indicated by the small v) to the main motion verb (indicated by V). In the case of (10c), the subordinatemain relationship is reversed, such that the converb (V) expresses the main action whose deictic orientation is indicated by the motion verb (v). According to Teramura’s analysis, the finite motion verbs in the expression type (10c) are most advanced in grammaticalization, turning themselves into something like deictic markers, whereas those in the expression types (10a) and (10b) retain the original verb status.



Masayoshi Shibatani

More recent work of Hasegawa (1996) is couched in the framework of Role and Reference Grammar, which pays special attention to issues of clause-linkage type. Hasegawa’s classification differs somewhat from Teramura’s reviewed above. The main syntactic division she draws is between nuclear coordination and nuclear subordination types. In the former, the converb and the finite motion verb are in a coordinate relation, together forming a complex nuclear (predicate). This analysis resembles Teramura’s V-V analysis in that the full verbal status of both the converb and the finite motion verb is recognized. The nuclear subordination type is similar to Teramura’s V-v analysis; hence the converb alone functions as a nuclear (predicate), with the finite verb functioning as a deictic operator. Hasegawa would classify the three types of expression in the following manner: (11) a. non-de kur-u (Nuclear coordination; Teramura’s V-V) drink-CON come-PRES ‘drink (and come)’ b. arui-te ik-u walk-CON go-PRES ‘go (by) walking’

(Nuclear coordination; Teramura’s v-V)

c. hait-te ku-ru enter-CON come-PRES ‘enter (come in)’

(Nuclear subordination; Teramura’s V-v)

There are both similarities and differences between the two analyses. Both Teramura and Hassegawa recognize a full verbal status for motion verbs in (11a) and (11b). While Teramura recognizes a diminished autonomy of the converb in (11b), Hasegawa considers the converb and the finite verb to be of equal status. As for (11c), Teramura recognizes some degree of verbiness in the finite motion verb, but Hasegawa considers it to have lost the predicate function completely, perhaps along with concomitant decategorialization from verb to deictic operator.3 Whether or not a degree of verbiness is intended in the representations of “v” and “V” by Teramura, or complete decategorialization is recognized for certain motion verbs in the relevant converb constructions by Hasegawa, the following discussion shows that their analyses do not accord well with the facts. In particular, it will be shown below that the iku/kuru ‘go/ come’ verbs in the non-de iku/kuru ‘drink-CON go/come’ type (10a, 11a) are least verb-like (contrary to Teramura and Hasegawa’s analyses), that motion verbs in the arui-te iku/kuru ‘walk-CON go/come’ type (10b, 11b) are most verb-like (agreeing with Teramura and Hasegawa’s analyses), and that those in the hait-te iku/kuru ‘enterCON go/come’ type (10c, 11c) are verb-like to a considerable extent, contra Teramura’s and Hasegawa’s analyses.



3.2

Grammaticalization of converb constructions

Cline of grammaticalization

While there appear to be both instantaneous and gradual aspects to the grammaticalization process (see Section 4 below), the framework of grammaticalization is especially attuned to the task of capturing gradual patterns of change in the status of lexical items. In particular, the changes to the motion verbs of coming and going in converb constructions within the grammaticalization framework reveal that these verbs do not change their category membership instantaneously, and that a synchronic description of them must recognize a cline of categoriality along a path of change from verb to auxiliary. The remainder of this section is devoted to a demonstration that the three relevant construction types are distributed along the following cline of grammaticalization: (12)

Less grammaticalized (More V-like) arui-te iku/kuru

(Teramura’s v-V; Hasegawa’s

walk-CON go/come

Nuclear coordination)

hait-te iku/kuru

(Teramura’s V-v; Hasegawa’s Nuclear subordination)

enter-CON go/come

non-de iku/kuru drink-CON go/come

(Teramura’s V-V; Hasegawa’s Nuclear coordination)

More grammaticalized (Less V-like)

Of the various possible combinations of converbs and motion verbs, we single out the above three patterns, since they exhaust Teramura’s representations of types in terms of the combination of V and v symbols – V-V, v-V, and V-v. In reality, the possibility exists that there are numerous intermediate types of combination interspersed among the three representative ones dealt with here. Of the three combination types, the arui-te kuru/iku ‘walk-CON come/go’ type represents combinations involving a motion verb and a manner of motion verb ( aruku ‘walk’, hasiru ‘run’, hau ‘crawl’, oyogu ‘swim’, tobu ‘fly’, etc.). In the following discussion, this type will be exemplified by expressions and glosses such as arui-te iku ‘walk come’ and hasit-te kuru ‘run come’. The hait-te iku/kuru ‘enter-CON go/come’ type represents combinations of a motion verb and a verb of change-of-location (deru ‘exit’, agaru ‘ascend’, oriru ‘descend’, otiru ‘fall’, etc.), and examples such as hait-te kuru ‘enter come’ and de-te iku ‘exit go’ illustrate this type of construction. Finally, the non-de iku/kuru ‘drink-CON go/come’ type represents combinations of a motion verb and a non-translational action (taberu ‘eat’, asobu ‘play’, sake-o nomu ‘drink sake’, eiga-o miru ‘see a movie’ etc.). In the following discussion, examples such as non-de kuru ‘drink come’ and tabe-te iku ‘eat go’ illustrate this type of construction. Thus even if the examples in the following discussion have the





Masayoshi Shibatani

form of arui-te iku ‘walk go’, non-de kuru ‘drink come’, it should be understood that the relevant points of discussion apply equally to other instances of the same type such as hasit-te kuru ‘run come’ and tabe-te iku ‘eat go’. The methods used in arriving at the pattern of distribution of different construction types seen in (12) typically involve comparison of the grammatical properties of iku/kuru ‘go/come’ in their full-fledged main verb function vs. those in converb complex predicate constructions. The greater the similarity is between them, the less grammaticalized the finite motion verbs in converb constructions are. 3.2.1 Mieru suppletion As mentioned in section 2, grammaticalized converb complex predicates do not show the morphological property of lexical integrity, such that finite motion verbs may undergo morphological processes on their own right. The first of such processes examined here is the suppletion of kuru ‘come’ by the honorific expression mieru ‘(lit.) visible’ shown below, where lexical kuru is suppleted by mieru: (13) Yoru-ni naru-to,

takusan-no kyaku-ga

night-to become-when many-GEN

ku-ru/mie-ru

customer-NOM come-PRES/come.HON-PRES

rasii. EVI ‘I hear that many customers come when night falls (speaking of a restaurant).’ Kuru ‘come’ of the arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ and hait-te kuru ‘enter come’ type easily supplete with mieru, but that of the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ type does not. This indicates that while kuru in the former two types is similar to the main verb kuru, the one in the latter type is not. (14) a. Yamada-sensei-wa gakkoo-ni arui-te ki-ta/mie-ta. Yamada-Prof.-TOP school-to walk-CON come-PAST/come.HON-PAST ‘Professor Yamada walked (walk come) to school.’ b.

Yamada-sensei-ga kyoositu-ni hait-te kit-ta/mie-ta Yamada-Prof.-NOM classroom-to enter-CON come-PAST/come.HON.-PAST toki... when ‘When Professor Yamada came into (enter come) the classroom…’

c. Yamada-sensei-wa ippai non-de ki-ta/*mie-ta.4 Yamada-Prof.-TOP a.drink drink-CON come-PAST/come.HON-PAST ‘Professor Yamada had a drink (and came).’



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

3.2.3 Rassyaru truncation That there is no pragmatic conflict in the honorific expression of non-de kuru ‘drink come’ is shown by the fact that irassyaru, another honorific suppletive form of iku/ kuru ‘go/come’, is perfectly acceptable in this type of converb construction. Indeed, the three types of converb construction under study are all compatible with this honorific form. What is particularly interesting about the irassyaru form is that it truncates to rassyaru by deleting the initial vowel. (15) a. Yamada-sensei-wa gakkoo-ni arui-te ki-ta/irassyat-ta/rassyat-ta. Yamada-Prof.-TOP school-to walk-CON come-PAST/come.HON-PAST ‘Professor Yamada walked (walk come) to school.’ b.

Yamada-sensei-ga kyoositu-ni hait-te kit-ta/irassyat-ta/rassyat-ta Yamada-Prof.-NOM classroom-to enter-CON come-PAST/come.HON.-PAST toki... when ‘When Professor Yamada came into (enter come) the classroom…’

c. Yamada-sensei-wa ippai non-de ki-ta/irassyat-ta/rassyat-ta. Yamada-Prof.-TOP a.drink drink-CON come-PAST/come.HON-PAST ‘Professor Yamada had a drink (and came).’ While the truncated rassyaru versions in (14) are all acceptable, there is a difference in the degree of felicity in these expressions. Rassyaru truncation is least favored with aruite-kuru ‘walk come’ in (14a), though it is not impossible.5 On the other hand, nonde kuru ‘drink come’ is the favored type for a contracted rassyaru expression. The haitte kuru ‘come enter’ type falls in the middle of these two polar types. These impressionistic evaluations of the three rassyaru forms are corroborated by the ratio of contracted rassyaru forms against their non-contracted irassyaru counterparts. The following table is based on a Google search which excluded irrelevant rassyaru/ irassyaru forms such as honorific versions of iru ‘be’.6 Table 5 contains polite imperative expressions (e.g. Go wash your face). While the truncated forms appear regularly with the arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ type, the ratio of truncated expressions is not as high as with the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ type, for which the favored versions are clearly truncated rassyaru forms. The significance of the truncation phenomenon is that the lexical verbs kuru/iku ‘come/go’, which easily supplete for irassyaru, resist truncation: (16) a. Yamada-sensei-ga kyoositu-ni ki-ta/irassyat-ta/*rassyat-ta. Yamada-Prof.-NOM classroom-to come-PAST/come.HON-PAST ‘Professor Yamada came to the classroom.’ b. Yamada-sensei-ga Amerika-ni it-ta/irassyat-ta/*rassyat-ta. Yamada-Prof.-NOM America-to go-PAST/go.HON-PAST ‘Professor Yamada went to America.’



Masayoshi Shibatani

The fact above that the honorific irassyaru of the arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ type least favors the truncation indicates that the verb kuru here is most similar to lexical kuru, whose honorific irassyaru version never contracts to rassyaru. On the other hand, kuru of the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ type is least verb-like in that it favors the rassyaru truncation. That kuru of the arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ type permits the rassyaru truncation, though less frequently, is significant in that this verb has a function different from the main verb kuru. This may mean that the motion verb has been grammaticalized to some extent even in arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ type constructions, as the reduction in form permitted in them is certainly an indication of grammaticalization. At any rate, it is clear from the pattern of the truncation of irassyaru that kuru of the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ type is least verb-like in favoring the truncation, contrary to Teramura’s and Hasegawa’s analyses that this form is similar to lexical kuru. Table 5.  Truncation ratio of rassyaru vs. irassyaru (kotti-ni) aruit-te irassyai (kotti-ni) arui-te rassyai ‘ (here-to) walk-CON come.HON’ (kotti-ni) hasit-te irassyai (kotti-ni) hasit-te rassyai ‘(here-to) run-CON come.HON’ de-te irassyai de-te rassyai ‘exit-CON come.HON’ non-de irassyai non-de rassyai ‘drink-CON come.HON’

27 23 5 5 494 1,060 34 84

tabe-te irassyai tabe-te rassyai ‘eat-CON come.HON’

57 155

kao-o arat-te irassyai kao-o arat-te rassyai ‘face-ACC wash-CON come’

23 115

3.2.3 Valency property The lexical motion verbs iku ‘go’ and kuru ‘come’ sanction both goal and source arguments, though the goal argument is rarely seen with the verb of coming due to the lexical specification of the deictic information in it – that the motion is directed toward a deictic center, typically the place of speech. This valency property of these motion verbs



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

plays an important role in Japanese converb constructions. Unlike their English counterparts, manner-of-motion verbs in Japanese such as aruku ‘walk’, oyogu ‘swim’, and hau ‘crawl’ do not allow the specification of a goal argument. In order to express a goal with these verbs, they must be combined with iku ‘go’ or kuru ‘come’, as shown below: (17) a. *Taroo-wa gakkoo-e arui-ta. Taro-TOP school-to walk-PAST ‘Taro walked to school.’ b. Taroo-wa gakkoo-e arui-te it-ta/ki-ta. Taro-TOP school-to walk-CON go-PAST/come-PAST ‘Taro walked (walk went/came) to school.’ The fact that iku of the arui-te iku ‘walk go’ construction licenses a goal argument means that it retains the valency property of lexical iku. Compare this with iku in the other types of converb construction. (18) a. Taroo-wa zibun-no heya-o de-te, Hanako-no heya-ni it-ta. Taro-TOP self-GEN room-ACC exit-CON Hanako-GEN room-to go-PAST ‘Taro exited his room and went to Hanako’s room.’ a’. *Taroo-wa Hanako-no heya-ni zibun-no heya-o de-te it-ta. Taro-TOP Hanako-GEN room-to self-GEN room-ACC exit-CON go-PAST ‘(lit.) Taro went out (exit went) of his room to Hanako’s room.’ b. Taroo-wa ringo-o tabe-te, gakkoo-e it-ta. Taro-TOP apple-ACC eat-CON school-to go-PAST ‘Taro ate and apple and went to school.’ b’. *Taroo-wa gakkoo-e ringo-o tabe-te it-ta.7 Taro-TOP school-to apple-ACC eat-CON go-PAST ‘(lit.)Taro eat-went an apple to school.’ While clausal (or VP) conjunction converb constructions in the (a) and (b) forms are perfectly grammatical, the parallel complex predicate forms (a’) and (b’) do not permit a goal expression, indicating that the motion verbs in the latter have lost the verbal property of licensing a goal argument. These should also be compared with the forms in (17b), which show that motion verbs in it retain this argument licensing property, and thus behave more like lexical iku/kuru. In order to better appreciate the property of valency loss seen in (18), compare them to the following pattern seen in English, where the verb go in combination with eat in (19b) has lost the argument licensing property associated with its lexical counterpart in (19a). (19) a. Let’s go to McDonald’s to eat. b. *Let’s go eat to McDonald’s. c. Let’s go eat at McDonald’s.



Masayoshi Shibatani

3.2.4 Fragments A converb in an ungrammaticalized construction can form a sentence fragment in response to a yes-no question. Compare the following examples: (20) a. Zitensya-ni not-te gakkoo-e kita=no? bicycle-to ride-CON school-to come-PAST=Q ‘(You’ve) come to school riding a bicycle?’ b. Un, zitensya-ni not-te. yeah bicycle-to ride-CON ‘Yeah, riding a bicycle.’ Again, grammaticalized converb constructions do not behave uniformly. The arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ type barely allows a fragment expression, while the other two types resist it altogether. (21) a. Arui-te ki-ta=no? walk-CON come-past=Q ‘(You) came walking?” b. *?Un, arui-te. yeah walk-CON ‘Yeah, by walking.’ (22) a. b.

De-te ki-ta=no? exit-CON come-PAST=Q ‘(You) came out?’ *Un, de-te. yeah exit-CON ‘Yeah, (having) exited.’

(23) a. b.

Ippai non-de ki-ta=no? a.drink drink-CON come-PAST=Q ‘(You) had a drink (and came)?’ *Un, non-de. yeah drink-CON ‘Yeah, (having) drunk.’

There may be a number of ways of interpreting this phenomenon, but it can be understood as showing that the converb complex arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ is structurally ‘less tight’, hence the converb and the finite verb are morphologically more autonomous than those involved in the other two construction types. This interpretation is corroborated by a pattern of contracting of iku ‘go’ to -ku. According to the Googlebased survey summarized in Table 6 below, iku of the arui-te iku ‘walk go’ type contracts least while that of the non-de iku ‘drink come’ type contracts most frequently. 8



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

Table 6.  Contraction of iku to -ku arui-te iku=to arui-te-ku=to walk-go=when

328,000 956 0.003 %

de-te iku=to de-te-ku=to exit-go=when

58,200 637 0.01 %

tabe-te iku=to tabe-te-ku=to eat-go����� =���� when

17,400 751 0.04 %

Notice that lexical iku never contracts to ku. The fact that iku of arui-te iku ‘walk go’ contracts less frequently compared to that of tabe-te iku ‘eat go’ indicates that the former is structurally more autonomous than the latter. This contraction fact also shows that the tabe-te iku ‘eat go’ type is at a more advanced stage of grammaticalization than the other two types. 3.2.5 Scope of negation The status of the motion verbs in the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ type noted above is consonant with the fact that these verbs cannot support negative scope, indicating that they are turning into a suffix status. Observe: (24) a.

Daremo basu-ni not-te ko-na-katta. no one bus-to ride-CON come-NEG-PAST ‘No one came riding a bus.’ (No one came on the bus = wide scope reading) (They came but no one came by bus = narrow scope reading)

b.

Daremo heya-kara de-te ko-na-katta. no one room-from exit-CON come-NEG-PAST ‘No one came out of the room.’ (No one came out = wide scope reading) (No narrow scope reading possible; They came but not exiting a room)

c.

Daremo gohan-o tabe-te ko-na-katta. no one meal-ACC eat-CON come-NEG-PAST ‘No one had a meal (and came).’ No wide scope reading is possible; No one came after having eaten a meal) (They came but no one had a meal = narrow scope reading)

It is clearly seen that while the finite motion verb of the arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ can support negative scope also giving rise to a wide scope reading for an expression like (24a), those of the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ type cannot – (24c) above can never



Masayoshi Shibatani

mean that no one came. The motion verb here is thus behaving more like an affix, which cannot support negative scope independently of the root to which it is attached. The reason that the de-te kuru ‘exit come’ does not allow a narrow scope reading is unclear, but it may have to do with the a higher degree of lexicalization of this form.

3.3

Summary of the syntactic properties of the three types of converb construction

The following table summarizes the findings discussed in this section. Table 7.  Summary of syntactic patterns

Lexical kuru ‘come’ arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ de-te kuru ‘exit come’ non-de kuru ‘drink come’

mieru

rassyaru

-ku

Valency

Fragment

〇

✕

✕

〇

〇

N/A

〇

△

△

〇

△

wide/narrow

〇

〇

〇

✕

✕

wide

✕

◎

◎

✕

✕

narrow

Neg. scope

(◎ = super, 〇= O.K., △＝grudgingly, ✕ = no)

Table 7 clearly substantiates our earlier claim that converb construction types are distributed along a cline of grammaticalization as depicted in (12) above. In particular, it shows that motion verbs of the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ type are most advanced in grammaticalization, and are least verb-like – contrary to the analyses of Teramura (1984) and Hasegawa (1996). Moreover, those of the de-te kuru ‘exit come’ type still retain some verbal properties, indicating that they have not decategorialized completely as implied in Hasegawa’s work. Finally even motion verbs of the arui-te kuru type, being susceptible to phonological reduction, behave differently from their lexical counterparts, indicating that they are on the way to being (further) grammaticalized.

4. Methodological and theoretical implications On the methodological front, the discussion above shows the importance of syntactic analysis in grammaticalization studies. On the one hand, intuitive semantic analyses seldom carry over to proper syntactic analyses. For non-de kuru ‘drink come’ type expressions, Teramura (1984: 157) – while recognizing a subtle difference between the relevant converb constructions and their paraphrases – suggests that they can be understood as expressing sequential events, e.g. an action of drinking followed by a mo-



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

tion of coming. In grammaticalized form, however, these expressions do not express sequentially connected events. Specifically, finite motion verbs no longer express the whole meaning of a motion event. The meaning of motion verbs of going and coming comes in two dimensions, one expressing movement of an entity along a spatial path, and the other a deictic orientation of the movement. In the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ construction type, the dimension of physical movement has been completely lost, as reflected in the loss of a goal-sanctioning valency property. The motion verbs in these constructions now have the sole function of indicating deictic information, i.e. indicating where the actor ends up after the execution of the action expressed by the converb. Thus, sake-o non-de ki-ta (sake-ACC drink-CON come-PAST) does not assert that someone performed an act of translational motion toward the deictic center after having drunk sake. Rather, it means that someone ended up in the speaker’s sphere after having drunk sake somewhere away from it. It is for this reason that the translations of relevant examples in this paper parenthesize the motion component as ‘drank sake (and came)’. Syntactic analysis, furthermore, is crucial in showing that the phenomena under consideration fall in the category of grammatical change known as grammaticalization. Meaning shifts and extensions by themselves do not constitute grammaticalization phenomena per se. In order for a semantic change to qualify as a case of grammaticalization, the form in question must be grammaticalized, i.e., change its status from lexical to grammatical. In other words, decategorialization is an important component of the grammaticalization process. Thus, when verbs are involved as they are here, it is important to show that they lose certain verbal properties. There are many theoretical implications of the present study, but here we restrict them to those that appear to be intimately connected. The first concerns the question of the gradualness of grammaticalization.

4.1

Gradual vs. instantaneous grammaticalization

From the time of the Neogrammarians, the question of gradualness of historical change (phonetic or otherwise) has been controversial, the issue itself having multiple facets ranging from the actualization of change to its spread. The same issue arises with changes characterizable as grammaticalization. The pattern in Table 7 indicates that gradual loss of verbal characteristics in finite motion verbs affects different types of converb constructions. However, the question remains as to whether those at an advanced stage in grammaticalization realize each step of the grammaticalization paths. That is, did iku ‘go’ and kuru ‘come’ in the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ construction type once had a stage where they behaved like those in the arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ type? Was there a stage where kuru in the former type could be suppleted with mieru or where iku sanctioned a goal argument as those in the latter type now do? Alternatively could the change be instantaneous such that as soon as a construction of the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ is formed, the finite motion verbs contained therein are used as



Masayoshi Shibatani

deictic markers losing their verbal properties instantaneously?9 Both positions have been maintained in the field. Brinton and Traugott (2005) and others (e.g., Bybee, Pagliuca and Perkins 1991) generally believe that grammaticalization is gradual, while the possibility of instantaneous grammaticalization is entertained by Givón, as shown by the following quotations: Grammaticalization is gradual in the sense that it is non- instantaneous and pro-

ceeds by very small and typically overlapping, intermediate, and sometimes indeterminate, steps. (Brinton and Traugott 2005:100)

[Instantaneous grammaticalization] involves the mental act of the mind recognizing a similarity relation and thereby exploiting it, putting an erstwhile lexical item into grammatical use in a novel context. The minute a lexical item is used in a frame that intends it as grammatical marker, it is thereby grammaticalized. (Givón 1991:122) While changes in the formal properties of a grammaticalized item may be gradual, as shown above in the contraction phenomena of motion verbs (see Tables 5 and 6), there seems to be at least clear cases where instantaneous grammaticalization occurs accompanying the functional shift from the spatial to the temporal domain. As alluded to earlier, Japanese converb constructions of coming and going have also developed a function of aspectual marking. Examples include the following: (25) a.

soredake syabet-te simau-to hidoku hara-ga het-te that.much talk-CON finish-when very stomach-NOM decrease-CON ki-ta. come-PAST ‘(lit.) When I finished talking all that much, my stomach began to decrease/I began to become hungry.’

b.

sikamo sono aida kekkoo ta-no onna-to ne-te moreover that interval well.enough other-of woman-with sleep-CON ki-ta. come-PAST ‘Moreover during that period (I) have been sleeping well enough with other women.’ c. sooyatte iki-te ik-u. that.way live-CON go-PRES ‘(I) will go on living that way.’ d. Atama-ga dandan okasiku nat-te it-te… brain-NOM gradually funny become-CON go-CON ‘My brains gradually keep on turning funny…’ (Haruki Murakami Norwegian Wood)



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

These forms can be considered to have an aspectual function in that iku/kuru ‘go/ come’ add a span to the event expressed by the converbs. The finite expression hara-ga hetta ‘(lit.) the stomach decreased/got hungry’, for example, locates change of state at one point in time. When it combines with kuru ‘come’ as in (25a) hara-ga het-te ki-ta, the whole expression entails change of state over a span of time. Moreover, this expansion of change over time span is conceived to be directed toward the speaker by virtue of the use of kuru ‘come’. When iku is used as in (24c,d), the expansion of the event is viewed to take place in a direction away from the speaker, giving a future-oriented interpretation if the finite form has a present tense ending as in (25c). The widely received scenario for the development of temporal meanings from motion verbs developed by Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994: 269) holds that meaning elements, e.g. inferences, giving rise to this development already exist in the lexical use of motion verbs. For example, “[w]hen one moves along a path toward a goal in space, one also moves in time.” What happens is the gradual loss of the spatial meaning with increased dominance of the temporal meaning. Under this scenario the only change necessary is the generalization to contexts in which the subject is not moving, as in (25) above, where an aspectual meaning uniquely obtains. This scenario of gradual grammaticalization, however, faces a serious challenge when confronted with a wide range of cases of the development of temporal meanings from motion and other types of verbs. Crucial cases in Japanese relate to examples such as the following, where no aspectual reading is possible: (26) Boku-wa kore-kara-mo eki-e arui-te ik-u. I-TOP this-from-also station-to walk-CON go-PRES ‘I will walk to the station from now on too.’ As detailed in the next section, it is precisely in those contexts where the meaning of spatial movement does not obtain that give rise to the aspectual meaning in question. That is there is no stage where the aspectual meaning has become dominant with concomitant bleaching of the spatial meaning that bridges the gap between literal spatial expressions and aspectual ones, which are purported to derive via generalization of the intermediate expressions. The shift in meaning here, instead, appears best considered as a case of instantaneous metaphorical transfer. That is, once an image schema of motion is metaphorically transferred from the spatial domain to the temporal one, then the grammaticalization takes place instantaneously, as in Givón’s characterization above. Whether a meaning shift such as this would count as a case of grammaticalization is debatable, but if the change were accompanied by a decategorialization process, it would be considered as a case of grammaticalization. Indeed, the Japanese aspectual iku ‘go’ and kuru ‘come’ do not behave like lexical iku/kuru. For example, aspectual kuru ‘come’ does not supplete for honorific mieru, unlike lexical kuru, and honorific irassyaru of aspectual iku contracts to rassyaru, unlike the irassyaru form suppleting lexical iku (see earlier discussions on these phenomena). Observe:



Masayoshi Shibatani

(27) a. Satoo-sensei-wa syoozikini iki-te ki-ta/*mie-ta. Satoo-Prof.-TOP honestly live-CON come-PAST ‘Prof. Sato has been living honestly.’ b. syoozikini iki-te ik-eba/irassyar-eba/rassyar-eba... honestly live-CON go-if/go.HON-if/go.HON-if ‘If (you) keep on living honestly…’

4.2

Contexts facilitating grammaticalization

Our study raises an important question that past studies do not concerning the context or environment which propels grammaticalization. The earlier discussion shows that grammaticalization of motion verbs does not take place uniformly. The verb iku ‘go’ in non-de iku ‘drink go’ constructions is far more advanced in grammaticalization than in the arui-te iku ‘walk go’ constructions. Generalizing the case to include instantaneous grammaticalization, the question can be formulated as: “Which contexts facilitate grammaticalization?” By “facilitate” we refer to two situations, one where a specific context propels grammaticalization at a faster rate than others, the other concerning the context in which instantaneous grammaticalization – including metaphorical extension – is easier to take place. Past grammaticalization studies have raised a similar question but at a very general level. For example, Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer (1991) show that metaphorical extension or transfer of an imagine schema from one (concrete) domain to another (abstract) is a major driving force for semantic change and grammaticalization. We have also recognized the effect of such a mechanism in the development of the aspectual use of iku/kuru ‘go/come’ in Japanese. But metaphorical extension does not explain the cline of grammaticalization exhibited by iku/kuru in the spatial domain, where metaphorical extension is not involved. A question also remains as to which contexts favor/disfavor metaphorical extension or instantaneous grammaticalization in the sense of Givón (1991). Another factor invoked in the discussion of both the actualization and spread of a grammaticalization process is textual frequency. Here is a relevant quote from Traugott and Heine (1991: 9): Given that a form A is a candidate for grammaticalization both because of its semantic context and its salience, a further condition has to apply for grammaticalization to take place: The form has to be used frequently. The more grammaticalized a form, the more frequent it is...The seeds of grammaticalization are therefore in a correlated set of phenomena: Semantic suitability, salience and frequency. Only the third actually leads to grammaticalization and hence to fixing, freezing, idiomatization, etc. (Emphasis added)



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

Does this apply to our case? Not really. First, situations concerning frequency are not as straightforward as Traugott and Heine (1991) put it. That is, determining the token frequency of constructions is not simple, since the frequency of use of a construction varies greatly depending on the specific lexical items involved. For example, in one recent Google count hat-te iku (crawl-CON go) occurred 963 times, whereas the same Manner of motion + Motion combination of arui-te iku (walk-CON go) yielded 623,000 instances. In ascertaining the token frequency, then, it is necessary to compare the frequency of different types of verb combination. The following table, from Shibatani and Chung (to appear), shows the token frequencies of the three combination types in a modern fiction in Japanese and Korean: Table 8.  Token frequency of three combination types (Japanese; Ito Sei Hanran: Korean; Kim Joo Yong Kokicapinun kaltaylul kkekkci anhnunta)

Japanese V-te iku/kuru V-CON go/come Korean V-e/ko ota/kata V-CON come/go

Manner

Location change

Action

23

109

6

68

358

11

Our case may also be at variance with a generally observed correlation between frequency of use and the size of a grammatical item. For example, Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994: 20) draw the following conclusion: There is a link between frequency of use and phonetic bulk such that more frequently used material, whether grammatical or lexical, tends to be shorter (phonetically reduced) relative to less often used material.

Determining the frequency of use across construction types is rather difficult, as noted above, but if Tables 5 and 6 above suggest anything, it is that in those expressions that are more advanced in grammaticalization but still occur comparatively less frequently we observe higher rates of occurrence of phonologically reduced forms.10 Neither metaphorical extension nor frequency is thus able to account for the pattern of grammaticalization examined in this paper at both the functional and the formal level. In the balance of this paper, we will explore semantic factors differentiating the contexts that facilitate grammaticalization from those that hinder it. Verbs conjoined by the -te conjunctive in Japanese express different kinds of event combinations. Combinations of the motion verb iku ‘go’ or kuru ‘come’ and manner of motion verbs (aruku ‘walk’, hasiru ‘run’, oyogu ‘swim’, etc.) result in a semantically congruous whole in that there is complete spatio-temporal overlap, such that when one



Masayoshi Shibatani

walks, s/he necessarily moves (goes or comes), and when one goes or comes to some place, s/he does so in some manner (e.g., walk, run, swim). Indeed, English lexicalizes macro-events comprised of these sub-events in manner-of-motion verbs such as walk and swim, which – unlike their Japanese counterparts – sanction a goal argument (e.g. walk to the station, swim to the shore). Combinations of location change and motion are similarly congruous in that there is partial spatio-temporal overlap. But the overlap is not to the full extent as in the Manner + Motion combinations, since it obtains only at the point of threshold in the case of Location change + Motion combinations. Compared to these combinations, those of sequentially ordered events, such as drinking and going to some place or eating and coming back, i.e., those not tied by such unifying relations as cause, purpose, and result lack semantic congruity and do not usually form a macro-event that is lexicalized in a single verb. Indeed, they do not even enter into verb serialization in many languages.11 The three types of converb construction examined in this paper thus have the following patterns of event combination, which can be characterized in terms of degree of semantic congruity: More congruous Manner + Motion Location change + Motion Action + Motion Less congruous

Notice that in Japanese, the combination of action and motion represents a pre-grammaticalization stage. That is, current forms such as non-de kuru ‘drink come’ and tabete iku ‘eat go’ do not combine action and motion in the literal sense, since they have already undergone grammaticalization, as described above. Our characterization of the three types of event combination then allows us to draw the following hypothesis on the context that propels or facilitates grammaticalization: (28) Grammaticalization is facilitated in semantically less congruous environments This hypothesis makes sense for the process of semantic bleaching, whereby a meaning component is more easily lost when there is no semantic support or reinforcement from the surrounding environment. Interestingly it is precisely this kind of semantically incongruous environment where metaphorical extension is also facilitated. As mentioned above, Japanese converb constructions involving verbs of going and com-



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

ing have also developed aspectual meanings (see examples in (25)). In combination with a converb, however, the aspectual meaning of iku/kuru ‘go/come’ obtains most readily in semantically incongruous combinations of events. Indeed, a large majority of the tabe-te iku ‘eat go’ and non-de iku ‘drink go’ forms found in Google are of the aspectual type illustrated in the following examples: (29) a. eigo-de gohan-o tabe-te ik-u English-with meal-ACC eat-CON go-PRES ‘(lit.) to go on eating meals with English/to go on living on the job using English’ b. dondon karee-o tabe-te ik-u steadily curry-ACC eat-CON go-PRES ‘to keep on eating curry steadily’ (30) a non-de ik-u utini azi-ni-mo nare…. drink-CON go-PRES while taste-to-also get.used.to ‘(you) also get used to the taste while (you) keep on drinking’ b. kare-mo dondon biiru-o non-de ik-u he-also steadily beer-ACC drink-CON go-PRES ‘He too keeps on drinking beer.’ There are more instances of spatial expressions than aspectual ones involving nonde kuru ‘drink come’ and tabe-te kuru ‘eat come’ forms, but one still encounters the following kinds fairly frequently: (31) a.

Nan-no tame-ni ima-made gyuunyuu-bakari non-de what-GEN reason-to now-up.to milk-only drink-CON ki-ta=n. desu=ka come-PAST=NMLZ COP=Q ‘For what reason have you been drinking only milk?’

b. Ningen-wa nani-o tabe-te ki-ta=ka. human-TOP what-ACC eat-CON come-PAST=Q ‘What have humans been eating?’ In contrast, there are no instances of the aspectual type for combinations like arui-te iku ‘walk go’ and de-te iku ‘exit go’. Indeed, native speakers of Japanese find a clear difference in grammaticality between the (a) and (b) sentences below: (32) a. korekara-mo dondon sake-o non-de ik-u from.now-also steadily sake-ACC drink-CON go-PRES ‘From now on too (I will) keep on drinking sake steadily.’ b. *korekara-mo dondon eki-e arui-te iku from.now-also steadily station-to walk-CON go-PRES (Intended for) ‘From now on too (I will) keep on walking to the station.’



Masayoshi Shibatani

(33) a. Ano kooen-o sanzyuu-nen-rai zutto arui-te ki-ta. that park-ACC thirty-year-over steadily walk-CON come-PAST ‘(I) have walked in that park steadily for over thirty years.’ b. *Sanzyuu-nen-rai zutto uti-kara gakkoo-ni arui-te ki-ta. thirty-year-over steadily house-from school-to walk-CON come-PAST ‘(I) have walked from the house to the school for over thirty years.’ Notice that in (33a) we have an action expression ‘walk (in) the park’ rather than a translational motion event ‘walk to some place’. The combination of the former with a motion verb expresses an incongruous event combination. In (33b), we have a congruous combination of manner and motion events, which fails to yield an aspectual interpretation. In other words, where a literal interpretation of the V-te iku/kuru form yields an incongruous event combination, aspectual interpretation obtains. This means that instantaneous grammaticalization (or a case involving metaphorical extension) is facilitated in the same environment where non-metaphorical and gradual grammaticalization is propelled, namely a semantically incongruous context. This situation has parallels in the temporal domain in other languages such as Formosan language Atayal and Thai, calling into question the widely accepted scenarios of the development of tense/aspect morphemes offered by Heine et al. (1991), Hopper and Traugott (1993), and Bybee et al. (1994), who suggest that tense/aspect meaning develops first in a semantically congruous environment, where inferences of intention and prediction obtain (see Shibatani and Huang 2006).

5. Summary and conclusion This paper has examined two patterns of grammaticalization in Japanese. One represents a case of gradual grammaticalization in which a meaning component of translational motion verbs of coming and going is lost as they occur as a finite verb in converb constructions. The loss of the motion meaning in these verbs has entailed a loss of valency property such that they can no longer sanction a source or goal argument in constructions at an advanced stage of grammaticalization. Advancement in grammaticalization is also accompanied by a formal reduction in motion verbs, as predicted by the general principle of the grammaticalization process. It was then shown that neither metaphorical extension nor frequency of use is a factor propelling grammaticalization in these converb constructions with motion verbs. Instead, an environment facilitating grammaticalization was identified as one in which an incongruous event combination obtains. It was further demonstrated that plausible cases of instantaneous grammaticalization involving metaphorical extension are also facilitated in an environment where a literal interpretation of the expressions leads to semantically less congruous event combinations. Congruous event combinations, on the other hand, inhibit metaphorical extension and instantaneous grammaticalization.



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

This paper has also shown the importance of syntactic analysis in grammaticalization studies. In addition, it underscores the importance of a meticulous investigation of currently ongoing changes, which are much easier to document than less accessible ones. Finally, dealing with grammatical constructions as a whole as units of analysis affords a more fine-grained perspective than dealing with individual forms in isolation since the constructions provide a linguistic context that may play an important role in grammaticalization.

Notes 1. See Bisang (1995) on the similarities and differences between converb and serial verb constructions and Shibatani and Huang (2006) for the demonstration that the converb complex predicates and serial verbs do not form distinct types of complex predicates. 2. This caveat is necessary because a structure that raises the negative -nai may contain sika and -nai in two separate clauses; e.g. Boku-wa [Taroo-ni-sika aitai]-to omow-anai ‘(lit) I don’t think (I) want to meet only Taro/I think I don’t want to meet anybody but Taro/I don’t think I want to meet anybody but Taro’. See Matsumoto (1996) for similar arguments that (3a) involves a simplex structure. 3. Actually, the categorial status of what she calls operator is not entirely clear in Hasegawa’s work. But if the central definitional property for verbs is their ability to function as a predicate, then Hasegawa’s deictic operators do not count as verbs, since they do not function as predicates. 4. The form non-de mieta is fine if understood as an honorific version of non-de iru (drink be) ‘is drinking’. 5. Be aware that arui-te kuru ‘walk come’, for example, can be ambiguous between a translational motion reading, as in (14a) with a specified goal or source argument, and a nontranslational action reading, as in kooen-o arui-te kuru ‘walk (in) the park (and come)’, which belongs to the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ type of (14c). 6. The table lists de-te irassyaru/rassyaru ‘exit come’ rather than hait-te irassyaru/rassyaru ‘enter come’ because the latter are involved in a large number of ambiguous cases between the intended hait-te iku type and the non-de iku type. 7. Expressions like the following are possible with the interpretation that the effect of drinking persists, hence overlaps with the motion event: Gakkoo-ni sake-o non-de ku-ru=to-wa nanigoto=ka? school-to sake-ACC drink-CON come-PRES=COMP-TOP whatever =Q ‘Whatever (is the matter with you) to come to school (after) drinking sake?’ This is similar to the following type of expression, where again the result of an action overlaps with the motion event. Hanako-wa gakkoo-ni mizikai sukaato-o hai-te ki-ta. Hanako-TOP school-to short skirt-ACC wear-CON come-PAST ‘Hanako came to school wearing a short skirt.’



Masayoshi Shibatani To a large extent, these expressions behave similarly to the arui-te kuru ‘walk come’ type, in which there is a complete spatio-temporal overlap between the manner component and the motion component of the motion event. See the relevant discussion in Section 4. 8. The expressions cited here are framed in a complement construction headed by the formal noun to ‘when, as’ in order to exclude extraneous instances of the relevant phenomena. 9. In answering the questions posed here we need historical evidence. Another type of evidence comes from languages having similar construction types. See Shibatani and Chung (2005) for Korean evidence suggesting a gradual loss of valency property in the motion verbs of the non-de kuru ‘drink come’ type construction. 10. As mentioned in the text, determining the correlation between frequency and form size is tricky in that certain expressions occur more frequently across the board. For example, the imperative form De-te ik-e! (exit-CON go-IMP) ‘Get out!’ occurs very frequently despite being of the de-te iku type. The ratio of reduced forms of this expression indeed increases more dramatically than with the other expressions of the same construction type. Google count: de-te ik-e=to (exit-CON go-IMP=COM) ‘(e.g., I was told) to get out’ 16,700; de-te-k-e=to 16,500. 11. In Mandarin, Thai and Atayal, for example, simple sequentially ordered events such as eating and then going to some place do not serialize.

References Bisang, W. 1995. Verb serialization and converbs – differences and similarities. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, M. Haspelmath and E. König (eds), 139–188. Berlin: ��������������� Mouton de Gruyter. Brinton, L. J. and Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. Bybee, J., Pagliuca, W. and Perkins, R. 1991. Back to the future. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2, E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 17–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J., Perkins, R. and Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DeLancey, S. 1991. Origins of verb serialization in Modern Tibetan. Studies in Language 15: 1–23. Foley, W. and Olsen, M. 1985. Clausehood and verb serialization. In Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause: Some approaches to theory from the field, A. Woodbury and J. Nichols (eds), 17–60. Cambridge: CUP. Givón, T. 1991. Serial verbs and the mental reality of ‘event’: Grammatical vs. cognitive packaging. In Approaches to Grammaticalization Vol. 1, E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds), 81–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grein, M. 1998. Mittel der Satzverknüpfung im Deutschen und im Japanischen: Eine TypologischKontrastive Analyse. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. Hasegawa, Y. 1996. A Study of Japanese Clause Linkage: The connective TE in Japanese. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications/Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Heine, B., Claudi, E. and Hünnemeyer, F. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Lord, C. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



Grammaticalization of converb constructions 

Matsumoto, Y. 1996. Complex Predicates in Japanese: A syntactic and semantic study of the notion ‘Word’. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications/Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Schmidt, C. 2004. Cosubordinate converbs in Japanese. Paper presented at the First Rice University and UT Austin Workshop on Language in Use. October 23–24, 2004. Rice University. Shibatani, M. and Chung, S. Y. 2005. On the grammaticalization of motion verbs: A JapaneseKorean comparative perspective. The 15th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference. October 7–9, 2005. University of Wisconsin, Madison. To appear in the proceedings. Shibatani, M. and Huang, L. 2006. Serial verb constructions in Formosan languages: their form and grammaticalization patterns. The Linguistics of Endangered Languages (Third OxfordKobe Seminar in Linguistics), April 2–5, 2006. Kobe, Japan. To appear in the proceedings. Teramura, H. 1984. Nihongo-no Imi-to Sintakusu (Syntax and Semantics of Japanese) Vol. II. Tokyo. Kurosio Publishers. Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Contact, connectivity and language evolution Yaron Matras University of Manchester

This paper is concerned firstly with introducing a preliminary sketch of a function-oriented theory of language contact. Second, it will address the position of connectivity devices as mental or cognitive operations, which constitute part of the bilingual’s communicative activity. From the behaviour of connectivity devices in bilingual communication, I will be drawing some conclusions as to their position in the grammatical apparatus. The final issue to be addressed is a rather speculative addendum, a commentary on the possible position of connectivity operations in the ancient architecture of the language faculty itself.

1. Preliminaries: A function-oriented theory of language contact Linguists normally view contact-related change, and often also synchronic bilingual behaviour, through the prism of self-contained linguistic ‘systems’: Contact is envisaged as a partial convergence of two systems. I propose an alternative approach to language contact, one that consistently takes the perspective of the bilingual speaker, and which places at the top of its agenda the task to investigate how speakers act in multilingual settings. To the bilingual speaker, languages are not analytical ‘systems’. They are, rather, components of an overall repertoire of forms, constructions, experience, and skills on which the speaker draws in order to communicate. The bilingual speaker, very much like the monolingual speaker who is familiar with various registers of just one language, acquires rules on the selection of components within this repertoire through experience and socialisation. These rules tend to point toward the selective usage of distinct repertoire components in separate environments, or for separate sets of communicative activities. The key to communicating in a bi­-lingual repertoire is therefore the acquisition and the application of skills that enable the bilingual speaker to draw demarcation boundaries within the repertoire, and to maintain those demarcation boundaries in line with the communicative conventions and social expectations of the surrounding speech community.1 Rather than talk about the bilingual’s languages, I therefore choose to discuss the distinct components of a bilingual’s overall repertoire of linguistic-communicative structures.



Yaron Matras

Investigating language contact is therefore not about describing how systems converge, but about investigating how successful bilingual speakers are in maintaining demarcation lines within their linguistic repertoires: Where will speakers fail to maintain the boundary between components of the repertoire? Around which grammatical categories or constructions? For which language-processing operations? When will they license themselves consciously to lift the boundary? And under which circumstances will either the lifting of a demarcation boundary, or the failure to maintain it, become habitual, and lead ultimately to a permanent shift in the position of the boundary – i.e. to language change? My basic assumption is that both the maintenance of demarcation boundaries within the repertoire, and their partial lifting or even longer-term removal around specific structures, are functional to communication in multilingual settings. This is a view of language contact that does not discriminate between diachronic and synchronic aspects of contact, or between idiosyncratic occurrences and widespread variation, but takes an integrated approach to the theme of acquiring, maintaining, and re-setting demarcation boundaries within the repertoire. This is the view that is taken, because any changes in the conventions of linguistic behaviour that become accepted by the speech community will have had their roots in individual innovations that speakers introduce at the level of the single utterance, embedded into a specific communicative event. As in monolingual speech (cf. Croft 2000), changes in bilingual settings too are individual innovations which are imitated, replicated, and ultimately propagated successfully throughout the speech community or in certain sectors of it. Bilingual behaviour is a way to navigate through the challenge of communicating, using a relatively wide and diverse repertoire of linguistic structures, and under a complex set of contextual constraints on variant selection. Contact-induced language change is a set of solutions to this challenge, which have become favoured by a significant number of speakers in a significant set of communicative constellations. The task of contact linguistics is to describe and explain speakers’ communicative navigation strategies in multilingual settings, and the conditions under which they lead to longer-term solutions, and so to change. This begins with the gradual process of the acquisition of the skill that enables the speaker to actively set demarcation boundaries within the repertoire. In respect of the infant acquiring two languages from birth, the agenda for investigation has long been defined as a need to analyse the acquisition of boundaries as a social skill (Ochs 1988, Lanza 1997). In respect of more mature speakers, who are generally self-confident in the skill of maintaining boundaries among repertoire components, the agenda of the contact linguist is to define the conditions under which those speakers license themselves to lift boundaries and make discourse-strategic use of the repertoire in its entirety, or indeed of the contrast between repertoire components (cf. e.g. Maschler 1994, Auer 1999). Discourse-strategic bilingual activities such as situational, conversational, and metaphorical codeswitching, insertions, loan translations or loan blends may be considered in this light.



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

But even in respect of the mature and self-confident speaker, the question arises whether difficulties in maintaining separation between repertoire components might still occur, either in certain situations, or indeed around particular processing functions of language, manifesting themselves around certain grammatical categories or constructions. This would point toward a cognitive trigger, rather than a discoursestrategic one, for certain kinds of language mixing. Are there instances of particular language-processing operations, where under certain conditions even mature and skilled bilingual speakers fail to keep apart their repertoire components? The hypo­ thesis put forward here is that this is indeed the case with certain types of connectivity markers: When engaging in the linguistic-mental operation known as ‘connectivity’, under certain conditions, bilingual speakers may ‘lose control’ of the selection mechanism that maintains demarcation between the different components of the linguistic repertoire, and select a structure that is cognitively functional (in that it triggers the relevant processing function) but socially inappropriate (in that it is not an acceptable variant in the particular setting). Some types of connectivity devices stand out in their vulnerability in such situations. From this it is firstly possible to derive an hypothesis of contact-induced language change: Should the difficulties in maintaining a boundary between the repertoire components persist around a particular function of language beyond just spontaneous and idiosyncratic use, and should the resulting pattern of ‘language mixing’ become accepted and even propagated within the speech community, then a cognitive trigger may be said to have sown the seeds for language change. Second, it can be argued that language contact can shed light on the internal structure of grammar; such ‘pathological’ errors in navigating through the bilingual repertoire indicate that the mechanism involved in selecting connectivity structures is more error-prone, and so that it is structured differently from that which governs the selection of other grammatical operations or lexical items. On this basis we might hypothesise that connectivity occupies a different kind of position in the speech production mechanism.

2. Connectivity devices in multilingual language acquisition I base this section on informal observations of the language acquisition process of a trilingual child, whom we shall call ‘Ben’. Born and raised in England, Ben is exposed to two languages at the home: German, which he hears from his mother, and Hebrew, which he hears from his father. Both parents speak their respective languages consistently to Ben, consciously trying to avoid mixing. Between the ages of 0:4 and 4:4, input was balanced: During the first two years of his life, Ben spent four days a week with an English-speaking child minder, and was cared for at home during roughly half of the working week primarily by his father, and during the other half primarily by his mother, while weekends were spent with both parents. At the age of 1:11, Ben’s parents split up and moved into separate households, in separate towns. Ben stayed with his moth-



Yaron Matras

er, spending three to four working days at an English-speaking nursery, while six days out of a fourteen-day cycle were spent with his father. Holiday time was split equally among the two parents. Most of the holiday time with the mother was spent in Germany, and around half the holiday time with the father was spent in Israel – in both countries with family and relations. On the whole, then, between the age of 0:4 and 4:4, Ben spent roughly equal amounts of time with each of the two parents (each speaking his/her language consistently) and at the English-speaking nursery, with exposure during holidays to monolingual contexts of German and Hebrew. Ben’s active language acquisition history begins between the age of 1:3–1:6, with the acquisition of lexical items from all three input languages. In the early phase, the lexicon appears mixed, characterised, not surprisingly, by the absence of bilingual synonyms and the indiscriminate use of individual lexical items, irrespective of addressee or context (cf. already Volterra & Taeschner 1978). A consistent desire to separate the languages becomes clear however by the age of 1:9, by which time much of the vocabulary is used selectively according to setting (setting being defined primarily by the parent-addressee, and gradually also by a number of other adults who are associated with one language rather than the other). Bilingual synonyms begin to appear during this period, while there is also a set of preferred lexical items, containing elements from all three languages, which the child continues to use irrespective of context. By the age of 2:4 – 2:6, Ben has acquired a fairly fluent command of both his domestic/parental languages, German and Hebrew, with English lagging somewhat behind in active use. In both German and Hebrew, Ben is able to conjugate verbs in various tenses, to make full use of person inflection and inflected pronouns or pronominal clitics, and to produce complex sentences with the full range of conjunctions. He is fully aware of the context-bound separation of languages, and pursues it consistently. However, lapses do occur: In situations immediately following the transition from one parental household to another, i.e. within a few hours or on the first day, or in other situations of partial ambiguity, such as when speaking on the phone to one parent while in the care of the other, Ben occasionally slips into the ‘wrong’ language, that is, into the language that is not the language of the addressee (i.e. the slips are either into the language of the parent with whom he had been spending the past few days prior to the transition, or, in the case of phone conversations, into the language of the parent at whose house he is currently staying). The slips are unintentional; sometimes they are noticed and self-repaired, but quite often they remain unnoticed by the child, and usually un-commented on by the hearer. The most interesting aspect of these bilingual slips is the fact that they involve almost exclusively a particular class of discourse and connectivity markers. Most frequently affected are the particles ‘yes’ (Hebrew ken/ German ja) and ‘no’ (lo/nein), the conjunctions ‘because’ (ki/weil), ‘and’ (ve/und), ‘or’ (o/oder), and ‘but’ (avál/aber), and occasionally focus particles such as ‘too’ (gam/auch), ‘even’ (afílu/sogar) or ‘at all’ (bixlál/überhaupt):



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

(1) Hebrew; age 2:3, first few days in the father’s care after returning from a 3week holiday in Germany; inspecting the shell of a snail in the garden:

báyit šel xilazón aber éyn xilazón bifním house of snail but [German] is-no snail inside ‘A snail-shell, but there is no snail inside’

(2) German; age 7, on the phone to the mother while at the father’s house, describing a collection of insects:

dann gibt’s Butterfly, ve/ und zwei Craneflies then is and [Hebrew] and two ‘Then there’s a butterfly, and/ and two craneflies’

(3) Hebrew; age 5:2, reaching to inspect his trousers while planning a game in which a toy is to be hidden in a pocket:

yeš li überhaupt kis? there.is to.1sg at all [German] pocket ‘Do I even have a pocket?’

(4) Hebrew; age 7:2, on the phone to his father while on holiday in Germany, about a sports event that was being shown on television there:

Jan Ulrich hayá be’érex mispár šéva oder šmóne/ o šmóne was approximately number seven or [German] eight or eight ‘Jan Ulrich was about number seven or eight/ or eight’ Language choice errors, or rather, speech production errors of the type illustrated in (1) – (4) occur in both directions – German connectors in Hebrew utterances and vice versa – especially during the age period 2:3 – 4:6, but occasionally also later. Of particular interest is the history of the adversative conjunction, Hebrew avál, German aber, at an earlier phase during this period. Both language forms of the conjunction (as well as the English form) had been acquired and used regularly in the individual languages before the age of 2:6. At 2:6, Ben spent a three-week holiday with his mother in Germany. Upon his return, and for the next three months, German aber consistently replaced the Hebrew adversative conjunction in Hebrew discourse. It appears as though the two languages underwent a fusion of the structure expressing contrast between propositional units in discourse.2 The demarcation line between the repertoire components collapsed around the particular processing operation of contrast, allowing aber to function independently of context or setting and so independently of ‘language’ selection. This situation prevailed until the age of 2:10, when Ben left for a three-week holiday with his father to Israel. Within a week of interacting in the monolingual Hebrew environment, Hebrew avál was reinstated in Hebrew discourse. Then, upon Ben’s return home, and for the next 2 – 3 weeks, avál replaced aber in German discourse. Thus, a repetition of the process of fusion took place, with the languages in reverse roles.



Yaron Matras

How can we make sense of the turbulent fate of the contrastive conjunction during this period? We might first establish that, while an entire set of connectivity markers is prone to instability around the transitions between contexts (= between sets of extralinguistic factors that condition the selection of particular elements within the linguistic repertoire), contrast is affected in a special way, and there is greater difficulty in keeping apart the repertoire components, and less flexibility to select the appropriate form and so to accommodate to the new extralinguistic setting. The behaviour of contrast is similar to, but is more extreme than that of the other connectivity markers. Next, we can establish that the child’s difficulty in maintaining separation between repertoire components is not due to the overall dominance of any one set of linguistic structures (= one ‘language’). Rather, ‘dominance’ or loyalty to a particular set of structures is variable and fluid. It is, in a way, this changing loyalty which triggers the confusion in the first place. The child undertakes an effort to accommodate to the constraints of the new setting; consequently, a language becomes dominant – not within the repertoire as a whole, but pragmatically, as the preferred set within the repertoire for a series of ongoing activity domains. It is, in other words, pragmatically dominant (see Matras 1998). In this section we saw that even a bilingual child with maximum domain separation between the languages and a high level of linguistic awareness and avoidance of mixing, encounters certain difficulties in keeping apart two of his languages around connectivity functions, especially contrast. There is a certain difficulty, in situations of relative ambiguity which surround the transition between settings, to disassociate connectivity devices from the pragmatically dominant language – the language in which communicative performance took place until the transition. The speaker/child is thus unable to maintain the demarcation boundary consistently. Instead, the boundary collapses occasionally around a specific function or set of related functions, leading to an instantaneous or temporary fusion – i.e. non-separation – of the structures of connectivity (or certain functions thereof) in the two languages.

3. Fusion in adult speech In this section I will demonstrate that the difficulties encountered by the bilingual child and discussed in the previous section are not particular to children, but may just as well affect adult or mature bilingual speakers. Consider first the case of a young, but linguistically mature Hebrew-English bilingual, brought up partly in Israel and partly in the United States. At the age of around eight, he is addressed, in Israel, by a monolingual Hebrew speaker of a similar age group, who asks him a yes/no question: (5) Hebrew; asked a yes-no question by Hebrew monolingual of same age group: S: uh-húh. [ʔʌ̃ˈhʌ̃] ‘Yes’.



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

H: ((looks puzzled)) ma? ‘What’? The speaker’s reply is an affirmative signal which he attributes to a non-language-specific sector of his linguistic repertoire – a kind of language-independent linguistic gesture. In fact, this sequence of segments is not understood in the Hebrew context/setting, i.e. it is not familiar to the hearer with a monolingual Hebrew repertoire. Virtually the same kind of communicative breakdown occurs at a somewhat later age, here in the United States, when the speaker is confronted with a question by an English monolingual adult: (6) English; having been asked a yes-no question by English monolingual adult: S: ts-. [ʇə] ‘ No’. H: ((awaits response)) The click-related implosive sound indicating a negative reply, which is common in the Mediterranean region, is meaningless to the English monolingual hearer, who continues to await a response. In both situations, the speaker mistook operators that help regulate the interaction, for gestures that are language-independent. This kind of collapse of the demarcation boundaries differs from the type discussed in the previous section; here, there is no realisation that demarcation exists around a particular function. The result in both cases, however, is a fusion of both components for a particular language processing function (or group of functions). Consider now the following excerpts (7) – (8) from a television interview, broadcast in the United Kingdom in the documentary series ‘Dispatches’ on Channel 4 television, on 8 June 1997. The speaker is German, and is being interviewed in Berlin about his part in an arms smuggling scheme: (7) S: Well jus/ just the way ǝ ǝ the m/ the weapons ǝ brought ǝ/ I/ I have brought to London, nǝ, und I/ I have told them the truth, nǝ, that they were brought by car, nǝ and/ and ǝ... H: Were they very interested? S: Yes, they were very interested, nǝ, to know how, nǝ.



(8) At the border in England were by the custom/ they have investigated this car, very very ǝ ǝ thoroughly, and they have removed the panels from the doors, the panels from the luggage room and they in/ investigated in the engine compartments aber they didn’t find anything but they/ they have forgotten to get unten ǝ/ ǝ •/ ((clears throat)) they/ they forgot to look under the • car.

The first excerpt, (7), is characterised by the frequent insertion of the (northern) German tag nǝ. Its consistent appearance suggests that it is not attributed by the speaker to any single component of his repertoire, but has again the status of a sector-independent structure within the repertoire, a kind of universal communicative gesture, appli-



Yaron Matras

cable with no setting-related constraints. In reality, of course, nǝ is completely foreign to English speakers and fails to achieve its communicative function when directed at a monolingual English addressee. In addition to this absence of realisation of a demarcation boundary, in both (7) and (8) the speaker fails to maintain the boundary around altogether three forms/structures: Two of them are connectors – und ‘and’ in (7), and aber ‘but’ in (8).3 It is not clear that in either of the cases the speaker actually noticed his error, as no obvious self-repair is inserted. Still, one can safely assume that the speaker is aware of the German origin of the two words, and aware of their English counterparts. The German insertions convey the impression as though chaining devices in the narrative are being carried out in German, while the actual propositional part of the discourse – though possibly planned in German4 is on the whole communicated successfully in English. The conclusion is that there is a set of connectivity devices which at times escapes the speaker’s control with respect to conscious language choice, and that another subset of connectivity items – those that are less ‘lexical’, and appear more ‘gesture-like’ – are in fact processed by the speaker as ‘untagged’ for any particular language, i.e. as part of the overall linguistic repertoire, rather than of a particular component of that repertoire, constrained to a specific set of communicative domains. More evidence for lapses in adult bilingual’s control of the language selection mechanism around connectors follows. In (9), a Czech academic whose foreign working language is generally English gives a brief survey of her research activities at a German-speaking academic forum: (9) ...in Norwegen/ über diese zwei Sprachen, Bokmål and Nynorsk, und so weiter. ‘...in Norway/ about these two languages, Bokmål and Nynorsk, and so on.’ In (10), a native speaker of Polish who has been living in Germany for the past decade or so meets friends from Germany in London, where she has been attending an advanced English language course and living with an English family during the past two weeks. She crosses the street from the Café where the party is sitting to inspect a restaurant, which is said to be decorated in Polish style. Having returned and confirmed that the style is on the whole indeed Polish, she says: (10) ...bis auf/ bis auf die Tischdecken, because/ eh weil sie... ‘...except/ except for the tablecloth, because/ uh because it...’ The error was noticed by the speaker, and a self-repair is inserted. Note that in both (9) and (10), the target of the error – the prevailing form – does not come from a language that is generally dominant in the respective speaker’s life, but rather from one that has pragmatic dominance in the particular communicative domain: Thus for the Czech academic in (9), English is the usual language of international academic events. For the Polish-German student in (10), English has been the focus of her communicative efforts in London over the past couple of weeks.



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

Consider finally two more examples. In (11), a group of four Israelis – the speaker, her husband, and two friends – are having lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Manchester, England. As they are engaged in conversation in Hebrew, a waiter appears to take their order. The speaker’s husband takes the active role in ordering most of the items, and in (11) the speaker intervenes and adds: (11) …and one Won Ton soup avál/ eh/ the vegetarian one. The Hebrew contrastive conjunction avál appears here, rather than English but; it is possible, though not obvious, that the error was noticed by the speaker, for there is a pause and hesitation, but no explicit repair. Finally, in (12), the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom gives an interview on BBC television (Newsnight, 7 June 2004), commenting on plans for municipal elections in Saudi Arabia. In response to a question challenging him about the authorities’ ability to ensure fair elections, he says: (12) I would beg to say that yaʕni/ the Kingdom is a very big territory. The Arabic discourse marker yaʕni in fact derives from an Arabic inflected verb meaning ‘it means’. Nonetheless, as a discourse marker it appears to be assigned to those gesture-like items of speech that are not consciously assigned to a particular component of the linguistic repertoire; yaʕni appears frequently in foreign-language discourse of Arabs. For a trained diplomat speaking on national television about matters of state, it is certain that the insertion of yaʕni constitutes a non-volitional, potentially embarrassing clash with his own and his audience’s expectations in respect of the wellformedness of his discourse. We can safely assume that the insertion is not intentional nor strategic in any way, but that it represents a lapse in the speaker’s control over the mechanism that governs selection over repertoire components. This brings us to the principal point of this section, and that is, that in all instances documented here, the failure to maintain demarcation boundaries between repertoire components surrounding connectivity devices is not in any way discourse-strategic: It is not pre-planned, it is not conscious, in fact it is often self-repaired, and it does not yield any overt communicative advantages for the speaker, either in terms of prestige or recognition on the part of the hearer, or in terms of efficiency of communication and the ability to express a function or relation that would otherwise have to remain unexpressed (this is already excluded through the potential breakdown in communication or at least the lack of any guarantee that the hearer will be able to decode the foreign structure successfully). We can therefore rule out two factors that are often regarded as principal triggers for language mixing, namely prestige-related or emblematic mixing, and functional gap-filling. There remains therefore what must be regarded as a language-processing related or cognitive trigger, a non-volitional and sub-conscious mechanism which, in its quasi-pathological character remotely resembles some symptoms of bilingual aphasia: the inability, around specific languageprocessing functions (mental operations), to maintain a demarcation boundary between components (sets) within the linguistic repertoire, and to select structures in

 Yaron Matras

accordance with the context- or domain-particular constraints that govern their normal use in the speech community.

4. Variation in connectivity marking in bilingual communities It has been argued that in bilingual communities speakers will use discourse markers to flag their linguistic abilities (Poplack 1980), or that they will make use of bilingualism to mark out boundaries between utterances (Maschler 1994), or that frequent use of discourse markers will flag cultural integration (Clyne 2003).5 In the previous section we saw examples of bilingual speech production in which cognitive difficulties of language processing and language production override social-setting related and conversational constraints. I suggest on this basis that bilingual speakers, while generally able to maintain demarcation boundaries within their complex linguistic repertoires, encounter inconvenience when it comes to connectivity devices. The removal of demarcation boundaries is a solution of convenience, and hence at least covertly advantageous to the speaker. This ‘covert’ advantage of course competes with the overt communicative disadvantages of losing face when failing to select correctly (i.e. according to the social norms of the community) among the repertoire components, or of risking a breakdown in the efficiency of communication. But let us assume a situation where a) there is no loss of face, since most speakers are bilingual, hence slips of the kind documented in section 3. are commonplace; and b) there is no breakdown of communication, since all members of the speech community understand the pragmatically dominant language into which the slips are likely to occur. In such cases, the inconvenience of maintaining demarcation boundaries around utterance-organising operations might not be counteracted by factors such as prestige or efficiency of communication. Where can we expect to encounter such situations? They are, in fact, common in minority language settings where several conditions are met: 1) The minority language is an ethnic language, whose primary function is to flag loyalty to a clan or ethnic group; it is mainly used for group-internal communication; 2) It is primarily an oral language, and enjoys minimal institutional support (i.e. little or no support in schools, media, written tradition or other institutions, and no norm dictating language purism); 3) Bilingualism is widespread among all adult speakers of the minority language, and interaction with persons outside the community, and so use of the majority, dominant language, is frequent. Although members of the community might well value the maintenance of their own language, the regular appearance of connectors that are identical to those of the second, external or dominant language might not be regarded as endangering the coherence of the ethnic (minority) language. Indeed, we saw above that in the case of some connectivity structures, especially those that are interaction-related and hearerdirected and have a remote relation to the content of adjacent propositions, the structures involved are sometimes regarded as non-component-specific, i.e. as part of the



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

overall repertoire of linguistic structures, but untagged for a specific component that is limited to particular communicative domains or settings. The motivation to remove the inconvenience of having to maintain strict demarcation boundaries around utterance-organising operations, might then override the wish to preserve the internal, aesthetic coherence of a separate ethnic language, or might indeed not be seen at all as contradicting the latter. Consider the example of Romani, a typical oral minority language lacking the protection of any institutions of literacy or other kind of language regulation, in a permanent situation of bilingualism, its key functions being to serve as family- or clanlanguage, flagging ethnic separateness. Examples (13) – (14) stem from a corpus of recordings of the Lovari dialect, spoken here by a second-generation immigrant from Poland to Germany: (13) Laki familija sas also kesave sar te phenav, artisturi, nǝ? her family were part [German] such how comp I-say artists part [German] Her family were like such how shall I say, showpeople, right? (14)

Taj žasas ande veša taj rodasas, taj dikhasas, khelasas and we-went in woods and we-searched and we-saw played ame halt, nǝ. we part [German] part [German] ‘And we used to go into the woods and search, and look around, we like used to play, right.’

The speaker belongs to the first generation in her family to grow up with both languages, Romani and German (previous generations spoke Romani and Polish, Slovak, and Romanian). Note that the German discourse particles also, halt, nǝ are treated as an integral part of the Romani discourse. They are not regarded as foreign, and they do not disturb the subjective (from the speaker’s point of view) well-formedness of the Romani discourse. Needless to say, they do not cause either loss of face or barriers to comprehensibility within the extended family, which is where Romani is mainly used. On the other hand, there is nothing to suggest that acceptance of German culture, or flagging of German-language competence, are motivating triggers behind the insertion of German particles. Bilingualism is an accepted reality in Romani communities, and at least among members of the second generation of immigrants it is a self-evident norm which does not entail any privileged position. Cultural adaptation is often functional, but a culture of contrast is cherished as a key to the preservation of a diasporic identity. There is therefore, in the Romani-speaking context, no obvious advantage of flagging any form of cultural or emotional accommodation to the outside, non-Romani environment; if anything, community members who do appear strongly integrated into the dominant, surrounding culture are looked down upon as semi-assimilated by other members of the community. What we witness in (13) – (14), therefore, is the



Yaron Matras

emerging acceptance of regular insertions of utterance-organising devices from the contact-language into the home-language discourse. In (13 – (14) we witness the acceptability of those connectors that operate exclusively at the interactional level, like fillers and tags. They convey processing instructions in respect of the roles of the participants and the sequencing arrangement of speech activities, and have a special function as an invitation to the hearer to accept the speaker’s role and point of view. These connectors tend to be less overtly lexical or even grammatical, and we might conclude that it is for this reason that they are more volatile to the mixing of boundaries between repertoire components during conversation, and so also more prone to propagation and ultimately acceptance within the speech community. There is indeed evidence in support of such an hypothesis. Thus, the speaker cited in (13) – (14) uses German sentence particles, but the Polish contrastive conjunction ale ‘but’ (recall that the speaker’s family immigrated to Germany from Poland). However, those connectors that make reference to logical relations among propositions that are part of a propositional chain, are also susceptible when it comes to crossing demarcation boundaries and gaining acceptability. Consider examples (15) – (16) from conversations with two native speakers of Low German originating from the province of Schleswig-Holstein in northern Germany, who immigrated to the United States as teenagers in the mid-1950s:6 (15) IF: (a) und dor arbeidet ik den för hunnertfofti Dåler and there worked I then for hundredfifty dollar de Monat the month DH: (b) jåå, dat weer al wat anners. yes that was already something else IF: (c) dat weer wat anners, und he weer uk en Düütsche that was something else and he was also a German een, ni, and äh ik weer de drüdde, drüdde or one no and uh I was the third third or feerte Düütsche, wat för em arbeiden dee. fourth German who for him work did IF: (a) ‘And there I then worked for one hundred and fifty dollars a month DH: (b) Yes that was already different. IF: (c) That was different, and he was also a German, right, and uh I was the third, third or fourth German who worked for him. (16)

dat weer’n Ünnericht för süstein Stunnen, but ik hef bloos that was a lesson for sixteen hours but I have only acht Stunnen måkt, åber dor hef ik uk nix leert. eight hours made but there have I also nothing learned ‘That was a sixteen-hour class, but I only did eight, but I also didn’t learn anything there.’



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

In (15) we find both Low German und and English and (as well as or), and in (16) both Low German åber and English but. Although some effort is made to select connectors in line with the overall choice of linguistic set (lexical, grammatical), i.e. in line with the selected ‘language’ of the discourse, this effort is not consistent, and the infiltration of English connectors does not seem to be regarded by the speaker as a clash with the norms and expectations on well-formedness of communication structures. Thus, in both the Romani examples and the Low German ones, speakers are licensing themselves to lift the demarcation boundaries within their repertoire around a specific class of grammatical operations. That the adoption of such a licence is gradual, makes common sense, and is also supported by evidence from speech communities where original (native, or inherited) devices continue to be used alongside those markers that are borrowed from the surrounding dominant language. Mosetén is spoken by approximately 800 people in the foothill-region of the Bolivian Andes. It has been in contact with Spanish since the 17th century, but Spanish influence has been particularly strong since the 19th century. The following examples (from Sakel, in press) illustrate the acceptability of Spanish connectors in Mosetén discourse: (17)

Wënjö’ khö’ï mömö’ jishyiti’ y move f only.f comb and [Spanish] me’me’ shiphki’ raej dyaba. so leave all peanut ‘She must have come, [and] she just combed herself and so the peanuts came out [of her hair].’

(18) Chhibin o tsiis ji’jaem’te penne chapatikdyetyi’. three or [Spanish] four good raft big.raft ‘Three or four rafts to make a big raft.’ (19) Me’ jïmë mö’ pero mö’ majjo’ me’. so close 3f.sg but [Spanish] 3f.sg much so ‘This (water-source) is closer, but that one has more (water).’ (20) Tyiñetyi’ pero-ki pen’-ki jai’bai. semi.red but [Spanish]-co side-co white ‘It (the peanut) is semi-red, but one side is white.’ While examples (17) – (19) show plain integration of the Spanish connectors y ‘and’, o ‘or’ and pero ‘but’ into Mosetén discourse, in (20) the Spanish contrastive connector pero is combined with a Mosetén marker of contrast. The two devices are, typologically and apparently also functionally, not incompatible with one another, so that the lifting of boundaries here may be conceived of as making full use of the entire repertoire, with no constraint on domain-specific selection. Anders (1993) documents the speech of ethnic Germans in Russia. Despite the preservation of some literary tradition in German, and a closed and rather isolated



Yaron Matras

community structure, Russian discourse particles are infiltrating German-language discourse and gaining acceptability; this can be seen by examining their frequency, as well as by paying attention to the fact that such elements are rarely accompanied by any self-repairs: (21) T: Der Mann war krank und wir konnten doch nicht. the man was ill and we could part not P: Ja. yes T: Nu und • • wie er gestorben ist, und dann • • • hat es nicht part [Russian] and as he died is and then has it not so lang gedauert. so long lasted T: ‘The man was ill and so we couldn’t. P: Yes. T: Well and • • when he died, and then • • • it took so long.’ Other Russian connectors, such as no ‘but’, appear in the corpus alongside their German equivalents (in this case aber): (22) Ma: Sie wollen jetzt noch Brot holen? you want now still bread fetch No ich hab etwas zu Hause! but [Russian] I have some at home Ba: A, ich han Brot. Aber auf morge. oh [Russian] I have bread but for tomorrow Ma: Do you still want to get bread now? But I’ve got some at home! Ba: Oh, I’ve got bread. But for tomorrow. We have established that a) connectivity devices are prone to lapses in control over the choice of repertoire component in early bilingualism, and to speech production errors involving control over the choice of repertoire component in adult bilingualism, and that b) connectivity devices are subject to variation in communities with stable bilingualism, with markers from the surrounding majority or dominant language gradually gaining acceptance as part of the inventory of linguistic structures of the in-group, ethnic, immigrant or minority language.

5. Connectivity structures and grammatical borrowing My claim in this paper (see also Matras 1998) is that variation of the kind seen in the previous set of examples is an outcome of the gradual acceptance and conventionalisation of spontaneous and unintentional lapses in bilingual speakers’ overall effort



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

to maintain demarcation among their repertoire components. We shall return to a discussion of the reasons behind the pressure triggering such lapses specifically around connectivity devices in the discussion below. Once variation sets in, it motivates change: Where too different forms compete for the same function, speakers are likely to regard one of them as more fashionable than the other. Change is thus likely to affect the inventory of connectivity devices; one might say, therefore, that the connectivity apparatus is particularly prone to grammatical borrowing in language contact situations where the recipient language is the weaker or rather the group-internal language. Turoyo (Christian Neo-Aramaic of Tur Abdin, southeastern Turkey; Jastrow 1992) for example, a minority language in a multilingual region, shares its connective and discourse particles amma ‘but’, ya ‘or’, faqat ‘however’, and ya … ya ‘whether/either … or’, ḥetta ‘even’ and balki ‘maybe’ with the surrounding languages Kurmanji (Kurdish), Turkish, and Arabic, the particles û ‘and’ with Kurmanji and Arabic, the connectors ǝnkān ‘if ’ and lašān ‘in order to’ with Arabic, and the particle disa ‘again’, hēš ‘still’, edi ‘then, so’, šxwa ‘anyway’, tǝ ‘at all’, veğa ‘now’, and žnu ‘only then’ with Kurmanji. Such wholesale adoption of the inventory of connective devices (including coordinating and some subordinating conjunctions, interjections, discourse particles, focus particles, and phasal particles) is common in other languages under similar sociolinguistic conditions (stable and widespread multilingualism, primarily oral tradition, restriction of the language to in-group or family communication). Domari, for instance, the Indic language of the Dom peripatetics of the Middle East, employs the full inventory of Arabic conjunctions and discourse particles, including all coordinating and subordinating conjunctions and co-particle (co-relatives), relative particles, phasal and focus particles, interjections, fillers, and tags (items in italics are grammatical loans from Arabic): (23) law ēr-om xužoti kān laher-d-om-s-a if [Arabic] come.past-1sg yesterday cond [Arabic] see-past-1sg-3sg-ant ‘If I had come yesterday I would have seen him’. (24) warik-ar-a mlāy-ēk minšān mā džan-ad-is wear-3sg-ant veil-pred.m so.that [Arabic] neg [Arabic] know-3pl.subj-3sg ‘She used to wear a veil so that one would not recognise her’ (25) qabel-mā dža-m xałłaṣk-ed-om kam-as before-comp [Arabic] go-1sg.subj finish-past-1sg work-obl ‘Before I left I finished my work’ (26) iza wars-ari, n-aw-am-eʔ if [Arabic] rain-3sg neg-come-1sg-neg ‘If it rains, I shall not come’ (27) na kil-d-om bara liʔann-hā wars-ari neg go.out-past-1sg out because-3sg.f [Arabic] rain-3sg ‘I did not go out because it is raining’



Yaron Matras

(28)

ū daʔiman/ yaʕnī/ kunt ama and [Arabic] always [Arabic] that.is [Arabic] was.1sg [Arabic] I kury-a-m-ēk wala kil-šami wala aw-ami. house-obl-loc-pred.f and.not [Arabic] exit-1sg and.not [Arabic] come-1sg ‘And I was always/ I mean/ at home, not going out nor coming’

(29) mana illi to-r-im iyyā-h bread rel [Arabic] gave-2sg-1sg res-3sg [Arabic] ‘the bread that you gave me [it]’ As a result of this wholesale incorporation of Arabic connectors, along with the syntactic convergence of Domari with Arabic and its replication of Arabic word order and clause structure features, sentence organisation and clause combining is identical in the two languages. For Domari speakers, the in-group component of their linguistic repertoire, or what makes up the ‘Domari language’, therefore does not include a specific inventory of connectors or connectivity structures, but is limited to the internal organisation of clauses or even just constituents. As far as speakers are concerned, speaking ‘internally’ (speaking Domari) and speaking ‘externally’ (Arabic) are identical when it comes to connectors and connectivity devices. From a diachronic viewpoint, Domari has undergone complete fusion with Arabic in the domain of connectivity. Romani, too, tends to borrow connectivity markers from the various surrounding languages with which Romani dialects have come into contact. Most prone to early borrowing are, as we saw above, discourse particles, fillers, and tags. Coordinating conjunctions form an interesting hierarchy of borrowing in Romani. All dialects of Romani borrow the conjunction ‘but’ from a current or recent contact language (e.g. Slavic no, po and ali/ale, Hungarian de, Turkish ama, German aber). A pre-European expression for ‘or’, vaj, is retained in some dialects. Elsewhere, ‘or’ is often found to be a more stable borrowing than ‘but’: For instance, the Ajia Varvara Romani dialect of Athens has ja ‘or’ from its Recent L2 Turkish, but ala ‘but’ from its Current L2 Greek; Helsinki Romani has elle ‘or’ from its Recent L2 Swedish, but mut ‘but’ from its Current L2 Finnish. Pre-European ta(j) ‘and’ is retained in many dialects, though often alongside a borrowed conjunction for ‘and’. The additive conjunction too may be a more conservative, earlier loan than the contrastive or alternative conjunction; thus Bugurdži Romani hem/em from the Recent L2 Turkish, alongside pre-European thaj, but ili ‘or’ and po/ali ‘but’ from the Current L2, Serbian. There is a clear implicational hierarchy for the borrowing of coordinating conjunctions, based on contrast (cf. Matras 1998): If ‘and’ is borrowed, then ‘or’ is also borrowed, and if ‘or’ is borrowed, then ‘but’ is also borrowed.7 Romani is not unique in this regard. A sample of languages under the cultural influence sphere (directly, or via another language) of Arabic (Matras 1998) show a similar hierarchy, with Arabic-derived contrastive expressions such as lakin or amma most widespread (cf. Urdu, Punjabi, Persian, Turkish, Lezgian, Albanian, Somali, Hausa, Ful), followed by Arabic-derived disjunctive expressions (ya), followed by additive conjunctions from Arabic (such as ve/w). In a sample of 29 Mesoamerican languages



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

discussed by Stolz & Stolz (1996), 21 languages borrow Spanish pero ‘but’, 16 borrow o ‘or’, and 12 borrow y ‘and’. The results are by and large implicational: If a language in the sample borrows y, it also borrows pero. There are no exceptions to this rule. If a language borrows y, with only two exceptions it also borrows o. If a language borrows o, it is also very likely to borrow pero, there being only three exceptions. We return to the significance of this hierarchy in the Discussion below. The Macedonian dialect of Turkish has borrowed not only individual connectors from its contact language, Macedonian, but also the design of clause combining, which relies on free-standing, clause initial conjunctions introducing finite clauses (whereas in Turkish clause combining is often achieved through converbal structures, with converbs marked as suffixes to verbs): (30) i şimdi onların atları kaldi “Yürük”. and [Macedonian] now 3pl.gen name.pl.poss stay.past Yürük And so they kept the name “Yürük” (31) a gemide para yok whereas [Macedonian] boat.loc money none whereas on the boats there’s no money In (30) – (31), we find the Slavic (Macedonian) clause-initial conjunctions i ‘and’ and a ‘and, however; whereas’, and so also a contrast between two distinct connectivity types – addition, and contrastive-addition – which do not exist in (Standard) Turkish. The organisation of clause combining structures in Macedonian Turkish replicates the Macedonian blueprint even in those cases where no actual formal material is borrowed. Thus in (30), the first embedded clause (‘what I want to say’) is finite, and is introduced by a conjunction ne, deriving from the interrogative ‘what’8; this conjunction also serves as a relativiser. The second, modal clause (‘I want to say’) is also finite, showing the typical Balkan infinitive-loss and its replacement through a finite (in this case, subjunctive) verb describing the target action (cf. Matras 2003/2004): (32) bilirsin ne istiyom deyim know.aor.2sg what want.prog.1sg say.subj.1sg ‘You know what I want to say.’ Note that Macedonian Turkish remains, in contrast to the other languages of the Balkans, an agglutinating, postpositional, and predominantly SOV language, and so typologically quite distinct. In terms of syntactic typology, the structure of clause combining might be regarded as the first (and so far principal) domain in which convergence with the neighbouring languages takes place. Connectivity structures, then, appear particularly vulnerable not just to the actual borrowing for formal material such as conjunctions and other particles, but also to the replication of patterns of constituent ordering, agreement and overall form-function mapping that form the mental blueprint for the respective construction. We find evidence for this tendency toward con-



Yaron Matras

vergence of clause combining structures in other linguistic areas, too. Consider the structure of complementation in a number of languages in the northern Levant / eastern Anatolian region – Kurmanji (Iranian), Neo-Aramaic (Semitic), Arabic (Semitic), and Domari (Indo-Aryan). (33) Kurmanji: ez di-xwaz-im her-im mal-ê I prog-want-1sg go.subj-1sg home-obl (34) Neo-Aramaic (Zakho, Iraq): ana g-ib-ǝn āz-in l-bēsa I prog-want-1sg go.subj-1sg to-home (35) Arabic: ana biddī a-rūḥ ʕa-l-bēt I want.1sg 1sg-go.subj to-def-home (36)

Domari: ama biddī dža-m kury-ata I want.1sg go.subj-1sg home-dat ‘I want to go home’

Note that the languages differ in basic word order rules, Kurmanji showing predominantly SOV, the others showing mainly SVO. As is the case in Macedonian Turkish, the structure of connectivity appears more prone to convergence than other aspects of syntactic typology. Based on a selection of case studies, we can arrive at the following tentative conclusion about the position of connectivity devices in language contact situations: a. Connective particles are prone to direct borrowing (i.e. replication of form), particularly from a dominant language (whereby the prestige of the dominant language is the key to long-term acceptability of the forms, but not necessarily the trigger for their initial insertion at the utterance level). ‘Smaller’ or ‘weaker’ languages will tend toward fusion of the inventory of connective particles with that of the dominant language. The susceptibility of connective particles to borrowing tends to be hierarchical, with those expressing contrast as well as those with minimal lexical content (i.e. gesture-like) among the most likely to be affected. b. Connectivity structures that operate at the level of the entire organisation of the complex clause are prone to replication of that organisation pattern. Such convergence or pattern replication occurs under the influence of a dominant language, but also in linguistic areas (where relations of prestige and dominance may not be obvious). What is replicated here is primarily the rules of form-function mapping, the ordering of elements and their grammatical meaning. In other words, we are dealing here with the replication or fusion of constructions (in the sense of Construction Grammar; cf. Goldberg 1995, Croft 2001).



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

6. Discussion: The triggers of fusion around connectivity devices Why is connectivity prone to fusion (of the inventory of operators and their functions) and convergence (of the inventory of constructions) in language contact situations? If our hypothesis is correct, and fusion begins as speech production errors where speakers select the correct function, but fail to observe the constraints on the selection of the appropriate form (‘language’), then we must assume that there is a property of the mental processing operation that is associated with connectivity, and which interferes with the mechanism that controls the selection of items within the overall repertoire of forms and constructions in accordance with context- and situation-bound constraints (i.e. the demarcation mechanism). We must therefore search for the answer to the question of the susceptibility of connectivity devices to borrowing in the function of connectivity in processing language in discourse. Approaches to discourse agree that connectivity does not just concern the relation between the content of one clause or phrase and that of another that is adjacent to it. Rather, it concerns the complex communicative interrelations between the speaker and the hearer during the sequencing of units of discourse (cf. already Schiffrin 1987; see also Rehbein 1979, Redder 1989, Ehlich 1986). The speaker has to guide the hearer into processing relations between utterances, or between the propositional components of utterances. With some combinations of propositions, the processing track is more problematic than with others, i.e. some connections are harder to accept against the set of existing presuppositions. This is where the speaker has to ‘work harder’ in order to sustain the supportive participation of the hearer, and the hearer’s acceptance of the speaker’s authority as speaker and point of view. Similarly, the speaker has to ‘work harder’ when his/her own authority is at stake for other reasons, for instance for failing to maintain the flow of the turn, or for failing to provide convincing clarification, on in instances where the speaker may simply wish to ascertain the support of the hearer (circumstances that are often highlighted by means of fillers, hesitation markers, or tags). The inventory of structures and forms involved in such communicative procedures constitute an apparatus through which the speaker can monitor hearer-sided participation in the discourse, guide the hearer and intervene with hearer-sided processing of the discourse – a kind of ‘monitoring-and-directing’ apparatus. It contains the more obvious functions of connectors –inviting the hearer to accept a proposition as a supplementary continuation of a previous proposition (addition), urging the hearer to revise a possible course of processing and accept a broken causal chain (cf. Rudolph 1995) proposed by the speaker (contrast), or inviting the hearer to accept the speaker’s explanation of a state-of-affairs and its relevance (causation/ result). They may also include the more strictly interaction-oriented functions of connectors – inviting the hearer to continue to anticipate the conclusion of the speaker’s turn despite an interruption in the speaker’s flow of speech or clarity of expression (fillers), or inviting the hearer to signal reassurance of having accepted the speaker’s subjective



Yaron Matras

chaining of propositions or portrayal of an overall point of view (tags). The monitoring-and-directing apparatus involves complex processing in that it depends on the speaker’s anticipation of the hearer’s mental processing of and reactions toward the discourse and communicative behaviour; thus, it calls on the speaker to make predictions about the interlocutor’s activities, and to organise actions of speech accordingly. In this light, the borrowing hierarchy of connectors discussed in the previous section has more than just coincidental value. At the top of the cline contrast>disjunction>addition we find, in discourse-pragmatic terms, maximal intervention on the part of the speaker in the hearer-sided processing of propositions, in effect blocking a pathway for processing the proposition that is available (based on presupposition), and limiting interpretation to a particular direction. With disjunction, the option of diverting a course of interpretation is introduced by the speaker, who offers the hearer an alternative pathway. Addition may be considered the most supportive of all three positions on the cline, in terms of the firm and clear direction of processing which the speaker offers to the hearer, and its harmonious relationship to contextual presuppositions. Borrowing thus appears to mirror the intensity of tension between anticipated, presupposition-based hearer-sided processing of propositional content, and the direction that the speaker’s following speech activity takes. If we trace borrowing of connectors back to a lapse in exercising control over the selection mechanism through which bilingual speakers maintain context-bound demarcation among repertoire components, then we come across a link between interactional tension of this kind, and failure at a given instant to maintain control over the demarcation boundary. Compromising demarcation boundaries is thus, we hypothesise, triggered by the mental processing effect of intense monitoring-and-directing by the speaker of hearer-sided participation in the discourse. This explains why alongside connectors and connectivity structures, other operators whose function it is to process, explicitly, hearer-sided expectations, and so to highlight explicitly the relevance of propositional contents (in the sense proposed by Blakemore 2002; cf. also Sperber & Wilson 1986), such as focus particles (even, too) or phasal particles (still, no longer), are similarly prone to bilingual speech production errors (i.e. ‘wrong’ choices) as well as to long-term borrowing in contact situations. It appears, then, that the monitoring-and-directing apparatus is tightly associated with the forms that trigger the individual operations (but for contrast, you know for tags/fillers, and so on), which reduces the ‘reflection time’ that the speaker has at his/ her disposal to contemplate the selection of an appropriate element, and which makes this selection more automaticised or gesture-like, compared with other linguistic selections. At the same time, the procedures involved in monitoring-and-directing appear more abstract and so more loosely associated with any particular subset within the repertoire of linguistic forms and constructions, and so more prone to evading control over the context-bound demarcation among repertoire components. In practice, what this means is that the bilingual speaker, when initiating a monitoring-and-directing procedure, is prone to select the structure that encodes this procedure



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

from the pragmatically dominant language (i.e the language to which strongest mental attention has recently been directed), rather than from the selected language of the ongoing interaction. If the structure is a word-form, that word-form is likely to be inserted. If the structure is a construction, that is a pattern of form-function mapping, then this pattern will be replicated drawing on elements of the selected language of the interaction.

7. Epilogue: Connectivity and language evolution If our interpretation of the data discussed in the sections above is correct, then we can conclude that the position of connectivity devices at the top of the cline of structural borrowing reflects the particular position of connectivity in the grammatical apparatus. What, then, is that particular position, and what can we learn from it about the ancient architecture of the language faculty? The evolution of language is probably the most speculative domain in current linguistic discussions (cf. Wray 2002, Tallerman 2005, for an overview). This final section does not pretend to offer any methodological breakthrough in the study of language evolution. Rather, it relies on an interpretation of the empirical evidence discussed in the previous sections, and joins the pool of speculations on the significance of empirical evidence to theories of the emergence of language. The monitoring-and-directing apparatus, we argued, is more difficult to control as part of the demarcation of repertoire components (= ‘separation of languages’ in the bilingual repertoire). This positions the monitoring-and-directing apparatus in a different category from other types of linguistic structures and constructions, not just functionally, but from the point of view of the nature of its retrievability or mental activation. Indeed, its potential detachability from a closed subset of the repertoire places it in the vicinity of other means of communication, such as gestures, that are tightly associated with a particular interactional function, but only more loosely associated with just a particular set of contexts or settings (a particular ‘system’ or ‘language’). Which other elements of language might be regarded as belonging to this class of gesture-like functions, and is there any evidence linking them with connectivity devices? There is, in fact, some experimental evidence based on neuroimaging of the brain, indicating that the processing of clause conjoining is linked to greater right-hemispheric activity (Friederici 2001). There appears to be rather clear evidence linking the processing of prosody to greater right-hemispheric activity, compared to the processing of melodic features of language (Schirmer et al. 2001; Friederici 2001; cf. also McMahon 2005). There is also cross-linguistic evidence that discourse particles, including clause-initial coordinating conjunctions, tend to be produced correctly by patients suffering from agrammatism (Menn & Obler 1990: 1370), which again supports the impression of some kind of neurofunctional separation of discourse-organisational operators from other function words. Brain lateralisation could therefore be a factor promoting susceptibility to bilingual production errors in some linguistic procedures – those procedures that are more difficult to control in an analytical fashion. Not sur-



Yaron Matras

prisingly, this involves functions that show greater dependency on non-analytical, right-hemispheric processing. We might assume that the source of the neurofunctional distinctness of connectors and discourse markers is related to their function as a kind of verbal gesture expressed by the speaker to accompany the organisation of speech at the discourse level, and especially to direct the attention and participation of the hearer. These are elements with which the speaker may be said to reach out to the hearer. McMahon (2005) argues for a primary function of prosody in an evolutionary sense, one that emerged prior to the emergence of language as an analytical faculty. It is noteworthy that prosody, like connectivity, is particularly susceptible to contact-induced change, and to convergence in linguistic areas. Arguably, contact-susceptibility in these domains is linked to instinctive (rather than analytical), gesture-like communicative activities. If there is indeed a right-hemispheric orientation for connectors and discourse markers, as there is for prosody, one would be tempted to assume that monitoring-and-directing functions evolved prior to the emergence of language as a more analytic (and lefthemisphere-oriented) faculty. The assumption that monitoring-and-directing operations emerged early in the sequence of evolution of communicative functions is not incompatible with Tomasello’s (1999) suggestion that language evolved is response to the emergence in humans of the capacity to ‘identify’ with fellow humans as intentional agents. It is possible that, much like prosody, the gesture-like nature of grammatical elements such as connectors and discourse markers is a residue of the earliest mental ‘tools’ used by human to capture an interlocutor’s attention and to try and influence the course of an interlocutor’s intentions and actions. The interactional aspects of connectivity might therefore belong to the more primitive, more ‘instinct’-driven and less analytical components of human communication; as such, they are more prone to escaping the analytical control of the bilingual who struggles to maintain what is, effectively, a socially constructed demarcation boundary within a repertoire of communicative tools.

Notes 1. Grosjean’s (2001) speaks of ‘language modes’, which involve a cline of different degrees of activation of each language within the bilingual’s repertoire. 2. See Matras (1998) for a discussion of fusion in this sense. Cf. Meisel (1990), who characterises the lack of grammatical separation between languages in Bilingual First Language Acquisition as fusion. 3. The third – unten ‘below’ – reveals that at least part of the utterance was planned in German, and the local expression which serves as a crucial reference point escapes the simultaneous transposition of the original mental plan of the proposition into English. This slip does not escape the speaker’s attention, however, and he pauses to save face, then repairs.



Contact, connectivity and language evolution 

4. See previous footnote, and note German word order patterns in … were by the custom, the use of the perfect tense, and the lexical composition luggage room < German Kofferraum. 5. But see also Salmons (1990) for a different approach to bilingual discourse markers, one that emphasises the convergence of communicative strategies. 6.

Examples provided by Dörte Hansen-Jaax, 1995.

7. Aikhenvald (2002: 182) mistakenly cites this hierarchy in reverse order: “In the hierarchy of borrowing suggested by Matras (1998: 303), the coordinating conjunction ‘and’ is considered more likely to be borrowed than ‘or’”, and goes on to say that Tariana is a counterexample, since the coordinating conjunction is not borrowed, neither is the Portuguese contrastive conjunction mas borrowed, although Portuguese o ‘or’ does appear. 8. In Standard Turkish a paratactic construction resembling this structure is possible, but the default embedded clause would be nominal: bil-ir-sin de-mek iste-diğ-im-i know-aor-2sg sayinf want-past.part-1sg-acc.

References Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: OUP. Anders, K. 1993. Einflüsse der russischen Sprache bei deutschsprachigen Aussiedlern [Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit 44]. Hamburg: Germanisches Seminar. Auer, P. (ed.). 1999 Codeswitching in Conversation. Language, interaction and identity. London: Routledge. Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning. The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. Clyne, M. 2003. Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. Croft, W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman. Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: OUP. Ehlich, Konrad. 1986. Interjektionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Friederici, A. 2001. ������������������������������������������������������������������������ Syntactic, prosodic, and semantic processes in the brain: Evidence from event-related neuroimaging. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30: 237–250. Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press. Grosjean, F. 2001. The bilingual’s language modes. In One mind, Two languages. Bilingual language processing, J.L. Nicol (ed.), 1–22. Oxford: Blackwell. Hansen-Jaax, D. 1995. Transfer bei Diglossie. Synchrone Sprachkontaktphänomene im Niederdeutschen. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac. Jastrow, O. 1992. Lehrbuch der Turoyo -Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lanza, E. 1997. Language Mixing in Infant Bilingualism. A sociolinguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP. Maschler, Y. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23: 325–366. Matras, Y. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36: 281–331.



Yaron Matras Matras, Y. 2003/2004. �������������������������������������������������������������� Layers of convergent syntax in Macedonian Turkish. Mediterranean Language Review 15: 63–86. McMahon, A. 2005. Heads I win, tails you lose. In Headhood Elements, Specification and Contrastivity, P. Carr, J. Durand and C. Eden (eds), 255–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meisel, Jürgen M. 1990. ��������������������������������������������������������������������� Code switching and related phenomena in young bilingual children. In Papers for the Workshop on Concepts, Methodology and Data [European Science Foundation Network on Code Switching and Language Contact], 143–168. Menn, L. and Obler, L. K. 1990. Cross-linguistic data and theories of agrammatism. In Agrammatic Aphasia: A cross-language narrative sourcebook, L. Menn and L. K. Obler (eds), 1369–1389. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ochs, E. 1988. Culture and Language Development: Language acquisition and language socialisation in a Samoan village. Cambridge: CUP. Poplack, S. 1980. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18: 581–618. Redder, A. 1989. Konjunktionen, Partikeln und Modalverben als Sequenzierungsmittel im Unterrichtsdiskurs. ��� In Dialoganalyse II, E. Weigand and F. Hundsnurscher (eds), 393–407. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rehbein, J. 1979. Sprechhandlungsaugmente. Zur Organisation der Hörersteuerung. In Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache, H. Weydt (ed), 58–74. Berlin: ������������������� De Gruyter. Rudolph. E. 1995. Contrast. Adversative and concessive expressions on sentence and text level. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Sakel, J. In press. The borrowing of Spanish discourse markers in Mosetén. International Journal of Bilingualism. Salmons, J. 1990. Bilingual discourse marking: Code switching, borrowing, and convergence in some German-American dialects. Linguistics 28: 453–480. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Schirmer, A., Alter, K., Kotz, S. and Friederici, A. 2001. Lateralization of prosody during language production: A lesion study. Brain and Language 76: 1–17. Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stolz, C. and Stolz, T. 1996. Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika. Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt [Hispanoindiana II]. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49: 86–123. Tallerman, M. (ed.) 2005. Language Origins. Perspectives on evolution. Oxford: OUP. Tomasello, M. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Volterra, V. and Taeschner, T. 1978. The acquisition and development of language by a bilingual child. Journal of Child Language 5: 311–326. Wray, A. (ed.) 2002. The Transition to Language. Oxford: OUP.

ALLORA On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian as donor language Thomas Stolz University of Bremen

The article addresses the issue of function-word borrowing from Italian into a number of languages spoken in Italy or neighbouring regions. Among the most frequently borrowed items, the discourse particle allora stands out as the most widespread Italian loan. The article explores the properties which make allora a prime candidate for being borrowed. The borrowability of allora is compared to two competing relative chronologies of function-word borrowing whose empirical basis does not contain evidence from language-contact situations with Italian. It is argued that the success story of allora calls for a partial revision of those models which ascribe particular importance to adversative conjunctions and discourse particles (translating English but and however) because the ubiquitous Italian discourse particle is a serious competitor for the role of prime mover in the chronology of function-word borrowing.

1. From Spanish to Italian Some (though by far not all) function words are known for being particularly prone to being borrowed in language contact situations.1 Especially discourse markers / particles lend themselves easily to transfer from one language to the other. On Thomason’s (2001: 70) borrowing scale, they occur as early as stage 2 which is described as a phase of “slightly more intense contact (borrowers must be reasonably fluent bilinguals, but they are probably a minority among borrowing-language speakers)”. Unsurprisingly, discourse markers / particles also count among the most prominent elements in codeswitching because they most often occupy positions at the periphery of clauses, sentences and paragraphs – positions which are frequently involved in codeswitching (Myers-Scotton 1993). Recent research has revealed that discourse markers / particles of one and the same prestigious superstrate or adstrate language are indiscriminately borrowed by recipient languages with very diverse genetic, areal and typological back-



Thomas Stolz

grounds. Matras (1998: 301–305) for instance has studied the almost ubiquitous borrowing of adversative and coordinating conjunctions corresponding to English but / however and and / or in numerous contact constellations. He provides an intriguing cognitive explanation for the prominence of not only adversative conjunctions in the inventories of borrowed function words across languages: [T]he trigger behind language mixing around discourse-regulating grammatical elements is cognitive, not social, in the sense that it derives from the mentalprocessing functions associated with the linguistic expression, or in plain terms from its communicative-interactional function. The ‘donor’ language is the one that is pragmatically dominant in the particular instance in which transfer occurs, that is, it is a linguistic system to which speakers show a special situative commitment and to which their efforts at norm-conforming linguistic behavior are currently directed. Typically, such a donor system belongs to the language in which group-external communication takes place, and where the speakers under consideration, being outsiders, do not participate in defining the norm. Conversely, their own group may be tolerant toward changing norms and may accept such cognitively triggered transfers. If such a constellation persists, recurring transfers may be conventionalized. Prestige is thus not itself a motivation for the transfer of discourse markers […], but at most a background precondition for the wholesale, long-term borrowing of this class of items [inverted commas original] (Matras 1998: 396).

These rather appealing ideas, however, have not been left unchallenged. In her chapter on Portuguese influence on the Amazonian language Tariana, Aikhenvald (2002: 179– 86) observes that her evidence runs counter to the patterns familiar from other contact constellations where discourse markers are prime candidates for being borrowed. Tariana does not seem to have borrowed any discourse markers from Portuguese (although it has borrowed the preposition até ‘until’ [a somewhat doubtful case though], the conjunction ou ‘or’ and the negator nem ‘nor’). Aikhenvald (2002: 182) emphasises that the notorious adversative conjunction has not been borrowed into Tariana. Moreover, she claims that the borrowing of the disjunctive ou ‘or’ without prior borrowing of the coordinating e ‘and’ disproves the validity of Matras’s borrowing hierarchy. However, this latter claim is caused by a misinterpretation of the implication and ⊃ or ⊃ but.2 Matras (1998: 303 and elsewhere) clearly states that but is the unmarked case whereas the borrowed or implies borrowed but and borrowed and implies borrowed or and but. Thus, only the absence of Portuguese mas ‘but’ in Tariana is a challenge to Matras’ model. In the light of such potential counter-evidence it is advisable to extend our empirical basis by reviewing more contact constellations with different donors and recipients and, other sets of function words. With a view to testing Matras’s hypothesis, it is thus necessary to look at function words other than adversative conjunctions and functionally closely related items from a comparative perspective. These additional function words have to be checked in de-



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

tail for their borrowability in order to determine whether or not there is something special about say, adversativity, which facilitates the borrowing of its expressions provided by the prestigious (or in Matras’s terms “pragmatically prominent”) language. If a certain class of markers behaves differently from other function words fulfilling discourse-organizing tasks when it comes to being borrowed, then this evidence has to be checked against Matras’s model and the hierarchies proposed therein. If however there is no evidence for a special status of one class of markers in comparison to other discourse particles then a revision of the model is called for. This will also be the case if it turns out that certain languages – be they recipient or donor languages – yield divergent results in language contact situations. Thus, in this contribution, I will give special attention to a different set of discourse particles whose functional domain does not prototypically revolve around adversativity (see below). I will also look at languages which hitherto have not been prominent in the literature on our topic. In order to guarantee comparability with Matras (1998), I will largely refrain from discussing social factors, whose potential effects in function-word borrowing will be focused upon in a follow-up study. The paradigm case of parallel borrowing behaviour is the Hispanicisation of (many of) the indigeneous languages presently spoken in those territories which once belonged to the erstwhile Spanish colonial empire or which now form part of the officially Spanish-speaking successor states of the former colonies in Latin America (Zimmermann 1987; Th. Stolz 1996, 1997, 1998, 2002; Ch. Stolz 1998; Stolz and Stolz 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 2001). Owing to the common exposure to Spanish as their prestigious donor language, languages of different genetic affiliation and typological classes on three continents have become similar in spite of their original structural diversity. The features they now share are the ones which they have borrowed independently from Spanish: more often than not, languages in Austronesia (Philippines, Marianas, Easter Island), the Americas (from Mexico to Tierra de Fuego) and – though probably to a lesser extent – Africa (Northern Maroc, West Sahara and Equatorial Guinea) display almost identical and relatively extended sets of Spanish-derived function words with discourse particles ranking highest. The widespread use of Spanish entonces ‘then, therefore, thus’ in Autronesian and Amerindian languages exemplifies this tendency. In (1)-(4) I present sentences from Philippinian, Polynesian, Tupi-Guaranian and Totonac-Tepehuan languages which have integrated entonces into their systems without ever having been in direct contact with each other.3 In these sentences, the usage to which the borrowed versions of entonces are put in the recipient languages largely conforms to the patterns provided by the donor language Spanish, although functional and distributional equivalence is not necessarily strict, as recipient languages may employ borrowed items in a way which is at odds with the rules of the donor language. Note too that direct Spanish influence on Hiligaynon ceased more than a century ago whereas it is very strong (and ever increasing) in the three remaining cases.4



Thomas Stolz

(1)

Hiligaynon [Austronesian, Philippinian – Philippines] (Wolfenden 1971: 79–80)5 Madamo ang bulak dira’ intonsis manguha kita many Det flower at_there therefore Fut:get 1Pl ‘There are lots of flowers there, so let’s get some.’

(2)

Rapanui [Austronesian, Polynesian – Easter Island] (Makihara 2001: 198) entonces ka u’i mo hakapiri o tātou entonces Imp look Subord unite Poss 1Pl.Incl ‘Therefore, let’s look to unite ourselves.’

(3)

Guaraní [Amerindian, Guaraní-Tupi – Paraguay] (Gregores and Suárez 1967: 188) etónse ko’éro ‘ó ko’è=muaéro še po-visitá ta entonces tomorrow or day_after_tomorrow I you-visit Fut ‘Then, tomorrow or the day after, I will visit you.’

(4)

Totonac [Amerindian, Totonac-Tepehuan – Mexico] (Levy 1990: 42) entonces tuku li:-cha:’lhka:tnan-a chi? entonces what Ins-work-2Sg.Incomp now ‘What then are you working on now?’

Chances are that we would encounter similar phenomena not only in Rifeño or other varieties of Berber exposed to Spanish influence in Northern Maroc, but also in heavily Hispanicized substandard / regional varieties of Basque where the normative influence of the unified standard Batua is still rather restricted. Given that the recipient languages, or their immediate predecessors, made use of autochthonous means fulfilling functions similar to those of the borrowed Spanish items during pre-contact times (and, in many cases, continue to do so even today), it makes no sense to attribute the astonishing homology among the recipient languages to incidentally shared structural “deficiencies” (since, of course, there are no deficiencies in natural languages). Likewise, it is impossible to identify any “positive” structural feature common to so many dissimilar languages which might have triggered the borrowing process. Is there then anything about the Spanish discourse markers / particles which makes them irresistible when languages come into contact with Spanish? In order to answer this deliberately naive question, it is necessary to turn our attention to a different donor language. If the discourse markers / particles of other donor languages prove less successful in language contact situations, the idea becomes more tenable that there is something about the Spanish elements (or the socio-communicative conditions in the Spanish sphere of influence) which makes them especially attractive for being borrowed. However, if it turns out that (certain classes of) discourse markers / particles rank high on the borrowability hierarchy independent of the donor language, then the Spanish elements are nothing extraordinary – they only corroborate a general tendency. In this contribution, therefore, I look at the impact Italian and its regional varieties have been exerting on co-territorial minority languages and the somewhat outlier heavily Italianized Maltese language spoken on the Mal-



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

tese archipelago just south of Sicily. I haven chosen Italian as the test case because of the following reasons: (i) Like the seemingly problematic Portuguese (according to Aikhenvald 2002, see above), Spanish and Italian are both Romance languages and are thus easy to compare. (ii) The periods of Hispanicization and Italianization are almost co-extensive as both have been in existence for at least half a millennium in some parts of the territories under scrutiny. In addition, there is also an almost identical division into sub-periods of different contact intensity: for the first centuries, both Spanish and Italian were only sporadically present in the non-Romance speech-communities – a situation which changed drastically in the 19th century when official language policy started to aim at an enforced cultural and linguistic homogenization. (iii) The Italian case is different from the Spanish one as it does not reflect a typical colonial situation but a socially assymmetric adstrate constellation within the zone of cultural and / or demographic dominance of the prestigious group. (iv) Except Maltese, the languages influenced by Italian are all of Indo-European stock and thus distantly related to and structurally not too dissimilar from Italian and its dialects. Thus, the Italian situation differs considerably from the ones described in Matras (1998), Stolz and Stolz (1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 2001) and Aikhenvald (2002) whose focus is on genetically diverse contact constellations. On the basis of a genetically less heterogeneous sample, one might expect different behaviour on the part of the recipient languages. If this hypothesis is falsified however, claims with a language-independent scope can be formulated. (v) As with Spanish, the contact situations both actually involve bilingual ones (with Italian or a local variety thereof being one of the languages mastered by the speakers) and historical ones (for which Italian has almost completely disappeared from the inventory of actively used languages of the population).

The languages to which I mostly refer in the remainder of my contribution are in alphabetic order: (Italo)-Albanian (also called Arbëresh), Cimbrian (Germanic) a heavily Italianised variety of Upper German (Bavarian), (Italo-)Greek (also called Griko), Maltese and Molise Slavic, a South Slavic variety.6 (Italo)-Albanian, Cimbrian, (Italo-)Greek and Molise Slavic are minority languages spoken in relatively small and isolated village varieties scattered about various Italian regions, namely the Veneto and Trentino for Cimbrian, Molise, Calabria, Sicily and Puglia for (Italo)-Albanian, Calabria and Puglia for (Italo-)Greek, and Molise for Molise Slavic. Owing to the better accessability of reliable data for Calabria, my discussion of (Italo-)Albanian and (Italo-)Greek focusses on their Calabrian varieties. (Italo)-Albanian has the largest speech-community with about 88,000 speakers whereas Cimbrian, (Italo-)Greek and Molise Slavic together count no more than 20,000 speakers. Maltese is of course the official language (co-official with English) of the Republic of Malta with slightly less than 400,000 resident native speakers. Maltese boasts of a normative grammar and a



Thomas Stolz

relatively rich literary tradition dating back to the late 18th century. It has been experiencing a constant increase in functions and domains ever since the 1930s when its status was made official (to the detriment of the erstwhile dominant Italian). With Malta’s admission to the EU, Maltese has also become one of the official languages of this supra-national organization whereas the above minority languages of Italy are more or less endangered notwithstanding recent legal provisions aiming at their preservation. Literacy in these languages is limited. Practically all speakers of the minority languages also know Italian and / or a regional Romance variety. On Malta, active knowledge of Italian is restricted although a sizeable number of Maltese are still able to understand Italian fairly well (which continues to be present on the islands because of mass tourism, TV and radio). In sociolinguistic terms, the speech-communities of the minority languages in Italy can be compared to the ones of many indigeneous languages in modern Latin America where Spanish is omnipresent in daily life outside the local residence and the autochthonous Amerindian languages are confined to home, family and perhaps the village. Maltese on the other hand compares with those languages which, as a result of the vicissitudes of political history, were able to emancipate themselves from the foreign dominance, for instance Tagalog in the Philippines (where English ousted Spanish as it did with Italian on Malta).

2. Italian The Italian equivalent of Spanish entonces is allora. Allora is multifunctional in the sense that it may be employed as temporal adverb meaning ‘then, at that time’ (Renzi, Salvi and Cardinaletti 1995: 284–286), as a paragraph-connecting discourse particle with a range of consecutive-causal-temporal readings corresponding to English then / thus / therefore and as a marker of turn-taking (Renzi, Salvi and Cardinaletti 1995: 245). Furthermore, it is also used with a certain adversative flair especially in emphatic questions (comparable to English but / still / yet), as a marker of the apodosis in emphatic (often counterfactual) conditional clauses (Renzi, Salvi and Cardinaletti 1991: 781–784) and as a marker of emphatic imperatives. Some of these functions are secondary in the sense that allora fulfills them only if it occurs in combination with other more dedicated elements. In (5), I give examples for most of the above functions of allora. The majority of the examples is taken from the Italian translation of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s Le petit prince – a source that will be important in subsequent sections too. (5) (5.1)

Italian [Indo-European, Romance – Italy] Temporal adverb (LPP Italian XIV.34) E dopo di allora è cambiata la consegna? and after of allora be.3Sg change:Part:F Det:F task:F ‘And has the task been changed since then?’



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

(5.2)

Temporal discourse particle (LPP Italian XIV.11) Allora veniva il turno dei lampionai allora come:Past:3Sg Det turn of:Det.M.Pl lamp_lighter:Pl della Russia e delle Indie of:Det.F Russia and of:Det.F.Pl Indies ‘Then it was the turn of the lamp-lighters of Russia and the Indies.’

(5.3)

Temporal-consecutive discourse particle (LPP Italian I.35) E allora non parlavo di boa and allora Neg speak:Past:1Sg of boa ‘And thus I did not talk about boas.’

(5.4)

Causal discourse particle (LPP Italian II.35) Non avevo mai disegnato una pecora Neg have:Past:1Sg ever paint:Part:M Indef:F goat e allora feci per lui uno di quei due disegni and allora make:Perf:1Sg for him one:M of this:M.Pl two painting:Pl che avevo fatto tante volte which have:Past:1Sg make:Part:M so_many:F.Pl time:F.Pl ‘I had never painted a goat and therefore I produced for him one of the two paintings I had made so often.’

(5.5)

Emphatic imperative (LPP Italian IX.51) Hai deciso di partire e allora vattene! have:2Sg decide:Part.M of leave:Inf and allora go:you:Loc ‘You have decided to leave and thus go away!’

(5.6)

Adversative support in questions (LPP Italian VII.8) Ma allora le spine a che cosa servono? but allora Det.F.Pl thorn:F.Pl to what thing serve:3Pl ‘But then what purpose do the thorns serve?’

(5.7) Turn-Taking (LPP Italian X.68–69) King: …i miei ordini sono ragionevoli. Det.M.Pl my:M:Pl order:Pl be.3Pl reasonable:M.Pl Prince: E allora il mio tramonto? and allora Det.M my:M sundown ‘King: My orders are based on reason. Prince: And what about my sundown?’ (5.8)

Conditional (Renzi / Salvi / Cardinaletti 1991: 781) Se fossi un marziano If be:Conj.Past:1Sg Indef Martian allora avrei le orecchie verdi. allora have:Cond:1Sg Det.F.Pl ear:F.Pl green:Pl ‘If I were a Martian, then I would have green ears.’



Thomas Stolz

Owing to this wide variety of functions, it comes as no surprise that allora counts among the most frequent words of modern Italian. In the Italian frequency dictionary (Bortolini, Tagliavini and Zampolli 1971: 232), allora occupies rank 78. Unfortunately, the various functions of allora are not distinguished in the frequency count. Of the 42 occurrences of allora in the Italian version of Le petit prince, 21 (= 50%) are of a causalconsecutive nature, 13 (= 30%) can be classified as temporal whereas the other “secondary” functions are somewhat underrepresented.7 In four cases (= 9.5%), allora adds adversative emphasis to questions. It is also used twice in conditional clauses, once in turn-taking and once for the purpose of rendering an imperative more emphatic. I reckon that this distribution of allora over functions is not too far remote from the one a more extended corpus analysis would yield. The fact that it is often rather difficult to determine whether an instance of allora counts as temporal, consecutive or causal will be important in the subsequent sections. At this point, it suffices to state that allora tends to invite several readings at a time according to the principle of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Allora has a number of partial synonyms which cover different sections of the functional domain of allora. All of these partial synonyms are multifunctional themselves. For reasons of space, I restrict my further comments to three of the many partial synonyms which are particularly interesting for the present purpose. This does not mean that other partial synonyms such as quindi ‘thus’, perciò ‘therefore’, ora ‘now, thus, then’ etc. have nothing on offer for a contact-linguistically inspired investigation. Dunque ‘thus, therefore’ is responsible for the causal-consecutive part but may also be used for the purpose of reinforcement in emphatic questions (Cusatelli 1979: 580), poi ‘then’ is a temporal adverb although it is not free of consecutive and emphatic functions similar to the ones mentioned for dunque (Cusatelli 1979: 1285) and dopo ‘after(wards), behind’ is a temporal (and spatial) adverb, preposition and discourse particle (Cusatelli 1979: 571). In (6), each of these partial synonyms is exemplified in their prototypical function. (6) (6.1)

Italian [Indo-European, Romance – Italy] poi (LPP Italian II.46) Lo guardó attentamente e poi disse it.Obj watch:Perf.3Sg attentively and poi say.Perf.3Sg ‘He watched it carefully and then said:…’

(6.2)

dopo (LPP Italian XXIV.32) e dopo un silenzio disse ancora and dopo Indef silence say.Perf.3Sg again ‘And after a moment of silence he said again:…’

(6.3)

dunque (LPP Italian III.23) Tu vieni dunque da un altro pianeta? you come:2Sg dunque from Indef other:M planet ‘Thus you come from another planet?’



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

As to their frequency, two of the partial synonyms are more frequent than allora itself, namely poi, which occupies rank 54 in the frequency dictionary, and dopo which ranks 74 (Bortolini, Tagliavini and Zampolli 1971: 232). Both are thus high frequency items. Dunque however is much more seldomly used and thus winds up on rank 325 (Bortolini, Tagliavini and Zampolli 1971: 237). Surprisingly, all three partial synonyms fail to come close to the values reported for allora in the above sample text: poi accounts for 25 cases followed by dopo with 14 and dunque with just seven attestations. Only when added up they can compete with allora in terms of statistics. In what follows, I investigate the fate of allora in language contact situations with Italian as the donor language. For this purpose, I compare allora to its supposed competitors in the above mentioned five recipient languages.

3. Contacts 3.1

Quantities

Given the general validity of my above corpus-based layman’s statistics, one expects a similar statistical disproportion for the discourse-regulating items when it comes to borrowing.8 My working hypothesis assumes that if any of the elements discussed in section 2 is borrowed into the languages which have been in contact with Italian, allora is the most likely candidate. Moreover, if more than one of the items are borrowed then allora will not only form part of the set of borrowed items but it will also be the most frequently used. And thirdly, the use to which allora is put in the recipient languages will largely reflect the uneven distribution of this item over its various functions. I check these predictions on the basis of a relatively heterogeneous corpus. The corpus is made up of: anthologies of folklore including recorded native speaker interviews Gradilone (1970) for (Italo-)Albanian spoken in Calabria; 268 pages of original texts; Bellotto et al. (1978: 38–333) for Cimbrian; all prayers, proverbs, sayings and songs have been excluded; where there are two versions of the same story, I have opted for the one recorded in Lusern; 150 pages of original texts; Rossi Taibbi and Caracausi (1994) for (Italo-)Greek spoken in Calabria; 218 pages original texts (discounting prayers, proverbs, sayings and songs); Breu and Piccoli (2000: 421–44) for Molise Slavic, just 12 pages of original texts; All text editions are bilingual and provide faithful Italian translations which allow direct comparison. All sources comprise texts produced by a variety of native speakers of the recipient languages. For (Italo-)Albanian, Cimbrian and (Italo-)Greek, this practice also implies that different village varieties are represented in the collections. The texts were recorded in the decades after the 2nd World War (the [Italo-]Greek ones al-



Thomas Stolz

ready in the 1950s, some of the ones documenting Molise Slavic as late as the 1990s) and thus reflect contemporary usage. Short written texts for religious purposes: these stem exclusively from the (Italo-) Greek dialect spoken in Bova (Rossi Taibbi and Caracausi 1994: 424–486); the translation of Le petit prince into Maltese by Tony Aquilina, 85 pages. Thus, the corpus contains an uneven assortment of very few written texts and an overwhelming majority of recorded spoken language. Owing to this imbalanced mixture of registers and also owing to the difference in size, the direct statistical correlation of the individual results is ruled out as the margin of potential errors is too wide. Nevertheless the absolute figures and the statistical weight of the borrowed items per language are telling in themselves. In table 1, I present the token frequencies of the four items mentioned in the previous section complemented randomly by the functionally unrelated intanto standard Italian ‘(mean)while’; colloquial Italian also ‘however’ (Cusatelli 1979: 878) as an additional control category. Intanto is number 410 in the Italian frequency dictionary (Bertolini, Tagliavini and Zampolli 1971: 239) and is thus an item of medium frequency. For easy reference, I repeat the Italian values in the first line of table 1. The recipient languages follow from top to bottom according to how many of the discourse-regulating elements are attested in the corpus. Boldface marks the highestranking token frequency values per language. Zero frequency is additionally highlighted by grey shading. A comment is called for as to the results I have obtained for Cimbrian. In his descriptive grammar of Cimbrian, Tyroller (2003: 88) states that [o]kkasionell aus dem Italienischen übernommene Wörter, wovon vor allem Konjunktionen wie alora [a’lo: a] dann‘ und dunque [ ] ‚also‘ betroffen sind, werden hier nicht berücksichtigt, da sie nicht zum festen System des Zimbrischen von Lusern gehören, sondern nur gelegentlich in bestimmten Situationen gebraucht werden.9 Table 1.  Token frequencies language

allora

dopo

intanto

dunque

Italian (Italo-)Greek (Italo-) Albanian Cimbrian Molise Slavic Maltese

42 1 170 118 12 38

poi

14 130 65

1 3 34

7 26 1

25 153 0

18 3 0

8 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

At least for allora, this statement is clearly contradicted by the statistics. Allora is much too frequent to be just an “occasional” transfer from Italian. The absence of dunque from my Cimbrian corpus however is not only in line with Tyroller’s observation but also fits in with a general trend (see below). The first part of my working hypothesis is borne out by the numerical values. Allora is indeed attested in each and every recipient language. As a matter of fact, allora is the only element which has been reported for all of the languages.10 Were it not for the unique case of (Italo-)Greek, the second part of the working hypothesis would also hold because allora is the most frequently used of the items under scrutiny in four out of five recipient languages. Wherever dopo is attested, it is always second best – outnumbered either by allora (with ratios ranging from 3-to-1 [= identical to the one calculated for standard Italian] to 6.5-to-1) or by poi (with a ratio of 1.7-to-1) in (Italo-)Greek. The position of allora in (Italo-)Albanian, Cimbrian, Molise Slavic and Maltese is very strong whereas it is particularly weak in (Italo-)Greek where it is attested only once. This discrepancy is of course statistically significant as the frequency count for the (Italo-)Greek varieties is based on almost 220 pages of text. Rohlfs (1977b: 142) surveys the (Italo-)Greek equivalents of Italian allora for all (Italo-)Greek varieties including the ones spoken in the Salento. According to his description, all (Italo)Greek varieties make use of autochthonous elements instead of borrowing allora. This marginal status of allora in (Italo-)Greek goes along with exceptionally high figures for poi, dopo and dunque in the same varieties. Poi is the topmost item in terms of token frequency. Moreover, (Italo-)Greek is the only recipient language for which poi is attested as a borrowing in the corpus. Apart from (Italo-)Greek, dunque has made it only into (Italo-)Albanian where I have found one isolated example. Thus, (Italo-)Greek diverges from the rest of the recipient languages (and to some extent also standard Italian) in the sense that it attributes more importance to items which elsewhere are less prominent as to frequency. An explanation that comes immediately to mind is that the differences observed can be accounted for if, in lieu of the standard language, Italian dialects are considered primary contact partners of the recipient languages. The high frequency of dunque in (Italo-)Greek could perhaps reflect the fact that in the southernmost Romance varieties, the cognates of Italian dunque are more frequently used to the detriment of allora. This is a fair guess as for instance Sardinian – a distinct Romance language often associated with the southern Italian varieties in the pertinent literature – avoids allora while it makes ample use of a cognate of dunque. In the Sardinian translation of Le petit prince, there is no trace of allora at all whereas duncas – the Sardinian equivalent of Italian dunque – turns up 24 times. Its functional range in Sardinian seems to cover much of the fuzzy zone of temporal-consecutive-causal relations for which allora is responsible in Italian (as duncas is used in many of the sentences where the Italian version has allora). However, there seem to be some problems with this kind of explanation. Dunque is especially frequent in the (Italo-)Greek dialect of Bova whereas, at Roccaforte, dunque is a low frequency item. Moreover, the Calabrian varieties of (Ita-



Thomas Stolz

lo-)Albanian, which are spoken to the north of the (Italo-)Greek ones, do not favour dunque at all. This supposed riddle is easily solved however. While it is true that both (Italo-)Albanian and (Italo-)Greek varieties in Calabria are spoken in what Italian dialectology calls la zona meridionale estrema (= southernmost dialectal area), they are not immediate neighbours. The (Italo-)Albanian varieties are located in the province of Cosenza i.e. in the northern part of the dialectal area whereas the (Italo-)Greek varieties are spoken in the distant southern tip of Calabria, in the province of Reggio. As it happens, the extant Calabrian dialect dictionaries clearly show that the Romance dialects spoken around Cosenza differ from the ones spoken in the vicinity of Reggio as to the presence of cognates of allora and dunque. Rohlfs (1977a: 72 and 246) reports that dunca (= dunque) is used throughout Calabria whereas allura (= allora) is restricted to the varieties spoken near Cosenza. Accordingly, there is no entry for allura in the dictionary of the Romance variety of Reggio compiled by Malara (1970) whereas dunca forms part of the recorded items. In his comparative grammar of the (Italo-)Greek varieties, Rohlfs (1977b: 146) explicitly states that for Calabria the equation “allora = […] addunca” holds. Thus, the (almost complete) absence of allora from (Italo-)Greek has a trivial explanation: the Romance varieties with which (Italo-)Greek has been in contact most intensively simply lack this item. In its stead, the cognates of dunque and poi are more frequently employed both in the local Romance varieties and their (Italo-)Greek partners in contact. The fact that dunca is common to all Calabrian varieties of Romance may also explain why it is at least marginally attested in Calabrian (Italo-)Albanian. Outside the extreme southern dialectal area, dunque is likely to occur less frequently as opposed to allora. The frequency values given for the standard language support this idea (see above). Independent of the diachronic developments which have to be scrutinized in a separate study, it is possible to interpret the outcome of my frequency count in table 1 as suggestive of an implication, viz. wherever allora is favoured, dunque is much less frequent and vice versa. We may speculate therefore that allora has remained marginal in (Italo-)Greek even after standard Italian became more important in language contact because dunque already occupies good part of the territory. The single occurrence of allora in (Italo-)Greek most probably reflects a recent development. For those varieties where allora is strong however, the reverse is true: dunque is an exception because allora has already been there before. Before I discuss what these facts teach us in more general terms, it is necessary to look at a selection of examples in order to determine which functions of the borrowed items dominate in the recipient languages.

3.2

Qualities

In the recipient languages, allora may come in different phonological shapes – most commonly allura, but also as reduced alure, alor and lor. What strikes the eye immediately is the fact that despite the relatively high token frequency of allora in the various



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

recipient languages, it normally does not have the full range of functions as in the donor language. The overwhelming majority of cases belongs to the area of temporalconsecutive-causal relations which also dominate in the donor language. Thus, the third part of the working hypothesis successfully stands the test. (Italo-)Albanian and Maltese display the widest ranges of functions of allora; the only function shared by all recipient languages including (Italo-)Greek is the consecutive-causal one. Examples for the various functions of borrowed allora are given in (7)-(12). For contrastive purposes, I add fitting examples for the use of (Italo-)Greek dunca in (13). (7) (7.1)

Temporal (Italo-)Albanian [Indo-European, Albanian – Italy] (Gradilone 1970: 52) Allura u martuen e mbetëtin kutjènd allora Pass marry:Aor.3Pl and remain:Imperf.3Pl happy ‘Then they married and remained happy.’

(7.2)

Cimbrian [Indo-European, Germanic – Italy] (Bellotto et al. 1978: 217) Alóra ‘s püable is gãnt huam is o’. allora Det.Nt boy be.3Sg go:Part home it too ‘Then the boy went home too.’

(7.3)

Maltese [Afro-Asiatic, Semitic – Malta] (LPP Maltese XXVI.23) Allura jien stess baxxejt rasi… allora I self lower:Perf:1Sg head:Por.1Sg ‘Then I lowered my head…’

(7.4)

Molise Slavic [Indo-European, Slavic – Italy] (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 429) Alor su prisegl allora be.3Pl marry:Part ‘Then they married.’

(8) (8.1)

Temporal-causal (Italo-)Albanian [Indo-European, Albanian – Italy] (Gradilone 1970: 88) Allura ajo e zeza vate t’ i rrëmbit zogun allora that Det black:Def.F go.Aor.3Sg Subord him catch bird:Def.M: Acc ‘Thus the black one went to catch the bird for him.’ (8.2)

Cimbrian [Indo-European, Germanic – Italy] (Bellotto et al. 1978: 258) Alóra issar aldar darschrakht allora be.3Sg:he right_there frighten:Part ‘Thus he immediately was shocked with fear.’

(8.3)

Maltese [Afro-Asiatic, Semitic – Malta] (LPP Maltese I.35) Allura la kont noqgħod nitkellem fuq sriep boa allora Neg be.Perf:1Sg 1Sg:stand.Imperf 1Sg:speak.Imperf on snake:Pl boa ‘Thus I spoke neither about boas…’



Thomas Stolz

(8.4)

Molise Slavic [Indo-European, Slavic – Italy] (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 432) Alor je mu da ovi praščič allora be.3Sg him give.Part that piglet ‘Thus he gave him this piglet.’

(9) (9.1)

Consecutive-causal (Italo-)Albanian [Indo-European, Albanian – Italy] (Gradilone 1970: 19) Allura u poxhár ditë e natë nd’ atë finester allora Pass put day and night near that.Acc window e nëng tundej and Neg move ‘Thus she stood at the window day and night and did not move.’

(9.2)

Cimbrian [Indo-European, Germanic – Italy] (Bellotto et al. 1978: 310) alóra sain-sa ghebeest naünzekh. allora be.3Pl-they be:Part ninety ‘Well then they were ninety [wolves].’

(9.3) (Italo-)Greek [Indo-European, Greek – Italy] (Rossi Taibbi and Caracausi 1994: 163) Allúra su kófto tin ģefali Allora you behead:1Sg Det.Acc head ‘Thus I decapitate you!’ (9.4)

Maltese [Afro-Asiatic, Semitic – Malta] (LPP Maltese III.18) Allura inti wkoll ġej mis-sema! allora you also come.Part from:Det-heaven ‘Then you too come from the heavens!’

(9.5)

Molise Slavic [Indo-European, Slavic – Italy] (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 422) tvoja divojka lor je ndelidžend your:F daughter:F allora be.3Sg intelligent ‘Thus, your daughter is intelligent!’

(10) (10.1)

Emphatic question (Italo-)Albanian [Indo-European, Albanian – Italy] (Gradilone 1970: 231) Allura çë kem’ bëmi nanì? allora what have:1Pl do:1Pl mommy ‘What then do we have to do, mum?’

(10.2)

Maltese [Afro-Asiatic, Semitic – Malta] (LPP Maltese V.10) Mela allura jieklu l-baobabi wkoll? then allora 3:eat.Imperf:Pl Det-baobab:Pl also ‘Well then, do they eat the baobabs too?’



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

(11) Turn-Taking (11.1) (Italo-)Albanian [Indo-European, Albanian – Italy] (Gradilone 1970: 298) A: Ma u ngë të njoh ngë të pé maj! but I Neg you know.1Sg Neg you see.1Sg.Aor ever B: Allura gjegjnje gjithë njo çë thotë ki… allora listen all know.Imp what say.3Sg this ‘A: But I do not know you, I have never seen you! B: Well, listen everybody, that’s what this one says…’ (11.2) Maltese [cf. 5.7 above] [Afro-Asiatic, Semitic – Malta] (LPP Maltese X.68–69) King: …l-ordnijiet tiegħi huma raġonevoli Det-order:Pl of:1Sg they reasonable:Pl ‘My orders are based on reason.’ Prince: Allura ser tniżżilhieli x-xemx allora Fut 2Sg:go_down:Caus:DO.3Sg.F:IO:1Sg Det-sun li tlabtek? that beg.Perf:1Sg:DO.2Sg ‘Well, are you going to let the sun go down like I asked you to do?’ (12)

Emphatic imperative (Italo-)Albanian [Indo-European, Albanian – Italy] Allura nga me mua bír’ im nga allora come.Imp with me son my come.Imp ‘Then come with me, my son, come!’

(13) (13.1)

(Italo-)Greek [Indo-European, Greek – Italy] temporal (Rossi Taibbi and Caracausi 1994: 434) O Ġoséppi dúnka eyái apissu to lleiδíondu Det.M Joseph dunque go.3Sg behind Det.M.Gen.Pl brother:Gen.Pl: Por.3Sg ‘Then Joseph followed his brothers.’

(13.2)

Temporal-causal (Rossi Taibbi and Caracausi 1994: 430) Ećino dúnka eyérti this dunque raise:Aor.Pass.3Sg ‘He thus raised himself.’

(13.3)

Consecutive-causal (Rossi Taibbi and Caracausi 1994: 394) Dúnka ipiye pánd’ ambró Dunque go:Imperf.3Sg always forward ‘Thus he progressed continually.’

(13.4)

Emphatic question (Rossi Taibbi and Caracausi 1994: 303) Addúnka esù ise o δyávolo? dunque you be.2Sg Det.M devil ‘Then you are the devil?’

(Gradilone 1970: 126)

 Thomas Stolz

(13.5)

Emphatic imperative (Rossi Taibbi and Caracausi 1994: 93) Addúnka δotému ta rúxa! dunque give:Imp.2Pl:me Det clothes ‘Then give me my clothes!’

In (Italo-)Greek, dunca covers most of the functions which elsewhere among the recipient languages form part of the domain of allora. With the proviso that some of the languages are clearly underrepresented in my corpus because of the limited size of the available texts, I summarize the results of my investigation of allora in the five recipient languages in table 2. Attested functions are labeled yes in the appropriate cells whereas empty cells – additionally shaded grey – indicate that there is no evidence for such a function of allora in the corpus. Table 2.  Attested functions of allora per recipient language language (Italo-) Albanian Maltese Cimbrian Molise Slavic (Italo-)Greek

consecutive-causal

temporal

temporalcausal

emphatic question

turntaking

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes yes yes yes

yes yes yes

yes yes yes

yes

yes

emphatic imperative yes

Unsurprisingly, what seems to be most attractive in the borrowing process is the quirky area of temporal, consecutive and causal relations between which the boundaries are often blurred. I admit that there might be better ways of classifying some of the above examples. However, the reclassification would most probably take place within the said quirky area and not go beyond it. Two things have to be made clear in connection with the above findings. First of all, the examples of allora in the recipient languages are by no means restricted to narrative passages. A considerable number of examples stem from direct speech. The dialogues are very often lively or dramatic and thus invite markers of emphasis. Nevertheless, emphatic allora is relatively rare in my corpus. Thus, there is no additional bias to the detriment of spoken language. Secondly, in none of the recipient languages is allora without autochthonous competitors. For instance, in Cimbrian, alóra and asó (standard New High German also ‘thus’) compete even in one and the same idiolect and in one and the same text. In Maltese, there is Semitic mela ‘thus’ which may even co-occur with allura in a kind of doublet construction (see [10.2] above) familiar from the context of Hispanicization (Ch. Stolz 1998). In (Italo-)Greek too, the combination of borrowed dunque and autochthonous arte ‘then’ is commonplace at least in the few extant written texts. This co-existence of functionally related autochthonous elements



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

supports the view that there is no structural reason for the borrowing of allora and other function words because the recipient languages have a repertoire of adequate means of their own. Irrespective of the difficulty to determine the exact make-up of the class of discourse-regulating elements for the early stages of the recipient languages, it is legitimate to assume that there were no structural gaps even at the time when contact with Romance varieties first began. The modern standard varieties to which the minority languages of Italy are directly related of course display the full array of discourse markers of all kinds among which functionally partial equivalents of Italian allora are well represented.

3.3

Hierarchy

The above is suggestive of a rather strong attraction not only of allora itself but of elements which have a bundle of vaguely contoured temporal-consecutive-causal functions. The ubiquity of such items in the inventories of borrowed function words of the recipient languages of my sample makes it necessary to check whether or not these elements are in an implicational relation to the discourse-regulating elments discussed by Matras (1998), namely coordinating and, disjunctive or and adversative but. Table 3 surveys the presence / absence of Italian e ‘and’, o ‘or’ and ma ‘but’ / però ‘however’ in the recipient languages. Brackets indicate that the evidence is exclusively corpusexternal. Grey shading marks the absence of a borrowing in a given language. Table 3.  Distribution of coordinating, disjunctive and adversative elements over recipient languages language

Molise Slavic (Italo-)Albanian (Italo-)Greek Cimbrian Maltese

coordinating

disjunctive

adversative

e

o

ma

però

yes

yes yes (yes)

yes yes yes yes

yes yes yes (yes)

Before I comment on these findings, examples for the borrowings are presented in (14)-(17). For (Italo-)Greek o ‘or’ and Maltese però ‘however’, I was unable to find any evidence in my corpus and thus had to resort to additional sources. The (Italo-)Greek example is taken from the dialect spoken in the province of Otranto in the southernmost part of Puglia, the so-called Salento. For (Italo-)Albanian, I have refrained from interpreting the frequent conjunction e ‘and’ as a loan from Italian because there is an identical conjunction e ‘and’ in standard Albanian – one of two allomorphs of edhe ‘and’ (the other being dhe ‘and’). In Cimbrian, e occurs twice as part of the expression



Thomas Stolz

e bèn ‘well then’ (= Italian ebbene ‘well then’) which does not allow us to count e as a separate morpheme. (14)

Coordinating e Molise Slavic (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 431) E je donija doma e be.3Sg bring:Part home ‘And he carried (it) home.’

(15) (15.1)

Disjunctive o (Italo-) Albanian (Gradilone 1970: 203) Ngapu dí o tri dit e shoqja i thot after two o three day Det.F woman:Def him say.3Sg ‘After two or three days, his wife said to him…’

(15.2)

(Italo-) Greek (Rohlfs 1977b: 210) krási o gála wine o milk ‘wine or milk’

(15.3)

Molise Slavic (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 424) ti maš arsolvit si pula je you have:2Sg decide:Inf if filly be.3Sg do trajina o je do bešče of coach:Gen o be.3Sg of she_donkey:Gen ‘You have to decide whether the filly belongs to the (coach-pulling) horse or to the donkey.’

(16) (16.1)

Adversative ma (Italo-) Albanian (Gradilone 1970: 7) Ma si vate e erdhe? ma how go.Aor.3Sg and come.Aor.3Sg ‘But how did he go and come?’

(16.2)

Cimbrian (Bellotto et al. 1978: 42) Ma alls in an stròach ghit’s-en an schüttlar ma all in one strike go.3Sg:it-him Indef push ‘But all of a sudden, he was hit by something that made him tremble.’

(16.3)

(Italo-) Greek (Rossi Taibbi and Caracausi 1994: 303) Ma kánnome to xartí! but make:1Pl Det.Acc contract:Acc ‘But let us make the contract!’



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

(16.4)

Molise Slavic (Breu and Piccolo 2000: 436) Ma sa jidu cukar ma now eat:3Pl sugar ‘But now they eat sugar.’

(17) (17.1)

Adversative però (Italo-) Albanian (Gradilone 1970: 102) però mos u harrò! però Neg.Imp it forget.Imp ‘But don’t forget it!’

(17.2)

Cimbrian (Bellotto et al. 1978: 202) Di laüt però hãm-en alle pensaart ke… Det people però have-they all think:Part that ‘The people however have all thought that…’

(17.3)

Maltese (Aquilina 1990: 1050) jien niġi però trid tweghedni li… I 1Sg:come.Imperf però 2Sg:must 2Sg:promise.Imperf:me that ‘I will come but you have to promise that…’

(17.4)

Molise Slavic (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 423) però ti inim na pat però you make:1Sg Indef pact ‘However, I make a pact with you.’

Ma is a high frequent item in all of the recipient languages whereas però occurs only occasionally. It comes as no surprise that però is absent from (Italo-)Greek as the extant descriptions of the Romance varieties spoken in Calabria do not mention any cognates of però at all. The mere difficulty in finding appropriate examples for some of the borrowings in relatively sizeable collections of texts is a telling fact. This is also true of the astonishing results obtained for Molise Slavic. The limited character of the available texts notwithstanding, all candidates for borrowing are indeed attested. This difference between Molise Slavic and the other recipient languages is indicative of an advanced stage of Italianization of Molise Slavic. In what way do allora-like elements correlate with the ones surveyed in table 3? The answer to this question is straightforward: wherever allora is borrowed we also find an element with adversative functions and vice versa. Both categories are in an equipollent implication. Synchronically, it is next to impossible to decide whether or not there is a chronology which still gives precedence to one of thet two competing categories. Our present state of knowledge does not allow for any substantial diachronic speculations. Suffice it here to mention some interesting evidence from the early period of written Maltese. Kontzi (1999: 431) looks at the Italianisms in religious texts by the cleric Panzavecchia dating back to the early 19th century. In these old texts, he noticed occurrences of Italian e ‘and’ and o ‘or’ – two elements which today have disappeared from



Thomas Stolz

the Maltese lexicon. As the author of the texts examined by Kontzi had ideas of his own about what should be part of the Maltese language (Kontzi 1999: 428–429), it is difficult to interpret the presence of the two conjunctions in the said texts. As the two conjunctions are also attested in the 18th century religious texts by Ignazio Saverio Mifsud (Zammit Ciantar 2005: 694 and 702) it is possible that they were part of the common Maltese lexicon of the times, and thus lend some support to Matras (1998) as and and or occur together and thus fulfill the required implication. However, the evidence also supports Aikhenvald (2002) because but is never expressed by an Italianism in Panzavecchia’s writings where the Semitic imma and iżda (both ‘but, however’) abound instead, i.e., but is missing from the list of early borrowings whereas and and or are attested. However, in the 18th century, some rare instances of ma però occur in the above mentioned religious texts (Zammit Ciantar 2005: 701): a combination of two adversative conjunctions of Italian, viz. ma ‘but’ and però ‘but, however’. The situation is inconclusive: either but was borrowed from Italian in Maltese already in the 18th century but remained infrequent, and thus did not figure in the texts of Panzavecchia, or the early attestations of but are idiosyncrasies of the Maltese cleric who wrote the texts. Independent of which of the two possibilities actually applies, one thing is clear: e / o – like ma – only had an ephemeral existence in Maltese, and thus chances are that they never were fully integrated elements. This in turn suggests that they were latecomers, whereas other elements – such as the adversative però – became well-established members of the Maltese system of which they still form part today.

4. Conclusions In (18), I summarize the results of the above discussion in the shape of three implicational scales. (18)

Implicational hierarchies

(18.1) Material borrowings poi

⊃

dunque

⊃

intanto ⊃

dopo

⊃

allora

(18.2) Functions of allora

turn-taking emphatic imperative

⊃

temporal-

⊃

causal

⊃

consecutivecausal

poi



⊃

dunque

⊃

intanto ⊃

dopo

⊃

allora

Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

(18.2) Functions of allora

turn-taking emphatic

⊃

temporal-

⊃

causal

⊃

imperative

consecutivecausal

emphatic

temporal

question

(18.3) Classes of discourse-regulating elements adversative coordination ⊃

disjunctive

⊃ consecutive-causal

With the notable exception of (Italo-)Greek where the Italian loans o ‘or and ma ‘but’ have ousted completely the autochthonous elements (Rohlfs 1977b: 210), most of the recipient languages add the Italianisms to their inherited inventories and thus enlarge them. They thus have several options among more or less synonymous alternatives. Pragmatical prominence drives the selection mechanism which determines the actual choice the individual speaker makes in a given situation. However, it is still largely unclear to what extent pragmatical prominence correlates with certain functions and thus with clearly defined classes of discourse-regulating elements. While it seems plausible that not anything goes, the evidence at hand suggests that there is more than one possibility for the status of the pragmatically most prominent category. The Italian scenario resembles the Spanish one where temporal-consecutive-causal elements (= entonces and pues) are most widely spread together with the adversative pero ‘but’. The disjunctive o ‘or’ is also quite common as a Hispanism in recipient languages whereas coordinating y ‘and’ is a rare bird among the borrowings (Stolz and Stolz 1996b). In a way, Italian and Spanish as donor languages seem to constitute a common “type” when it comes to borrowing. Matras’s and Aikhenvald’s cases potentially represent different types. Whether the idea that there is a typology can be substantiated is a question which can be answered only by extending our empirical basis.



Thomas Stolz

Future research also has to reveal whether there is a moderate kind of situationdependency of function-word borrowing (as the differences in borrowing behaviour of Matras’s sample, Tariana and the Italian case seem to suggest). Clearly, the issue of universality vs. idiosyncrasy can be tackled properly only if we have access, in addition to more crosslinguistic evidence, to sufficient diachronic data. These data will then help to test the validity of the implicational scales put forward in this section.

Notes 1. This article builds on ideas I have developed in Stolz (2005) and fits in with a large-scale research project on processes of Romanicization worldwide. I am grateful to Ermenegildo Bidese, Walter Breu, James R. Dow, Elvira Glaser, Miki Makihara, Tamar Khizanishvili, Steven Roger Fischer, and Aina Urdze for their kind help with technical and bibliographical matters. A word of thanks is also due to the two anonymous readers of the first draft of this paper and to the editors of this volume for their kind invitation to participate in this undertaking. 2. I am especially grateful to the two anonymous readers for making me aware of the fact that I followed Aikhenvald’s mistaken interpretation too closely in the earlier version of this paper. 3. A word of caution is in order: the term language is used in a very unspecific sense. This is of course a simplification, as the reported cases may be typical only of one variety of a diatopical system, whereas other related varieties do not make use of the borrowed items. It cannot be ruled out completely that, in some cases, idiosyncrasies of an individual speaker come to the foreground and are not representative of any interpersonal variety at all. In the absence of the necessary socio-linguistic clues, I have taken all examples at face value, accepting them as instances of common communicative practice (see also Stolz 2003). 4. For a general outline of the extra-European presence and fate of Spanish, I refer the reader to Quilis (1992). 5. In the examples, boldface marks those items which are focused upon in the discussion. The borrowed function words are glossed with their equivalent form in the donor language. The examples are given in the graphic representation they have in the sources on which I draw. The abbreviations I use in the transmorphemization are spelled out in the appendix. For each example, the object language is identified by its glossonym accompanied by genetic and geographic information in square brackets. 6. This sample of languages is identical to the one I used for my earlier paper on related issues of Italianization (Stolz 2005). For further socio-linguistic information on these varieties, the reader is advised to consult Bellinello (1998). The collection of articles edited by Breu (2005) assembles numerous studies of processes of Italianization in the co-territorial languages of Italy. The Maltese situation and its historical background are described in some detail in Brincat (2000). 7. In some substandard varieties of Italian, the frequency of allora is probably even higher. The translation of Le petit prince into the dialect spoken in the city of Milan contains 47 attestations of alora, the local equivalent of standard Italian allora. Since I have not yet checked spoken language corpora and more sizeable dialect materials, these assumptions of mine must remain conjecture.



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

8. Note that I do not claim that frequency generally dictates borrowing behaviour as one of the anynonymous readers suggests. However, if certain words such as discourse markers are borrowed at all, it makes sense to assume that their frequency in the donor language has a say in their borrowability. Meaning: it is more likely that the most frequent discourse marker is borrowed before a (considerably) less frequent one. On the other hand, it is by no means necessary that the most frequent items of a potential donor language are borrowed at all (especially because the top-ranking elements such as definite and indefinite articles, etc. often lack salience). 9. “Occasional transfers from Italian, especially conjunctions like alora [] ‘then’ and dunque [] ‘thus’, will not be considered here as they do not belong to the established system of the Cimbrian variety of Lusern but are used only occasionally in determined situations” [my translation]. 10. As has been pointed out by one of the anonymous readers, my sources are partly based on oral usage of speakers and thus the possibility is high that at least some of the instances of allora are cases of code-switching and cannot be counted as proper borrowings. Apart from the fact that it might be difficult to determine exactly where to draw the dividing line between the two categories, the evidence is overwhelmingly indicative of borrowing as very often allora comes in a phonological shape that presupposes adaptation and integration. Admittedly, the isolated instance of allora in (Italo-)Greek is problematic and might turn out to instantiate code-switching. These difficulties notwithstanding, the hapax allora in (Italo-)Greek lends additional support to the idea of different adstrate constellations on Italian soil (cf. below).

Abbreviations Acc = accusative, Aor = aorist, Caus = causative, Cond = conditional, Conj = conjunctive, Def = definite, Det = determiner, DO = direct object, F = feminine, Fut = future, Gen = genitive, Imp = imperative, Imperf = imperfect(ive), Incl = inclusive, Incomp = incompletive, Indef = indefinite article, Inf = infinitive, Ins = instrumental, IO = indirect object, Loc = locative, M = masculine, Neg = negation, Nt = neuter, Obj = object, Part = participle, Pass = passive, Past = past tense, Perf = perfect(ive), Pl = plural, Por = possessor, Poss = possessive, Sg = singular, Subord = subordinator,

References (a) Translations of Le petit prince LPP Italian: Nini Bompiani Bregoli. 1994. Il piccolo principe. Milano: Bompiani. LPP Maltese Toni Aquilina. 2000. Iċ-ċkejken prinċep. Msida: Mireva LPP Milanese Lorenz Banfi. 2002. El princip piscinin. Gressan: Wesak. LPP Sardinian Andria Deplano. 1997. Su prinzipeddu. Cagliari: Artigianarte. (b) Quoted literature Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: OUP. Aquilina, J. 1990. Maltese-English Dictionary. Vol. II: M-Z and addenda. Malta: Midsea Books. Bellinello, P. F. 1998. Minoranze etniche e linguistiche. Cosenza: Editoriale BIOS. Bellotto, A. et al. 1978. I racconti di Luserna. Vicenza: Circolo Culturale M. Ghandi di Luserna, Istituto di Cultura A. dal Pozzo di Roana.



Thomas Stolz Bortolini, U., Tagliavini, C. and Zampolli, A. 1971. Lessico di frequenza della lingua italiana contemporanea. Milano: IBM Italia. Breu, W. (ed.). 2005. L’influsso dell’italiano sulla grammatica delle lingue minoritarie (problemi morfologici e sintattici). Rende: Università della Calabria. Breu, W. and Piccoli, G. 2000. Dizionario croato molisano di Acquaviva Colleroce. Campobasso: s.l. Brincat, J. 2000. Malta – elf sena ta‘ storja. Malta: PIN. Cusatelli, G. 1979. Dizionario Garzanti della lingua italiana. Milano: Garzanti. Field, F. W. 2002. Linguistic Borrowing in Bilingual Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gradilone, G. 1970. Novellistica albanese: Racconti popolari die S. Sofia d’Epiro, S. Demetrio Corone, Macchia Albanese, S. Cosmo Albanese, Vaccarizzo Albanese, S. Giorgio Albanese. Firenze: Olschki Editore. Gregores, E. and Suárez, J. A. 1967. A Description of Colloquial Guaraní. The Hague: Mouton. Kontzi, R. 1999. Wort und Schrift. Des Kanonikus Fortunato Panzavecchia Bibelübersetzung ins Maltesische, nach den Handschriften des Kathedralarchivs in Mdina. Tübingen: Narr. Levy, P. 1990. Totonaco de Papantla, Veracruz. México: El Colegio de México. Makihara, M. 2001. Modern Rapanui adaptation of Spanish elements. Oceanic Linguistics 40(2): 191–223. Malara, G. 1970. Vocabolario dialettale calabro-reggino-italiano. Bologna: Forni Editore. Matras, Y. 1998. Utterance modifiers and the universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36(2): 281–331. Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Duelling Languages: Grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Quilis, A. 1992. La lengua española en cuatro mundos. Madrid: MAPFRE. Renzi, L., Salvi G. and Cardinaletti, A. 1991. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. II. I sintagmi verbale, aggetivale, avverbiale. La subordinazione. Bologna: Il Mulino. Renzi, L., Salvi G. and Cardinaletti, A. 1995. Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione. III. Tipi di frase, deissi, formazione delle parole. Bologna:Il Mulino. Rohlfs, G. 1977a. Nuovo dizionario dialettale della Calabria. Ravenna: Longo Editore. Rohlfs, G. 1977b. Grammatica storica dei dialetti italogreci (Calabria, Salento). München: Beck. Rossi Taibbi, G. and Caracausi G. 1994. Testi neogreci di Calabria. Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neogreci. Stolz, C. 1998. Hispanicisation in modern Yucatec Maya: Grammatical borrowing. In Convergencia e individualidad. Las lenguas mayas entre hispanización e indigenismo, A. Koechert and T. Stolz (eds), 165–194. Hannover: Verlag für Ethnologie. Stolz, C. and Stolz, T. 1995. Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt: Die ‘Hispanisierung’ mesoamerikanischer Komparationsstrukturen. Iberoamericana 58/59(2/3): 5–42. Stolz, C. and Stolz, T. 1996a. Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt: Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49(1): 86–123. Stolz, C. and Stolz, T. 1996b. ‘Transpazifische Entlehnungsisoglossen’. Hispanismen in Funktionswortinventaren beiderseits der Datumsgrenze. In Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Dynamik der Sprache in mehrsprachigen Situationen, W. Enninger et al. (eds), 262–291. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Stolz, C. and Stolz, T. 1997. Universelle Hispanismen? Von Manila über Lima bis Mexiko und zurück: Muster bei der Entlehnung spanischer Funktionswörter in die indigenen Sprachen Amerikas und Austronesiens. Orbis 39(1): 1–77.



Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian 

Stolz, C. and Stolz, T. 2001. Hispanicised comparative constructions in indigenous languages of Austronesia and the Americas. In Lo propio y lo ajeno en las lenguas austronésicas y amerindias, K. Zimmermann and T. Stolz (eds.), 35–56. Frankfurt: Vervuert. Stolz, T. 1996. Sprachkontakt, Sprachwandel und ‘Grammatikalisierung’ als Faktoren bei der Hispanisierung von indigenen Sprachen in hispanophonen Einflußzonen. In Grammatikalisierung in der Romania, S. Michaelis and P. Thiele (eds), 81–106. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Stolz, T. 1997. Grammatical Hispanisms in Amerindian and Austronesian languages. Amerindia 21: 137–160. Stolz, T. 1998. Die Hispanität des Chamorro als sprachwissenschaftliches Problem. Iberoamericana 70: 5–38. Stolz, T. 2002. General linguistic aspects of Spanish-indigenous language contacts with special focus on Austronesia. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 79: 133–58. Stolz, T. 2003. Not quite the right mixture: Chamorro and Malti as candidates for the status of mixed language. In The Mixed Language Debate. Theoretical and empirical advances. Y. Matras and P. Bakker (eds), 271–315. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Stolz, T. 2005. Italianisierung in den alloglotten Sprachen Italiens. In Das Zimbrische zwischen Germanisch und Romanisch. E. Bidese, J. R. Dow and T. Stolz (eds), 43–68. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact: An introduction. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Tyroller, H. 2003. Grammatische Beschreibung des Zimbrischen von Lusern. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Wolfenden, E. P. 1971. Hiligaynon Reference Grammar. Honolulu HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Zammit Ciantar, J. 2005. Il-priedki bil-Malti ta’ Ignazio Saverio Mifsud. Eddizzjoni kkumentata bi studju kritiku. PhD dissertation, Fakultà ta’ l-Arti, Università ta’ Malta. Zimmermann, K. 1987. Grammatisch bedeutsame Entlehnungen aus dem Spanischen in Otomí. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie des Sprachkontakts. Neue Romania 5: 20–58.

Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children German in contact with French / Italian Natascha Müller Bergische Universität Wuppertal

The present article investigates finite verb placement in German subordinate clauses. It will argue that there is cross-linguistic influence in the case of bilingual German-French and German-Italian children. The children use a Romance syntactic derivation for German finite subordinate clauses which is based on an analysis of Romance infinitival clauses in which the prepositional complementizers enter the derivation above the VP, and not as sister to the IP they are associated with. The relation between complementizer and IP is expressed by movement of the IP from within the VP to the specifier position of the complementizer. The generalization of this type of derivation to all kinds of complementizers is enforced by the existence of constructions in the German input of the children which are compatible with this kind of analysis. The result of the child analysis is root word order in German subordinate clauses. We will argue that the children chose the Romance analysis since it minimizes the interaction between syntax and pragmatics.

1. Introducion: Crosslinguistic influence and language separation Research in bilingual first language acquisition has been guided by two main approaches: Either it has been argued that bilingual children are not able to separate their two languages from early on, since the two languages influence each other (e.g. Taeschner 1983), or it has been shown that bilingual children are able to separate their two languages from early on and that there is no evidence for crosslinguistic influence (Meisel 1989, 1994, Genesee, 1989, Genesee, Nicoladis and Paradis 1995). Put differently, language separation and crosslinguistic influence have been considered as being mutually exclusive in describing early child bilingualism. The main reason for the assumption of mutual exclusiveness is that most research has conceptualized separation and influence as involving whole language systems (or languages). Recently, some researchers have

 Natascha Müller

become interested in the possibility that only some domains in simultaneous bilingualism are vulnerable for cross-linguistic influence, while others are developed by the children without any sign of influence. The present paper looks at the development of finite verb placement in German subordinate clauses. In particular, it will be argued that the absence of root-/non-root asymmetries in German child grammar is motivated by assumptions which pertain to the syntax–pragmatics interface. More specifically, it will be argued in line with Herkenrath, Karakoç and Rehbein (2003), that cross-linguistic influence may have the effect that “the grammar of the bilingual children becomes ‘larger’ than that of monolinguals” (ibid.: 257), which represents a problem if the child has to unlearn this grammatical option. The kind of cross-linguistic influence discussed in this paper is driven by pragmatics, i.e. by the function of the subordinate clause, and is “created” by the bilingual children as a grammatical option which generalizes to all cases of subordination. Thus, a pragmatically motivated option, which is well-defined for the recipient language (the language which is being influenced), is overgeneralized to the effect that the option is treated as if it was an obligatory syntactic rule.

1.1

Two conditions for cross-linguistic influence

Hulk and Müller (2000) and Müller and Hulk (2000, 2001) have defined two conditions under which cross-linguistic influence is likely to occur. (a) The vulnerable grammatical phenomenon is an interface property, e.g., a grammatical property located at the interface between syntax and pragmatics; (b) The surface strings of the two languages are similar for the expression of the vulnerable grammatical phenomenon. What is meant by interface property? As a first example, let us have a closer look at the null-subject phenomenon. Languages like Spanish and Italian do not express subject pronouns unless subjects carry contrastive stress. In non null-subject languages like English and German, sentences like duerme, dorme are translated as ‘he/she/it sleeps’ or ‘er / sie / es schläft’. The correct interpretation of the Spanish and Italian sentence implies the interpretation of the subject. Thus, null-subjects are part of the syntactic description of these sentences, namely pro. The existence of null-subjects is one property of the so-called null-subject parameter. Null-subjects in null-subject languages are not regulated by syntactic constraints. They are possible whenever the subject can be considered as known to the hearer. Chomsky (1981: 65) has formulated a conversational maxim, the Avoid Pronoun Principle (APP), in order to guarantee that knownsubjects are indeed omitted in null-subject-languages. In other words, syntax opens the possibility to have null-subjects, whereas pragmatics regulates their use. Violation of the APP leads to unacceptable (not ungrammatical) strings, e.g. Giannii ha detto che luii va venire alla festa ‘John has said that he will come to the party’ without contrastive stress of lui, is unacceptable but a grammatical Italian construction. The APP also guarantees that expletive subjects will not be phonetically realized in languages like Spanish and Italian. The interaction between syntax and pragmatics can be summarized as follows: In null-subject-languages like Spanish and Italian, syntax allows for



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

an additional option apart from phonetically realizing subjects, namely to drop them. The choice between the two options, realization or omission, is regulated by pragmatics, not by syntax. The universal principle APP, a conversational maxim, determines that if no further conditions are specified, pronouns will be avoided (for a thorough discussion cf. Pillunat, Schmitz and Müller 2006). In non-null-subject-languages, the subject can also be omitted: Ø Hab das schon gemacht, ‘Have done it already’. One prerequisite is that the subject is the topic. So far, non-null-subject-languages seem to pattern similarly with null-subject-languages. However, contrasting with null-subjectlanguages, the subject in non-null-subject languages can only be omitted in root clauses, i.e. in first position. This syntactic restriction is unknown in null-subject-languages. The question is whether the APP also regulates subject omissions in non-null-subject languages. In German, sentences with a dropped subject and with an overt pronominal subject are discourse-pragmatically equivalent; they reflect a different speech style, the subject omission belonging to an informal register: Ø Hab das schon gemacht / Ich hab das schon gemacht. In other words, it is not pragmatics which regulates subject omissions in non-null-subject-languages, but syntax proper. The interaction of both components, syntax and pragmatics, is minimal in languages like German. We prefer the term ‘minimal’ instead of ‘non-existent’ since it goes without saying that pragmatics regulates whether subjects can be expressed as pronouns or must be expressed as lexical DPs. Notice that the assumption about minimal interaction between syntax and pragmatics in the domain of subjects can also account for the observation that expletives do exist in non-null-subject-languages and that their presence / absence is regulated by syntax, not by the APP. The second example for the interaction between syntax and pragmatics in the above non-trivial sense are object pronouns in the Romance languages. Interestingly, object clitic pronouns (‘weak’ object pronouns which cannot be stressed, co-ordinated, modified, etc., ‘le’/ ‘l’ ‘ in example (1) below) can be construed with noun phrases containing an indefinite article and assume an interpretation as a ‘type’: i.e., ‘un homme’ (‘a man’) is intended as ‘a man in general’. The important point is that the antecedent, the noun phrase the pronoun refers to (and with which it agrees in gender and number), must be an entity that can be presupposed. This explains why the utterance of speaker B in (2) is incorrect. Here, the noun phrase ‘un verre’ (‘a glass’) cannot be presupposed from what has been said before: (1) Un homme, on le reconnaît par sa façon de parler. A man, one him recognises by his way to speak ‘A man can be recognized by his way of speaking.’ (2) Speaker A: Je voudrais boire du vin. I’ d like to- drink some wine ‘I’d like to drink some wine.’ Speaker B: D’accord. *Un verre, je l’ai dans l’ étagère. Alright. A glass, I it have in the shelf

 Natascha Müller

Thus, object clitics can only be construed with a noun phrase which can be presupposed. We can push our analysis of object clitics even further and assume that the function of the clitic is that of marking presupposition. López (2003) noticed that Catalan clitics occur in constructions which contain language material which is known (‘presuppositional’). The two constructions discussed are CLLD (Clitic Left Dislocation, in which a noun phrase has been positioned at the left of the clause as in (1) and in (3) ‘les tables’/‘le tavole’) and CLRD (CLitic Right Dislocation, in which a noun phrase is being placed at the right edge of the clause as in (4) ‘ton crétin de stylo’/‘la tua stupida penna’). Clitics appear in order to mark the dislocated noun phrase as presupposed either in the discourse or by the hearer. This is nicely shown by the example (5), indicating that the construction without the object clitic is only grammatical once the object is not presupposed. If the object is presupposed, the clitic must be present; otherwise the construction becomes ungrammatical, as in (6). The examples (3) and (4) are taken from López (2003: 199) and have been translated from Catalan into French and Italian. (3) Speaker A French: Qu’est-ce que tu as fait avec les meubles? Speaker A Italian: Cosa hai fatto con i mobili? ‘What did you do with the furniture?’ Speaker B French: Les tables, je les ai réparées le matin, mais les chaises je les ai réparées le soir. Speaker B Italian: Le tavole, le ho riparate la mattina, ma le sedie Lit.: The tables(I) them repaired in the morning, but the chairs(I) le ho riparate la sera. them repaired at night. (4) Speaker A French: Qu‘est-ce que tu as fait avec le stylo? Speaker A Italian: Cosa hai fatto con la penna? ‘What did you do with the pen?’ Speaker B French: Je l‘ai oublié sur la table, ton crétin de stylo. Speaker B Italian: L’ho dimenticata sulla tavola, la tua stupida penna. Lit.: (I) it forgot on the table, your stupid pen. (5) Speaker A French: Qu‘est-ce qu’il y a? Speaker A Italian: Cos’ è? ‘What happened?’ Speaker B French: J’ ai oublié ton crétin de stylo sur la table. Speaker B Italian: Ho dimenticata la tua stupida penna sulla tavola. Lit.: (I) forgot your stupid pen on the table. Speaker B French: *Je l‘ai oublié sur la table, ton crétin de stylo. Speaker B Italian: *L’ ho dimenticata sulla tavola, la tua stupida penna. (6) Speaker A French: Qu‘est-ce que tu as fait avec le stylo? Speaker A Italian: Cosa hai fatto con la penna?



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

Speaker B French: *J’ ai oublié sur la table, ton crétin de stylo. Speaker B Italian: *Ho dimenticata sulla tavola, la tua stupida penna. Lit.: (I) forgot on the table, your stupid pen. These examples illustrate that object clitics are different from normal pronouns. Normal pronouns, although being used under certain pragmatic conditions, are not obligatory in syntax. Instead of a normal pronoun, a noun phrase can be used and the sentence remains grammatical, although it becomes pragmatically odd, marked as ‘?’, as shown in (7). (7) Speaker A German: Hast du das Buch auf dem Tisch schon gelesen? ‘Have you already read the book on the table?’ Speaker B German: Das habe ich schon gelesen, ja. It have I already read, yes Speaker B German: ?Das Buch auf dem Tisch habe ich schon gelesen, ja. The book on the table have I already read, yes In other words, French and Italian clitics are not just syntactic categories which are used under certain pragmatic conditions which favor pronominalisation, but they also mark certain syntactic constituents in the languages as presuppositional. In other words, pragmatics and syntax interact in such a way that pragmatic factors restrict the possibilities offered by the syntactic system. Both examples, the one of subject omissions and the one of object clitic realizations, illustrate a non-trivial interaction between syntax and pragmatics. These grammatical domains are characterised by the invasive nature of pragmatics onto syntax. It is this non-trivial interaction between syntax and pragmatics which bilingual children − as well as monolingual ones − find problematic in acquisition. In the case that the second language does not present this kind of interface property, the bilingual child may use the grammatical analysis of the less complex language not showing this kind of interaction for both of her/his languages. Grammatical phenomena like the use of object clitics in the Romance languages are vulnerable to cross-linguistic influence due to their interface properties. The second condition which favours cross-linguistic influence is a property of the surface strings of the two languages. Hulk and Müller (2000) assume that the surface strings are similar for the expression of the vulnerable grammatical phenomenon. What is meant by 'similarity of surface strings’ in (b)? In order to illustrate similarity of surface strings, we will take the well-known example of SVO. German is a verb-second language, whereas Romance languages like Italian are generally treated as an SVO language. However, both languages share the word order SVO in some contexts: the German main clause in (8) can be translated directly into the Italian sentence in (9) below: (8) Maria liest das Buch. Mary reads the book

 Natascha Müller

(9) Maria legge il libro. Mary reads the book In other words, two otherwise syntactically different languages may share word order on the surface. Generally speaking, the hypothesis of Hulk and Müller (2000) is that word sequences in constructions which represent interface phenomena of grammar and display similarity in both languages are more difficult to process. Confronted with this major computational complexity, the bilingual child will have recourse to the less complex analysis of the grammatical property in question. If language A offers a less complex analysis than language B for the grammatical phenomenon Z, the bilingual child will make use of the less complex analysis for both languages. For example, a GermanItalian bilingual child may opt for one syntactic analysis for SVO constructions in both languages, which requires the less complex analysis. Taking computational complexity as the reason for why bilingual children use one grammatical analysis for both languages implies that monolingual children will also have problems with a grammatical phenomenon which is ‘complex’ in the above mentioned terms. Indeed, Müller and Hulk (2001) make this observation for monolingual children with the more complex language background.

1.2

Cross-linguistic influence and language dominance

Recent studies observing crosslinguistic influence have explained the influence in terms of language dominance, not in terms of properties of the grammatical phenomenon mentioned above (Bernardini Röst 2001, Döpke 1992, Gawlitzek-Maiwald and Tracy 1996, Hulk 1997, Schlyter 1993, Tracy 1995): The stronger or “more developed” language influences the weaker or “less developed” language. Most authors have defined language dominance on the basis of a comparison of MLU values in the two languages of the bilingual child and / or language use (the amount of utterances in the two languages used during a recording session). The first attempts to define ‘language dominance’ were made at the end of the 1980s and during the early 1990s. The authors of these studies chose both quantitative and qualitative ways of measuring language dominance, although there was no clear line with respect to which criterion should be considered as quantitative and which as qualitative. Quantitative criteria were associated with language performance and linguistic production, while the investigation of grammatical phenomena in both languages (considered to be areas of competence) was considered to be qualitative. ‘Language dominance’ was, in this sense, considered to be a type of ‘grammatical predominance’ (see, e.g., Lindholm & Padilla 1978, Petersen 1988, Schlyter 1993). The use of grammatical phenomena to determine language dominance, however, may be criticised because their emergence may differ in the two languages of the bilingual child, even in the respective monolingual children, and it is subject to cross-linguistic variation. An illustrative example is a bilingual child



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

who develops the accurate gender system later in German than in French. It goes without saying that we cannot conclude from this situation that the bilingual child has a dominant language, namely French, because it might be the case that monolingual German children take more time for the acquisition of gender than monolingual French children. Furthermore, the later development of gender in German may be due to cross-linguistic influence in the bilingual child. Another example comes from the article system. As Kupisch (2004) shows, the development of the article system is subject to cross-linguistic influence, with German developing faster in bilinguals than in monolinguals. The result that, due to cross-linguistic influence, convergence to the target is achieved around the same age in both languages does not allow us to conclude that the bilingual does not have a dominant language. Among the quantitative measures for language dominance range are MLU, Upper Bound (the longest utterance in a recording session), absolute number of utterances, MMU (Multi Morphemic Utterances, i.e. the number of utterances with more than one word/morpheme), quantitative aspects of the lexicon (number of verb/noun types) and the amount of mixed utterances (which contain lexical material from language A and language B). Due to space limitations, the present article cannot discuss the issue of language dominance at depth; cf. Genesee, Nicoladis and Paradis (1995), Cantone, Kupisch, Müller and Schmitz (2006). Furthermore, it is impossible to present a more thorough analysis of the bilingual children’s language dominance. Therefore, it will compare bilingual children with different degrees of balance measured on the basis of MLU.

1.3

Effects of cross-linguistic influence

After having explained the conditions for cross-linguistic influence to occur, we may ourselves ask which effects it will have on the language acquisition process. This influence may be quantitative in nature, accelerating or delaying the bilingual’s developmental process in comparison with monolingual peers. It may also have qualitative effects, often called ‘transfer’ in the literature. The term ‘transfer’ has been used in connection with second language acquisition, i.e., the successive acquisition of more than one language, and was applied to the phenomenon in which previously acquired knowledge is extended to a new domain (a new language). Depending on whether the first and the second language are similar or different for the grammatical phenomenon in question, transfer may be positive or negative. To summarise, if quantitative in nature, the acquisition process should be delayed or speeded up in the bilingual, but the data should not contain evidence for the extension of linguistic knowledge from the first L1 onto the second native language. If qualitative in nature, the data should contain evidence for the extension of a grammatical phenomenon X of language A onto language B, e.g., one should find different types of extension, XA, XE, XG, in language B, if we vary the other language, A, E, G, and by this the properties of the grammatical phenomenon, or the developmental path in bilinguals should be different from that in

 Natascha Müller

monolinguals in showing a particular type of construction which is absent in monolingual development. The most surprising aspect of cross-linguistic influence is indeed the effect of acceleration of the language acquisition process. A good example for accelerating effects in language development is finite verb placement in German. From monolingual language acquisition we know that children pass through a stage during which they place the finite (and non-finite) verb clause-finally, even in main clauses − which does not correspond to adult language (Clahsen 1982). A typical monolingual child is Chantal, who has been studied by Schmitz (2004): until the age of 2;7, the verb-final pattern prevails, i.e. she produces utterances like 'ich auch mache’, ‘I also make’ (instead of ‘Ich mache [es] auch’) or ‘die Puppe schlafen will’, ‘the doll sleep wants’ (instead of ‘Die Puppe will schlafen’) in 60% of her utterances. This amount will be reduced to 10% at the age of 2;9 and to 5% at the age of 3;0. Schmitz compared the development of verb placement in Chantal with that in German-Italian bilingual children. The child Lukas is representative for the path chosen by German-Italian bilingual children, namely that they seem to skip the stage in the development of German which is characterised by the predominance of verb-final patterns: Lukas reached a developmental stage at 2;3 which Chantal reaches at the age of 2;10. The interesting observation is that the stage with predominant verb-final placement is absent in the German of the bilingual child. Also evident is the fact that verbsecond placement (VS) is used earlier in bilingual child development, to an extent which the monolingual child only reaches after the age of 3. Delay effects are visible in other grammatical domains, like gender marking. In the monolingual French and Italian corpora studied by Kupisch, Müller & Cantone (2002) a very low number of gender errors has been observed (1.3% (385:5) for L1French and 1.9% (362:7) for L1-Italian). The observed children were all younger than 2;7. These monolingual Italian and French children mastered their gender systems very early (before 2;3) without making a significant number of target-deviant gender assignments. This was not the case for bilingual children speaking French-German and Italian-German, respectively, which have been studied by Kupisch, Müller & Cantone (2002) and Müller & Kupisch (2003). Especially the French gender system appeared to be acquired with a delay. Although the bilingual children were also quite accurate with their gender marking if we consider the whole period from 1;6 – 2;6 in Kupisch, Müller & Cantone (2002) and the period from 2;2 – 4;0 in Müller & Kupisch (2003), in particular the German-French children reached an accuracy rate of only 60% at some points in development. One of the French-German children studied by Müller & Kupisch (2003) reached the accuracy rate of 95% only at the age of 3;9. Finally, even qualitative effects of cross-linguistic influence are visible in the corpora of the bilingual children. The grammatical domain presented in this article will be an example of this kind of cross-linguistic influence in bilingual acquisition.



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

2. The research project The data to be presented are part of the research project “Die Architektur der frühkindlichen bilingualen Sprachfähigkeit: Italienisch-Deutsch und Französisch-Deutsch in Italien, Deutschland und Frankreich im Vergleich” (The architecture of the early childhood bilingual language faculty: Comparing Italian-German and French-German in Italy, Germany and France).1 The bilingual children are presented in table (1). All children have been raised bilingually (German-Italian/French) from birth in Germany. The parents decided to raise them according to the “une personne – une langue”- strategy (Ronjat 1913). In most cases (Céline is the exception) the mother speaks the Romance language to the child and the father German. The corpus consists of video recordings (made every fortnight). The recordings started, for the most part, at age 1;6. The languages were separated during the recordings. The German interviewer spoke German with the child, while the Romance interviewer interacted with the child in the respective Romance language. Table 1.  Children under investigation Alexander Céline Carlotta Lukas Jan

2.1

French/German French/German Italian/German Italian/German Italian/German

recordings started at 2;2,6 recordings started at 2;0,9 recordings started at 1;8,28 recordings started at 1;7,12 recordings started at 2;0,11

Language dominance

In the following we will discuss the German-French children Alexander and Céline (for Céline cf. Cordes 2001). We will confine ourselves to the MLU-values of the children in order to determine their language balance. More details are provided in Cantone, Kupisch, Müller and Schmitz (2006). Figure (1) shows that Alexander is a faily balanced bilingual child, his French MLU being slightly higher at all points in his development as compared to the values reached in German. In contrast to Alexander, Céline has a dominant language, namely German. Her French MLU values differ considerably from those in German, as can be seen in figure (2). In some recordings, the difference between the two languages amounts to more than 1.

 Natascha Müller

7,0 6,0

MLU

5,0 4,0

German

3,0

French

2,0 1,0

2; 2, 6 2; 3, 24 2; 5, 25 2; 7, 6 2; 8, 28 2; 10 ,2 3 3; 1, 22 3; 3, 0 3; 4, 19 3; 6, 7 3; 8, 11

0,0

age

Figure 1.  MLU: Alexander 6,0 5,0 MLU

4,0

German

3,0

French

2,0 1,0

0, 9 2; 1, 14 2; 4, 19 2; 6, 7 2; 8, 2 2; 9, 20 2; 11 ,3 3; 0, 13 3; 3, 12 3; 4, 23 3; 6, 12 3; 8, 0

0,0

age

Figure 2.  MLU: Céline

Let us turn to the German-Italian children (Loconte 2001). Figure (3) shows Carlotta’s MLU in both languages. Even more so than Alexander, she can be regarded as a balanced bilingual child. Figure (4) presents graphically the MLU-values for Lukas. Until the age of approx. 3;3, he can be considered as the most balanced child in the project. After that age, he uses Italian to a declining degree, most of his utterances in the Italian recordings being German or mixed utterances. Finally, figure (5) contains Jan’s MLUvalues. He can be compared with Céline with respect to the considerable difference between the Italian and the German MLU until approx. age 3. His German is stronger than his Italian. However, in contrast to Céline who does not use French but German



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

with the French interviewer, Jan likes to speak Italian and mostly uses Italian during the Italian recording session. 6 5 MLU

4

German

3

Italian

2 1 0 1;

8,

28

1 1;

1,

12

2;

2,

4

2;

4,

7

2;

7,

13

2;

9,

25

1 2;

1,

27

3;

2,

13

3;

4,

8

3;

6,

17

3;

8,

27

3;

11

,6

age

Figure 3.  MLU: Carlotta 6,0 5,0 MLU

4,0

German

3,0

Italian

2,0 1,0 0,0

1;

7,

12

1 1;

0,

17

2;

1,

3

2;

4,

23

2;

7,

15

2;

9,

18

1 2;

1,

27

age

Figure 4.  MLU: Lukas

3;

3,

2

3;

5,

8

3;

7,

15

3;

9,

20

1 3;

1,

22

MLU

 Natascha Müller

4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 0 2;

,1

German Italian

1

4 2;

,1

5

2;

7,

7

9 2;

,1

2 2

1 ;1

,2

7

2 3,

,1

9

4 3;

,2

3

6 3;

,1

1

3;

8,

5

1 3;

0,

7

0 4;

,1

4

age

Figure 5.  MLU: Jan

3. Crosslinguistic Influence 3.1

Finite verb placement in German subordinate clauses

Müller (1993, 1994, 1998) has concluded, on the basis of a review of the relevant literature, that bilingual children with French, Italian or English as one of their two native languages have considerable problems with finite verb placement in German subordinate clauses.



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children  Absolute number

2;4,6

2;6,25 2;7,27

Vfinal target-deviant

2;5,25

2;8,28 2;10,2 2;11,6 3;1,22 Age

3;2,16 3;3,22 3;4,19 3;5,24 3;6,21 3;8,11 3;9,7 3;10,6

3;11,10 4;1,26 4;3 4:4.25

Figure 6.  Subordinate clauses Alexander

14

2;2,27

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 2;2,6

 Natascha Müller

Absolute number

2;0,11

2;3,2 2;4,7 2;6,9 2;7,13 2;8,21 2;9,25 2;10,30 2;11,27 Age

3;1,16 3;2,13 3;3,11 3;4,8 3;5,6 3;6,17 3;7,13 3;8,27 3;10,22 3;11,26 4;1,14 4;2,11 4;3,9 4;4,6

Figure 7.  Subordinate clauses Carlotta

Vfinal target-deviant

2;2,4

20

1;11,12

18

1;10,8

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 1;8,28



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

Adult German is a V2-language and exhibits clause-final finite verbs in subordinate clauses: Heute habe ich Geburtstag ‘Today have I birthday’ – Ich habe dir gesagt, dass ich heute Geburtstag habe ‘I have you told that I today birthday have’. German exhibits a root/non-root-asymmetry with respect to finite verb placement. For the SVO languages like French and Italian, a root/non-root symmetry with respect to word order of finite verbs can be observed, i.e. the verb in subordinate clauses follows the subject, as in main clauses. Müller (1998) concludes her review with the observation that about half of the population of bilingual children have problems with finite verb placement in German subordinate clauses if they acquire a second native language which is an SVO language, i.e. French, Italian or English. Interestingly, two of the five children studied in the present article have considerable problems with finite verb placement in subordinate clauses: Alexander in the French-German study (cf. figure 6) and Carlotta in the Italian-German study (cf. figure 7). As can be seen from the figures (6) and (7), target-deviant verb placement ceases to appear in both children only at the age of 4, i.e. German verb placement in subordinate clauses can be regarded as a grammatical domain with late acquisition. For the other three children, there are either no problems at all, i.e. the placement of finite verbs in subordinates is ‘error-free’ or the development marginally shows root word order in subordinate clauses. This is shown in figures (8), (9) and (10) for the children Jan (German-Italian), Lukas (German-Italian) and Céline (German-French). Since we are dealing with longitudinal data, absence of data should be avoided as an argument for or against hypotheses concerning language development. Let us therefore concentrate on the children Alexander and Carlotta who exhibit problems in subordinate clauses.

 Natascha Müller Absolute number

2;5,26 2;7,7

2;11,27 3;1,1 3;3,8 3;4,23 3;6,11 Age

3;7,22 3;9,15 3;10,27 4;0,14 4;2,25 4;4,6 4;5,17 4;7,5 4;9,16 4;10,27

Figure 8.  Subordinate clauses: Jan

Vfinal

2;10,8

target-deviant

2;8,18

25

20

15

10

5

0 2;1,3



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

Absolute number

1;10,17 1;11,22

2;4,23 2;5,20 2;7,15 2;8,12 2;9,18 2;10,22 2;11,27 Age

3;1,30 3;3,2 3;4,7 3;5,8 3;6,13 3;7,15 3;8,17 3;9,20

3;10,17 3;11,22 4;1,20 4;3,14 4;4,12

Figure 9.  Subordinate clauses: Lukas

Vfinal

2;3,6

target-deviant

2;1,3

14

1;9,13

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 1;7,12

 Natascha Müller

Absolute number

2;6,21 2;8,2 2;8,29 2;10,5 2;11,3 Age

2;11,29 3;0,27 3;3,12 3;4,9 3;5,15 3;6,12 3;7,17 3;8,14 3;9,18

3;10,18 3;11,15

Figure 10.  Subordinate clauses Céline

Vfinal

2;5,25

target-deviant

2;4,19

18

2;3,15

16

2;1,6

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 2;0,9



3.2

Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

The “errors”: The influence of the other language

In her review of the literature, Müller (1998) finds that the kind of “errors” in German subordinate clauses differs as a function of the second language. Whereas children with French or English as first languages use COMP (complementizer) – X (any constituent) – Vfin –Y (any constituent), dass heute habe ich Geburtstag ‘that today have I birthday’, children with Italian use COMP – Vfin – S – X – Y, dass habe ich heute Geburts­ tag ‘that have I today birthday’. This is also true for the two bilingual children studied here: Whereas Alexander makes use of 1.9% of VSX(Y) patterns in his German subordinate clauses (only 2 out of 104), Carlotta uses it to a high degree, 32% of her subordinate clauses showing exactly this pattern until the age of 3;7. All bilingual children use SVfinX in their subordinate clauses, dass ich habe heute Geburtstag ‘that I have today birthday’, i.e. this pattern occurs independently of the specific second language, French or Italian.2 A further important result of Müller’s review is that finite verb placement in the Romance language (or in English) is not problematic, i.e. we are dealing with an error-free grammatical domain in these languages. Before we turn to the discussion of the acquisition facts, we will introduce a new view of word order in subordinate clauses and the syntax–pragmatics interface.

3.3

Complementizers in French, Italian and German- adult and child grammar

In generative syntax and other frameworks, complementizers are generally assumed to form a constituent with the infinitival IP they are associated with, e.g. in the sentence Il est important de chanter ‘It is important de sing-inf.’, de is often analyzed as forming a constituent with chanter, since de requires an infinitival, and therefore is not compatible with a finite phrase: *Il est important de vous chantiez ‘It is important de you singsubjunc.’ (Kayne 1999: 41). The same can be proposed for Italian di which, like its French counterpart, is only compatible with an infinitival. Recently, Kayne (1999) has argued that the French and Italian prepositional complementizers de / di enter the derivation above the VP, that is, not as a sister to the IP they are associated with. The relation between complementizer and IP is expressed by movement of the (infinitival) IP to the specifier position of the complementizer. Subsequent movement of the complementizer to a head W, is followed by phrasal movement to Spec, Spec,W accounts for the observed word order in these languages. If prepositional complementizers do not form a constituent with the infinitival IP they are associated with, the following derivational steps are necessary for a sentence like Gianni ha tentato di cantare, ‘Gianni has tried di sing-inf ’: The infinitival IP cantare is merged with the main verb tentato, not with di. Di is subsequently merged with tentato cantare, the result being di tentato cantare. Di then attracts the infinitival IP cantare to its Spec, resulting in cantarei di tentato ti. Di further raises to an immediately higher head W, dij+W cantarei tj tentato ti. Di+W then attracts VP to its Spec, [tentato ti]k dij+W cantarei tj tk.

 Natascha Müller

Gianni ha

WP [tentato t i] k

W' DiP

di j

cantare i

Di' dij

VP [ tentato cantare ] i k

Figure 11.  Derivation of [...] tentato di cantare

Kayne (1999) advances several arguments for his analysis. The first type of argument relates to the nominal character of French and Italian infinitives. French de and Italian di require an infinitival, and they are not compatible with a finite phrase (Kayne 1999: 40f.). (10) Il est important de chanter It is important de sing-inf. (11) *Il est important de vous chantez It is important de you sing-subjunc. (12) Gianni dice di aver capito Gianni says di have-inf. understood (13) *Gianni dice di (lui) ha capito Gianni says di (he) has understood Both Romance languages have developed a complementizer for finite clauses, namely que and che. The same generalization extends to other prepositional complementizers, like pour and per in the Romance languages. They are restricted to infinitival clauses. If a finite clause is expressed, French uses pour que, Italian perché. The second type of argument in favor of the derivation in figure (11) relates to the observation that in French and Italian, infinitives do not occupy DP positions. Thus, despite the nominal character of French and Italian infinitives, they do not occupy ordinary DP positions. In conclusion, French and Italian infinitives have to be licensed in a special way, one way being to have them preceded by de / di, or, extending Kayne’s proposal, by other prepositional complementizers like pour / per. The new idea of Kayne’s approach is that the prepositional complementizers do not form a constituent with the infinitival IP they are associated with. As a consequence, the complementizer



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

is not part of the argument of the (main) verb, but enters the derivation subsequent to the merger of the infinitival IP and the main verb. Let us assume that Romance language children have the correct analysis of infinitival clauses from the beginning. If Kayne’s analysis is extended to pour / per, which is the first prepositional complementizer in child grammar (Müller 1993), and which emerges about 6 months before the first adult-like finite complementizers, we would have the derivation in figure (12) for a French child sentence: c’est pour dormir, ‘this is for to-sleep’. c'

WP [est t i ]k

W' pour j

PourP dormir i

Pour' pour j [est

dormir i ] k

Figure 12.  Derivation of infinitival introduced by pour

This structure would conform to the adult system. Bilingual Romance-German children have been reported to use German für, the equivalent of pour / per as one of the first elements which introduces clauses (cf. Müller 1993). This is also the case for the two children of the present study who exhibit considerable problems with finite verb placement in German subordinate clauses:3 für setzen, ‘for to-sit’ (Carlotta, 2;7,13), für grattieren, ‘for to scratch’ (=kratzen, Alexander, 2;7,6). Since these German constructions are created by the children on the basis of their Romance language – the construction as such does not exist in German –, it seems plausible to extend the pour / per analysis to für in German. Thus, a child sentence like das is für einkaufen ‘this is for to-shop’ has the derivation in figure 13:

 Natascha Müller

das

WP [ist t i]k

W' FürP

für j

einkaufen i

Für'

für j [ist

einkaufen i] k

Figure 13.  Derivation of infinitival introduced by für

Kayne (1999) mentions the possibility that this kind of analysis extends to the real complementizers que / che in the Romance languages. Let us assume that this is indeed the case. We would like to exemplify this possibility with a French construction: Je sais que tu lis ce livre ‘I know that you read this book’. je

WP [sais t i] k

W'

que j

CP

IP[tu lis ce livre] i

C'

que j [sais IP [tu lis ce livre]i ] k Figure 14.  que/che clauses: the Romance derivation

If children extend the analysis of pour / per clauses to für, it is plausible that they also use their analysis of subordinate clauses introduced by que / che for German subordinates. As a consequence, they would merge a finite clause with matrix word order with the matrix verb and subsequently insert the complementizer dass (cf. figure 15), thus the absence of sentence final placement of the finite verb in these children is predicted. In other words, there is a link between the first prepositional complementizer für



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

which is syntactically analyzed like French pour and Italian per, and the persistent problems with finite verb placement in German subordinate clauses: Children who exhibit problems in German subordinate clauses adopt a course to the complementizer system via using für with the same syntactic derivation as pour / per. Indeed, a syntactic derivation of the prepositional complementizer introducing infinitival clauses is extended to real complementizers, as is indicated by the observation that prepositional complementizers can also introduce finite clauses in the children’s grammar, e.g. für das macht musik, ‘for it makes music’ (Carlotta, 2;10,30), für die bahn kann, ‘for the train can (go there)’ (Alexander, 2;11,20).

ich

WP [weiß t i] k

W'

dass j IP[du

DassP

kannst nicht mitkommen]i

Dass'

dass j [weiß

IP[du

kannst nicht mitkommen]i]k

Figure 15.  Derivation of finite subordinate clause in German with a Romance pour/peranalysis: *Ich weiß dass du kannst nicht mitkommen, ‘I know that you can not with-come’

Interestingly, the bilingual children have positive evidence for the Romance analysis of complementizers in German. German subordinate clauses are verb-final if they are introduced by a complementizer like dass.

ich weiß

CP dass

IP (head-final) du nicht mitkommen kannst

Figure 16.  dass clauses: the German derivation

German subordinate clauses which are not introduced by any lexical element do not show clause-final placement of the finite verb, but main clause word order, as shown in (14) in contrast to (15).

 Natascha Müller

(14) ich weiß, du kannst nicht mitkommen I know you can not with-come ‘I know you cannot join us.’ (15) ich weiß, dass du nicht mitkommen kannst I know that you not with-come can Thus, for a sentence without a lexical complementizer, the für-derivation would yield the correct analysis. In other words, the Romance syntactic derivation does not transfer “blindly” into child German, but is supported by positive evidence. ich

WP [weiß ti]k Øj

W' DassP

IP[du kannst nicht mitkommen] i

Dass'

Øj [weiß

IP[du kannst nicht mitkommen]i]k

Figure 17.  Derivation of finite subordinate clause in German without lexical complementizer in terms of a Romance pour/per-analysis

One may object that we do not need dassP and WP for the derivation of such sentences. But since these non verb-final clauses have to be distinguished from reported speech (which becomes visible in spoken language from the type of pronoun used: mich fragst du willst du brot oder würstchen, ‘me ask you want you bread or sausages’ (reported speech) versus mich fragst du ob ich brot oder würstchen will, ‘me ask you if I bread or sausages want’), the functional projections may be necessary, but remain empty in the course of derivation. Spoken adult German also has a small class of elements which can introduce subordinate clauses with main clause word order, weil, ‘because’ and obwohl, ‘although’ among them: Ich bin wütend weil ich kann nicht mitkommen, ‘I am angry because I can not with-come’. The next construction which might be regarded as evidence for the Romance fürderivation in German child grammar is the conditional. Rehbein (1992) shows that the German conditional has two possible realizations. Either as a wenn... dann, if... then’ construction, in which wenn would trigger the verb-final pattern typical of German subordinate clauses, or an alternative with a finite verb in clause-initial position: hätte ich im Lotto gespielt, dann hätte ich diesmal bestimmt gewonnen, ‘had I in the lot-



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

tery played, then would I this time for sure won’. Thus, the verb-final pattern competes with non-verb-final alternatives. These alternatives might constitute positive evidence for the Romance für-derivation applied to German complementizers in general. In section 3.2 we have mentioned that the Romance languages, French and Italian, have a slightly different effect on finite verb placement in German subordinate clauses. Whereas Alexander (French-German) did not use VSX(Y) patterns in his German subordinate clauses, Carlotta uses this pattern in about one third of her subordinate clauses. It is not the purpose of the present article to investigate the syntactic derivations for the different word orders. Notice, however, that those languages, which in bilingual combinations regulate that German subordinate clauses are COMP-Vfin-S-X, e.g. Italian, are characterized by the absence of that-t-effects. In turn, language combinations which exclude this pattern, like French, manifest that-t-effects.4 Müller (2005) argues that this difference explains word orders which are specific to the language combinations. We have mentioned the kind of errors bilingual children make in German subordinate clauses, because we wanted to give further evidence for the assumption that we are dealing with cross-linguistic influence, the proof being that a certain language combination matters for a certain kind of error to occur. Let us now turn to the syntax–pragmatics interface, and approach the question why the Romance analysis is extented to German subordinate clauses.

3.4

The syntax–pragmatics interface

In the Principles & Parameters framework and in early work in Minimalism (Chomsky 1995), the syntactic derivation could interface with the interpretive systems only at one point, which was called Spell Out. This operation strips the phonological features off the lexical items and maps them onto a structure called Phonetic Form, which in turn interfaces with the auditory-perceptual system. Spell Out is also the earliest point at which, given that all uninterpretable features are checked off, a structure called Logical Form can be assumed, which in turn interfaces with the conceptual-intentional system. More recently, some researchers like Epstein, Groat, Kawashima and Kitahara (1998) and López (2003) have challenged the view that interfacing with the interpretive systems must wait until the derivation is finished. Epstein et al. (1998) provide the most radical approach in the sense of assuming that the interpretive systems interface invasively with the syntactic derivation after every application of Merge and Move. As a result, there are no PF or LF structures. López (2003), building on recent proposals by Chomsky (2000, 2001) and Uriagereka (1999), defends a more moderate view on the invasiveness of the interpretive systems. He assumes that the derivation spells-out at particular points called phases. More specifically, a phase is headed by the light verb v or by C. These represent the two points at which the derivation can be handed over to the interpretive systems, once vP / CP is being derived. Once a phase is spelled-out, it is opaque. The only exception to this is the edge of the phase, which is defined as the head of the phase and its Specs.

 Natascha Müller

It is the more moderate framework which we will adopt in this article. In particular, we are interested in the point CP at which López allows the syntactic derivation to interface with pragmatics, “the interpretive module that deals with focus/ presupposition structures, contrast, and possibly other notions […]” (López 2003: 195). In his approach, pragmatic values – like presupposition and contrast – are regarded as features which are assigned to constituents in the syntactic component and remain as parts of the feature matrix of these constituents. In other words, pragmatics can assign features to constituents in the CHL (computational system for human language) which were absent in the lexical array. The pragmatic component can thus inspect a syntactic structure and attach a (pragmatic) feature to it. Pragmatics can invade the computational system only at two points in the derivation, when the vP / CP phase is being completed. What pragmatic value(s) could be involved in subordinate clauses? Let us exemplify the relevance of pragmatic values by using the example of conditionals. If encoded in a wenn... dann construction, or in the Romance equivalent construction with si / se, the feature “conditional” is introduced via the lexical array of wenn, si, and se. However, German as well as the Romance languages exhibit an alternative construction for which it would be difficult to imagine a feature “conditional” in the lexical array of one element in the clause. This is the following construction hätte ich im Lotto gespielt, dann hätte ich diesmal bestimmt gewonnen which exists in French as a construction with a clause-initial finite verb as well as aurais-je le temps.... ‘had-I the time...’.5 In this case it is necessary to assign features to constituents which are absent in the lexical array.6 López (2003: 204) discusses the case of clitics which spell out the pragmatic feature “presupposition” or “[p]”. The feature [+p] is assigned to the EPP of v. Pragmatics can “invade CHL and assigns [+p] only after the vP phase is completed.” Spec,v also becomes [+p] since this specifier is licensed by an EPP with a [+p] feature. If it is plausible to assume that in case of conditionals the whole sentence containing the verb in the conditional is marked as such, it would be the functional category C or FürP/DassP in Kayne’s analysis, which receives this feature. Pragmatics would have to assign this feature to C/Dass/Für (or the EPP of C/Dass/Für) and the specifier of C/Dass/Für would have the same feature since it is licensed by an EPP with a feature “conditional”. In other words, we would like to suggest that there are two possibilities for features to enter the derivation: either via the lexical array or via pragmatics.



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

ich

WP

schrie

W' wenn

CP

ich war baby

C' C+EPP=wenn schrie

[+temporal]

ich war baby

'I cried when I was a baby'

Figure 18.  Derivation of a German subordinate clause with [+temporal] inserted via pragmatics

Let us turn to child grammar. Research on early child language has shown that pragmatics, apart from its identifying function, can also license empty constituents (Müller and Hulk 2001). If this is plausible, this would have the following consequences for the grammatical domain of subordinate clauses. We would predict that children will first choose the possibility for features to enter the derivation via pragmatics, and only later study the lexical array in more detail. In fact, researchers find that young children, monolingual and bilingual, start to produce subordinate clauses long before they use complementizers; the position of the complementizer in the target language either remains empty in child language (Müller 1993: sitz da un pa auf papa komm nich (=sitzt da und passt auf dass der Papa nicht kommt), ‘sit there and pay-attention daddy comes not’) or is filled with a dummy complementizer, like là, ‘there’ (Müller 1993: demander maman là il est (=demander maman où il est), ‘ask mummy there it is’). This view would contradict learning models which suppose that lexical learning is the driving force in syntactic development. If the features needed for subordinates are introduced into syntax via pragmatics, or put differently, if the conjunction does not encode the respective features, it is the whole clause which marks the features. The (adult) Romance analysis of subordinates nicely reflects this relation between syntax and pragmatics. In Romance pour / per-clauses, the subordinate clause is merged with the matrix verb and later moved into the functional projection which hosts pour / per. As a consequence of the application of the Romance analysis to German subordinates, bilingual children use root word order with finite verbs in subordinate clauses. Unlike adult German, child language complementizers are not analyzed as elements inserted into a syntactic position where, in ma-

 Natascha Müller

trix clauses, the finite verb checks off finiteness. A German-French or German-Italian bilingual child will thus ignore the importance of the complementizer and assume a symmetric analysis of root and non-root clauses due to the insertion of features needed for subordination via pragmatics. Children might opt for invasive pragmatics even in cases for which the feature of subordinate clauses, conditional, temporal, causal, etc. is encoded in the lexical array of a conjunction in adult grammar. A child sentence with an invasively introduced feature [+temporal] would have the structure in figure (18), independently of whether a conjunction is present or not. Müller (1993) shows that the bilingual children who have problems with finite verb placement in German subordinate clauses acquire the target-like verb-final order with each conjunction separately. In other words, the children have to analyze and acquire the features for subordination with each lexical array. The last conjunctions to be integrated into the target-like verb-final pattern are the semantically empty complementizers dass, ‘that’ and ob, ‘if/whether’. The way children revise their analysis of German subordinate clauses may be interpreted as a further indication that the kind of cross-linguistic influence we are facing with finite verb placement in German subordinates is what is defined as transfer in section 1.3. What prediction would follow from the approach outlined here? The prediction would be that monolingual children indeed have problems with those subordinate clauses for which the adult language offers an alternative with features introduced invasively via pragmatics. These are conditionals. Stern & Stern (1928) reported these problems in conditionals in the German monolingual children they studied: wenn ihr würdet immerfort in Berlin geblieben sein, so würdet ihr immerfort Berliner gewesen sein, ‘if you would always in Berlin stayed to-be, then would you always people-fromBerlin been to-be’. Finally, let us come back to the two conditions for cross-linguistic influence to occur. To reiterate, the two conditions presented in section 1.1 were: (a) The vulnerable grammatical phenomenon is an interface properties, e.g., a grammatical property located at the interface between syntax and pragmatics; (b) The surface strings of the two languages are similar for the expression of the vulnerable grammatical phenomenon. We have already mentioned that adult German exhibits subordinate clauses with root word order. These clauses might lead the children into generalizing the Romance analysis onto German subordinates. The first condition is also fulfilled since the grammatical domain studied represents an interface property. As discussed in section 1.1, it is also true for subordinates that pragmatics and syntax interact in such a way that pragmatic factors restrict the possibilities offered by the syntactic system. In section 3.3 we have mentioned the possibility that (adult) German subordinate clauses with root word order can be analyzed à la Kayne, as Romance subordinates in general. If this assumption turns out to be correct, German would be characterized by a non-isomorphic interplay between syntax and pragmatics: If the features needed for subordination are inserted via pragmatics, the finite verb of the subordinate must check off these features (residually, this option exists for Romance conditionals). If the features



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

needed for subordination are inserted via the lexical array of the complementizer, it is the complementizer which guarantees that the construction is well-formed. It is the role of pragmatics which restricts the possibilities offered by the syntactic system. Under the assumption that children find this kind of interaction complex, they will opt for the Romance analysis of German subordinates which minimizes interaction between syntax and pragmatics. Under the Romance analysis, nothing follows for syntax if features for subordination are inserted via the lexical array of complementizers, or via pragmatics. What other consequences follow from the analysis presented here? Cantone (2004) studies code-switching in simultaneous bilingual Italian-German children from age 2;6 to 5. Her results show that children do mix between the functional head C and its complement: (16) perché ihr seid böse because you are bad (17) pecché ich war kleiner =perché because I was younger (18)

(Lu, 3;11,2, Italian recording) (Lu, 4;0,5, Italian recording)

wir sind aus- perché wir sind aus- aus- aus- auf deutsch-auf deutschland We are from – because we are from- from- from in German- in Germany (Ja, 3;1,1, German recording)

(19) hai visto che geht leicht have(you) seen that (it) goes easy

(Lu, 3;4,25, Italian context)

(20) guarda che war hier Look that (it) was here

(Lu, 3;10,3, Italian context)

Cantone hypothesizes that the language of the complementizer determines the word order of its complement. Subordinate clauses are a good testing ground for the hypothesis since German subordinate clauses are verb-final, whereas Italian subordinates are SVO. Since German weil (‘because’)-clauses can be non-verb-final in spoken language, (16) – (18) do not constitute clear examples. (19) and (20), however, might show that an Italian complementizer determines Italian word order in the subordinate clause, although the clause is made up of German lexical items. With German word order, the child should have said hai visto che leicht geht and guarda che hier war. Furthermore, in these examples the German finite verb in the subordinate clause is not accompanied by an overt subject, a possibility characteristic of Italian, not of German, given that Italian is a null-subject language. Cantone specifies that if the complementizer is Italian, then the structure below the functional head C is Italian, too, independent of whether its syntactic positions are filled with Italian or with German elements. In the examples, Italian C can be combined with an underlying structure which contains a null-subject. Under the approach of subordinates presented here, the conclusion that the language of the complementizer determiners word order in the subordinate clause fol-

 Natascha Müller

lows rather naturally. If the complementizer is Romance, the Romance analysis will apply: It merges the subordinate with the matrix verb first and later moves the subordinate into the functional projection which hosts the complementizer. Romance word order will result, which is corroborated by the data. The code-switching data thus lend support to the analysis presented here.

3.5

A note on language dominance

In what follows, we would like to exclude the possibility that language dominance is the driving factor for why the children Alexander and Carlotta extend the Romance analysis of subordinates to German. We have illustrated the MLU values of the two children. For Alexander, we could argue that since his German is weaker than his French, he will try the Romance option for German. However, notice that this argument does not generalize to Carlotta’s case. She can be considered as a balanced bilingual, nevertheless, she opts for the Romance analysis. What about the children Céline, Jan and Lukas? Lukas can be compared with Carlotta, at least until the age of 3;3. In both children, the MLUs of both languages nearly match. Jan and, to a greater extent, Céline have a dominant language, namely German. We may speculate that those children who do not show problems in subordinate clauses are children who develop German as a dominant language. Schmitz (2004), analyzing dative case errors in the children Alexander, Céline, Lukas and Carlotta comes to this result, namely that only those children who develop German as a dominant language reach the target stage as quickly as children who are balanced for grammatical domains which are vulnerable for cross-linguistic influence. Notice, however, that Lukas can be considered a balanced bilingual child until the age of 3;3, the age span during which he very rarely produces verb placement errors in subordinate clauses. Under the assumed relation between cross-linguistic influence and language dominance, we would wrongly predict that he should pattern like Carlotta. In conclusion, the balance between the two languages, although an interesting research area as such, does not explain why bilingual children show signs of cross-linguistic influence in their development of verb placement patterns in German subordinate clauses.

4. Conclusion The present investigation has attempted to show that some bilingual children may use a derivation of language A for language B as well. This was the case since language B contained two constructions of which one was the common construction in language A. A further important factor which comes into play is the syntax–pragmatics interface. Children tend to minimize the interaction between pragmatics and syntax if they interact in a way that pragmatic factors restrict the possibilities offered by the syntactic system.



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

The remaining problem is why only half of the bilingual population exhibit the kind of developmental path outlined here. We have no solution to offer for the children who do not show signs of cross-linguistic influence. What seems plausible, when looking at the differing degree of balance of the children is that language dominance can be excluded as a reason for absence / presence of language influence.

Notes 1. The project is financed by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and directed by the present author at Bergische Universität Wuppertal ([email protected]). For further details cf. Müller, Cantone, Kupisch and Schmitz (2002), Müller, Kupisch, Schmitz and Cantone (2006) and Cantone, Kupisch, Müller and Schmitz (2006). 2. Müller (1998) also presents results from monolingual German children on the development of finite verb placement in subordinates. One reviewer formulates the prediction that monolingual German children would have similar problems with verb placement in subordinate clauses as bilinguals in German. One could also predict that there would be a bilingual-monolingual difference in the magnitude of the problem, with Romance-German bilinguals producing significantly more deviant verb placements than monolinguals because of the strengthening effect of the Romance language. It is not possible to discuss this issue in more depth, since the situation is complex. Monolingual children from Northern parts of Germany (the same region as the bilingual children studied here) acquire finite verb placement without error. They use finite verbs clause-finally even at a time when they have not acquired complementizers yet. Monolingual children from Southern parts of German take some time to acquire the correct verb placement in subordinates; this may be the case, because their input contains evidence for non-V-final placement of finite verbs with a considerable amount of lexical elements introducing subordinate clauses. Müller (1998) argues that these monolingual German children have an input in German which the Italian-German bilingual children have in the Romance language, favoring COMP – Vfin – S – X – Y. 3. Für does not figure among the prepositions which introduce infinitival clauses in standard German. Instead, the particle zu is used in German infinitival constructions. für-infinitives are in use in the Ruhr-area: 360 Eier für mitten Auto fahrn ‘360 eggs for with-the car drive’ (Gawlitzek-Maiwald 1997:35). The preposition für replaces um in für-infinitives, the common preposition to introduce infinitival clauses; the infinitival particle zu is often not realized. für-infinitives allow for the realization of the subject, which is otherwise impossible in infinitivals (Voyles 1983, mentioned in Gawlitzek-Maiwald 1997:35): *Menschen zu irren ist möglich ‘People to err is possible’ versus Für Menschen zu irren ist möglich ‘For people to err is possible’. The bilingual children investigated in the present study have been raised in the Northern parts of Germany; they did not have für-infinitives in their input. 4. French and Italian differ with respect to the presence / absence of the so-called that-t-effect: In French, it is impossible to move the subject of an embedded clauses into the front position of the main clause, thus the ungrammaticality of Qui crois-tu que viendras ‘who think you that will-come’. The sentence is grammatical in Italian Chi credi che verrà. Most researchers assume that fronted subjects cannot be moved in one step if two clauses are involved, but that they have

 Natascha Müller to land in the specifier position of the functional projection which hosts the complementizer, CP. We can interpret the examples in the sense that the French complementizer que does not license a position preceding it which can host the subject (Bošković & Lasnik 2003 assume that such a head does not have an EPP (Extended Projection Principle) feature (guaranteeing that a specifier will be projected) and therefore will not project a specifier position) whereas Italian che does. The example is ungrammatical because the subject, in order to be fronted, would have to move in one step, which is impossible though *Quii crois tu que ti viendras. An alternative account would be to analyze the trace following the complementizer que as the offending trace: *Quii crois tu ti que ti viendras. Rizzi (1990) has argued on the basis of minimality that the complementizer que does not carry agreement features and therefore cannot properly govern the subject trace, the result being an ungrammatical sentence. French qui and Italian che carry agreement feature, explaining the grammaticality of Qui crois tu qui viendras and Chi credi che verrà. “If Agr is selected for the head of Comp, it must be coindexed with its specifier; […] here the subject trace is properly head-governed by Agr in the head of Comp and antecedent-governed by the specifier of Comp.” (Rizzi 1990:52f.) He summarizes that “a C0 endowed with such features is an intrinsic governor.” (Rizzi 1990:122) Interestingly, Rizzi (1997) has noted that the that-t-effect can also be voided if a TopP (Topic Phrase) intervenes between the position which hosts the complementizer (Force in his approach) and the functional projection which hosts the trace of the fronted subject (Fin in his approach): Who did Leslie say that *(for all intents and purposes) was the mayor of the city? 5. In French, these constructions belong to the register of written language. It would be interesting to study the occurrence of conditionals in the German input of the children. 6. One reviewer remarks that the finite verb is morphologically marked for the conjunctive (II). This observation generalizes to the French example. Notice however that the morphological marking on the verb could not explain the word order. The feature “conditional” would be needed independently of the morphological marking of the finite verb. 7. One reviewer suggests that the variation among children is hard to accommodate with the presented account, given that the reinforcing effect from the Romance language is present in all children. Recent studies in the literature have suggested that the bilingual child’s problem may be related to the processing resources necessary to integrate syntactic and pragmatic knowledge (see Avrutin 1999). The processing domain is open to developmental effects, and therefore to inter-subject variation. The nature of the data, spontaneous production data, makes it impossible to disentangle a representational and a processing approach. Notice however, that a processing approach could not predict the occurrence of different target-deviant word orders, depending on the language combination. In fact, the presence of COMP-Vfin-S-X in German subordinates of German-Italian children and its absence in French-German children reinforces the competence-driven approach presented here.

References Avrutin, S. 1999. Development of the Syntax-Discourse Interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Bernardini Röst, P. 2001. Lo squilibrio nell’acquisizione di due lingue nell’infanzia: Indagine longitudinale sullo sviluppo della sintassi nominale. Lund : Licentiatavhandling, University of Lund.



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

Bošković, Z. and Lasnik, H. 2003. On the distribution of null complementizers. Linguistic Inquiry 34(4): 527–546. Cantone, K. 2004. Code-Switching in Bilingual Children. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg. Cantone, K., Kupisch, T., Müller, N; and Schmitz, K. 2006. Redefining language dominance in bilingual children. Submitted Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa lectures. Foris: Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds), 89–156. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Clahsen, H. 1982. Spracherwerb in der Kindheit. Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Syntax bei Kleinkindern. Tübingen: Narr Cordes, J. 2001. Zum unausgewogenen doppelten Erstspracherwerb eines deutsch-französisch aufwachsenden Kindes: Eine empirische Untersuchung. MA thesis, University of Hamburg. Döpke, S. 1992. One Parent, One Language: An interactional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Epstein, S., Groat E., Kawashima R., and Kitahara H. 1998. A Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford: OUP. Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I. 1997. Der monolinguale und bilinguale Erwerb von Infinitivkonstruktionen. Ein Vergleich von Deutsch und Englisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I. and Tracy, R. 1996. Bilingual bootstrapping. Linguistics 34: 901–926. Genesee, F. 1989. Early bilingual development: One language or two? Journal of Child Language 16: 161–179. Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E. and Paradis, J. 1995. Language differentiation in early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language 22: 611–631. Herkenrath, A., Karakoç, B. and Rehbein, J. 2003. Interrogative elements as subordinators in Turkish. In (In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism, N. Müller (ed.), 221–269. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hulk, A. 1997. The acquisition of French object pronouns by a Dutch/French bilingual child. In Language Acquisition: Knowledge, representation and processing. Proceedings of the GALA ‘97 Conference on Language Acquisition, A. Sorace A., C. Heycock and R. Shillcock (eds), 521–526. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press. Hulk, A. and Müller, N. 2000. Crosslinguistic influence at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(3): 227–244. Kayne, R. 1999. Prepositional complementizers as attractors. Probus 11: 39–73. Kupisch, T. 2004. The Acquisition of Determiners in Bilingual German-Italian and GermanFrench Children. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg. Kupisch, T., Müller, N. and Cantone K. 2002. Gender in monolingual and bilingual first language acquisition: Comparing Italian and French. Lingue e Linguaggio 1: 107–149. Lindholm, K. J. and Padilla A. M. 1978. Language mixing in bilingual children. Journal of Child Language 5: 327–335 Loconte, A. 2001. Zur Sprachdominanz bei bilingual deutsch-italienischen Kindern. MA thesis, University of Hamburg. López, L. 2003. Steps for a well-adjusted dislocation. Studia Linguistica 57(3): 193–231

 Natascha Müller Meisel, J. M. 1989. Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of acquisition, maturity, and loss, K. Hyltenstam and L. Obler (eds), 13–40. Cambridge: CUP. Meisel, J. M. (ed.) 1994. Bilingual First Language Acquisition: German and French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Müller, N. 1993. Komplexe Sätze. Der Erwerb von COMP und von Wortstellungsmustern bei bilingualen Kindern (Französisch/Deutsch). Tübingen: Narr. Müller, N. 1994. Parameters cannot be reset: Evidence from the development of COMP. In Bilingual First Language Acquisition. French and German grammatical development, J.M. Meisel (ed.), 235:269, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Müller, N. 1998. Transfer in bilingual first language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1(3): 151–171. Müller, N. 2005. SELECT und funktionale Kategorien im bilingualen Erstspracherwerb: Französisch, Italienisch und Deutsch im Vergleich. Paper presented at Hamburg University. Müller, N., Cantone, K., Kupisch, T. and Schmitz, K. 2002. Zum Spracheneinfluss im bilingualen Erstspracherwerb: Italienisch – Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte 190: 157–206. Müller, N. and Hulk, A. 2000. Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual children: Object omissions and root infinitives. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, C. Howell, S.A. Fish and T. Keith-Lucas (eds), 546–557. Somerville MA: Cascadilla. Müller, N. and Hulk, A. 2001. Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4(1): 1–21. Müller, N. and Kupisch, T. 2003. Zum simultanen Erwerb des Deutschen und des Französischen bei (un)ausgeglichen bilingualen Kindern. Vox Romanica 62: 145–169. Müller, N., Kupisch, T., Schmitz, K. and Cantone, K. 2006. Einführung in die Mehrsprachigkeitsforschung. Deutsch, Französisch, Italienisch. Tübingen: Narr. Petersen J. 1988. Word-internal code-switching constraints in a bilingual child‘s grammar. Linguistics 26: 479–493. Pillunat, A., Schmitz, K. and Müller, N. 2006. Die Schnittstelle Syntax-Pragmatik: Subjektauslassungen bei bilingual deutsch-französisch aufwachsenden Kindern. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 143, 7–24. Rehbein, J. 1992. Zur Wortstellung im komplexen deutschen Satz. In Deutsche Syntax. Ansichten und Aussichten, Hoffman L. (ed.), 523–574. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Rizzi L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Rizzi L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar. Handbook in generative syntax, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281–337.Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ronjat, J. 1913. Le développement du langage observé chez un enfant bilingue. Paris: Champion. Schlyter, S. 1993. The weaker language in bilingual Swedish-French children. In Progression and Regression in Language, Hyltenstam K. and Viberg A. (eds), 289–308. Cambridge: CUP. Schmitz, K. 2004. Erwerb der Verben mit zwei Objekten durch bilingual deutsch/französisch und deutsch/italienisch aufwachsende Kinder. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Hamburg. Stern, C. and Stern W. 1928. Die Kindersprache, neu abgedruckt 1975. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Taeschner, T. 1983. The Sun is Feminine: A Study of Language Acquisition in Bilingual Children. Berlin: Springer. Tracy, R. 1995. Child Languages in Contact: Bilingual Language Acquisition in Early Childhood. Habilitationsschrift: University of Tübingen.



Some notes on the syntax–pragmatics interface in bilingual children 

Uriagereka, J. 1995. Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26 (1): 79–124. Voyles, J. 1983. Ansätze zu einer deutschen Grammatik. Göppingen: Kümmerle.

section 2

Pronouns, topics and subjects

Distribution and function of clitic object pronouns in popular 16th-18th century Greek narratives A synchronic and diachronic perspective Chrystalla A. Thoma University of Hamburg and Berlitz International, Costa Rica

The phenomenon of variation in weak object pronoun placement in Early Modern Greek has been the object of a number of studies. This paper presents some results from a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the phenomenon based on a varied corpus. The perspective taken is functional, focusing mainly on Talmy Givón’s model of referential cohesion in narrative discourse. The findings reveal a consistent pattern of variation that is statistically significant, and they provide a plausible explanation both for a functional distribution as well as the historical change leading to today’s relatively stable patterns.1

1. Introduction In the 16th-18th centuries (with few and sometimes controversial earlier cases) we find increased production of ‘low’ narrative texts, i.e. texts written in a popular, oral-like register in a language that is very similar to Modern Greek (cf. Eideneier 1999). Here ‘low’ is seen as opposed to ‘high’, a written register which attempted to emulate ancient Greek of the Classical and sometimes even of the Homeric period (cf. Toufexis in prep.). The Greek of the 16th-18th centuries is referred to as “Early Modern Greek”2 and this is the term we shall be using throughout this paper. In the ‘low’ narrative texts of our corpus we find great variation in the placement of unstressed, object pronouns before and after the verbal phrase. This ample variation is found in certain texts of the previous period as well (Late Medieval Greek) and has been the object of a number of studies. To date, no conclusive solution has been offered to the problem of possible rules, patterns or functions of the variation. Furthermore, most studies have concentrated on data from the earlier period, mostly poetic in nature, since available ‘low’ prose texts of that time are not very common.

 Chrystalla A. Thoma

Our aim with this study is to concentrate on the phenomenon in Early Modern Greek, offering new data and a new perspective to the ongoing discussion. We claim that in order to understand the diachronic mechanisms of language change we need to give more attention to this (immediately intermediate) stage of the language between Late Medieval and Modern Greek. We have little data as to the linguistic situation of this time,3 a situation partly amended through this paper. Hereby we present a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the phenomenon in declarative finite clauses in a corpus comprising new texts4 which we tested with statistical methods. The results were compared to the Escorial Digenis Akritis of the Late Medieval period, the text on which Mackridge (see below) based his pioneer study of the phenomenon. A second important contribution of this study is that it offers a first functional explanation to the phenomenon according to Givón’s Syntax ([1990] 2001). With this study we are able to offer evidence for the distribution and function of the placement of the clitic5 object pronoun in Early Modern Greek in a synchronic analysis, but also a diachronic perspective on the development of its placement and function. We believe that our study complements other studies on the topic discussed below.

2. State of the art The variable placement of the clitic object pronoun in Early Modern Greek narratives has received the attention of a number of scholars who investigated it by means of different methods. Mackridge (1993, 2000) was the first one to formulate rules for the phenomenon concentrating on texts from the 11th to the 15th centuries. Pappas (2001, 2004a, b) was the first to undertake a quantitative analysis of the phenomenon on a large scale and to challenge certain claims concerning the phenomenon in Late Medieval Greek. He focussed on texts from the 12th-16th centuries, unfortunately poetic texts,6 and in one occasion also compared them to data (from both poetic and prose texts) from the 17th century. Condoravdi and Kiparsky (2001, 2004) approach the problem from the point of view of dialect groups of Greek and maintain that Late Medieval Greek appears to be a union of type A dialect syntax (such as Greek Cypriot, generally postverbal clitic placement except with focalized elements) and Type B/C dialect syntax (such as Pontic and Western dialects). Philippaki-Warburton (1995) and Horrocks (1990, 1997) focus on the generative rules governing clitic placement in Late Medieval Greek, therefore we shall not discuss their work here (for a critical view see Pappas 2004a: 93–99). Although Rollo (1989) was the first scholar to write about the phenomenon under study here, noting a similarity between Italian and Greek in this respect, we shall only mention his work very briefly for reasons made explicit in the following lines: Rollo was apparently content with merely offering a list of isolated examples from Early Modern Greek in which the clitic object pronoun appears in preverbal position (OV) and the Greek Cypriot dialect in which just the opposite happens (VO). Neither is any attempt made to offer any explanation as to the possible syntactic or functional rules



Distribution and function of clitic object pronouns in 16th–18th century Greek narratives 

governing its placement, nor are preverbal object pronouns (OV) examined at all (cf. also Pappas 2004a: 31).7 His work is considered to be pioneer; nevertheless, the topic has since seen a lot of development and analysis from the scholars mentioned above to whom we turn our attention below.

2.1

The beginning: Mackridge (1993, 2000)

Mackridge mentions that he drew his inspiration from a book by Newton (1972) on the Greek Cypriot dialect which prompted him to formulate rules for the Early Modern Greek clitic object pronoun placement.8 His belief was that the rules followed in medieval prose texts we have from Cyprus (mainly Makhairas’s Chronicle), as well as in the modern dialect of Cyprus, are the same as in Early Modern Greek. He proposed that, until the 15th century, texts follow strict rules of clitic placement, something which they somehow stop doing later.9 Our intention is to investigate our data keeping in mind Mackridge’s rules, which were formulated for texts older than the ones under analysis here, in order to see whether they still apply to Early Modern Greek clitic placement variation. As most studies take these rules as their starting point and as there is no other existing set of rules for the phenomenon, we shall largely base the categorisation of our data on them. Our aim is to offer a quantitative and qualitative analysis in search of consistent use patterns of the variable position of clitic object pronouns in Early Modern Greek. However, we also examine the text Mackridge analyses (the Digenis Akritis verse epic, the Escorial version) in order to compare our results with a text of the Late Medieval period in search of similarities and differences. Concerning the Greek Cypriot dialect (in the Late Medieval period as well as today), we, along with other scholars (discussed below), disagree that the rules concerning the phenomenon in question are the same as in Late Medieval or Early Modern Greek. Greek Cypriot represents in all probability an earlier stage in language, also in the domain of unstressed object pronoun placement (cf. also Condoravdi/Kiparsky 2001,10 see also Pappas 2004a: 125) from which Standard Medieval Greek began diverging already at the time the Escorial Digenis Akritis epic was produced (see Discussion below). In Cypriot Greek, unstressed object pronouns are preverbal only in cases of clearly contrastive topics such as finite declarative clauses with strong subject pronouns or focalised NPs, objects and adverbs, or in cases of negation, interrogative, subordination and the subjunctive. If we accept that the Escorial Digenis Akritis indeed originated in the 12th century, then the divergence must have taken place even before that time. We do not wish to reproduce here the list of rules proposed by Mackridge as governing the placement of unstressed object pronouns in Late Medieval Greek (Mackridge 1993: 325). Let us just mention that according to him, postverbal is the default word order, with the verb usually at clause-initial position and following certain conjunctions and complementizers, as well as when preceded by an object to which the unstressed pronoun refers (object is fronted and the pronoun serves a doubling func-

 Chrystalla A. Thoma

tion). The order is postverbal with certain elements such as the subjunctive, concessive and future particles να (na), ας (as), θα (tha), the negative particles μη (mi), μηδέν (miden), ουδέν (ouden), δεν (den) ‘not’, interrogative pronouns or adverbs, and semantically and syntactically focalised words or phrases (non-temporal adverbs, nouns or adjectives in an object noun phrase, subject or object complements), while the placement remains variable after subjects or temporal adverbs. Interestingly enough, Mackridge notes that the Escorial Digenis Akritis is the only text that consistently follows the rules.11 This of course poses intriguing questions as to the absolute force of these rules. Since we take a variationist approach to language, we propose that variation is to be expected in language and that, as we discuss below, variation can have a functional role which, we believe, it already played in Late Medieval Greek.

2.2

The quantitative dimension: Pappas

Pappas (2001, 2004a,b) gives a quantitative analysis with the purpose of re-examining and describing the phenomenon and adding a criticism to some previous proposals. Unfortunately Pappas not only uses mainly poetic works due to difficulties in finding prose texts of the period he examines (12th to 16th centuries), admittedly a problem if one wants to say something about the language of the period (cf. also Chila-Markopoulou 2004), but also editions that, to a great extent, are outdated or contain major editorial changes.12 Pappas offers the only statistical analysis of the phenomenon so far. He finds no statistical difference between fronted and focussed elements in determining clitic pronoun placement and remarks that it is in fact impossible in the texts under study to effectively tell them apart.13 Furthermore, in his statistical analysis, he finds no significant difference between the factors “preverbal subject” and “fronted temporal adverb”, possible factors influencing word order proposed by Mackridge (1993). He however finds a tendency for OV with preverbal subjects, which he sees as an epiphenomenon of metrical constraints, a problem particular to poetic discourse and a plausible explanation in view of the corpus he uses. In general, though, he tends to reaffirm Mackridge’s rules, although he states that they point to “poetic convention”, being therefore “stylistic” and not rules of the language as such; a claim however that he has not been able to prove (cf. again Chila-Markopoulou 2004).

2.3

Condoravdi and Kiparsky (2001, 2004)

Condoravdi and Kiparsky examine the phenomenon under study in the generative grammar framework. They focus on a theory of Greek dialects and their differences which, as they propose, explain the particularities of Late Medieval Greek. As mentioned above, they propose that Late Medieval Greek is the result of a mixture of type A and type B/C dialects. We see absolutely no contradiction between their study and



Distribution and function of clitic object pronouns in 16th–18th century Greek narratives 

ours; indeed, we believe that they complement each other very well, as do the findings of the other studies mentioned above. Condoravdi and Kiparsky endorse the view that preverbal placement of the unstressed object pronoun depends on fronted focalized elements,14 a view not shared by Pappas as we have mentioned above. Indeed, as Condoravdi and Kiparsky (2004: 167) go on to mention, “a constituent may be focussed if the speaker or writer thinks of it as contributing a particularly noteworthy or surprising piece of information, or wishes to represent it as such, but in the absence of enough syntactic and intonational cues one would have to be a mind-reader to predict when that is the case.” The contexts in which the reading is focussed beyond any doubt are not very common in written texts.

3. Type of data and methodology For this study we have opted for the analysis of 3rd person clitic object pronouns. We only analysed narrative parts, to the exclusion of dialogue, examining only finite declarative clauses in order to restrict our analysis. No particular attention was paid to the already relatively fixed word order in the cases of: OV: (δ)εν (den) ‘not’, temporal clauses, ότι (oti) ‘that’ and διότι (dioti) ‘because’, the relative pronoun όστις (ostis) ‘who’, and all subjunctive forms such as ας (as), να (na), θα (tha)‚ and μην (min). VO: participles, (the rare cases of) infinitives, imperatives In Mackridge’s list of rules, in finite clauses, focalised elements apparently correlate with preverbal clitic object pronoun placement, while absence thereof (with the exception of fronted objects) correlates with postverbal clitic object pronoun placement. With preverbal subjects and fronted adverbs there apparently exists variation in the placement. From this list it is easy to see why scholars who have based their studies on Mackridge’s work are convinced that there is no pattern in the correlations. With this set of possible correlations in mind, we have chosen to examine the correlations of placement, in our texts, with: a. b. c. d

Clause-initial verbs, Preverbal subjects, Preverbal adverbs, Preverbal objects.

A point that needs to be discussed, albeit briefly, is Mackridge’s claim that there is variation in the placement of the pronoun after temporal adverbs. This is a tricky point, as Condoravdi and Kiparsky (2004) also mention, but in this case for different reasons to the ones they name. In narrative and especially oral narrative research, one-word temporal adverbials, such as τότε (tote) ‘then’, ευθύς/παρευθύς (efthis/parefthis) ‘immediately/then’ etc., are termed “discourse markers”.

 Chrystalla A. Thoma

Discourse markers are “usually lexical expressions, (which) do not contribute to the propositional content of a sentence but signal different kinds of messages” (Fraser 1999: 936). They can be temporal (e.g. ‘then’), coordinating (e.g. ‘and’) or conjoining (e.g. ‘well’); characteristically, their propositional meaning has been attenuated over time due to a process of grammaticalisation (Georgakopoulou 1997: 93). The role of temporal discourse markers is not so much to anchor any statement in time, since paratactically joined clauses in narrative are expected to follow each other chronologically (Berman 1988: 473) as to express subjectivity. Their function is very different to that of long temporal fronted adverbials which give a clear temporal line to the text. These one-word temporal discourse markers show continuity in the same sense that the additive marker και (ke) ‘and’ does: they add similar, non-exceptional information. Thus their distribution between the two word orders is mixed. Temporal discourse markers were therefore not accounted for in our counting of fronted adverbs. The first part of the analysis is quantitative; it consists in a search of trends and patterns in the placing of the pronouns in the chosen texts (given below). For the statistical analysis, Student’s t-Test was used, as the results tested belonged to two distinct categories (i.e. preverbal and postverbal clitic object pronoun placement).

4. Texts under analysis As mentioned in section 2 (“State of the art”), other studies have made use of texts which present some serious problems for the analysis: They are poetic, answering therefore to metrical constraints, and they have undergone major changes by editors. Our aim is to avoid these problems by using a corpus of narrative ‘low’ (i.e. popular) texts that fulfil the requirements of (1) being prose and (2) having undergone virtually no editorial changes. Furthermore, we tried to examine enough texts in order to avoid findings that reflect an author’s personal style or one scribe’s errors. Although they are not as numerous as the texts analysed in Pappas (2004a), they sufficed for significance tests to be run, therefore representing a sufficient minimum. Most of these texts are brought together and examined in this perspective for the first time, thus offering new data to the ongoing discussion. The chosen texts consist of three ‘low’ versions of the Life of Aesop (D:1644, I: 1617 and K: 1600, edition in progress by Hans Eideneier), Maximos Kallioupolitis’s version of Luke’s Gospel (printed 1638) (Kasdaglis 1999), and part of an anthology by G. Kehayoglou (Kehayoglou 2001) which we used as one long text in order to see general tendencies (Ioannis Morezinos’s religious narrative about the Virgin Mary, Nikos Gabrielopoulos’ Chronicle about the plague of 1688, Ierotheos Avvatios’ chronicle about the earthquake of 1648, Dimitrios Pirris narrative about the plague of 1728, Papa-Lavrentios’ personal narrative from 1580, Parthenios Peloponisios’ religious narrative printed 1765, the anonymous narrative about the destruction of the island Santorini from the year 1669, the anonymous vitae of the blessed Josef Pangalos, Ioannis



Distribution and function of clitic object pronouns in 16th–18th century Greek narratives 

Eleimon and Ieromartyr Vlassios probably from the 17th century, the family chronicle of Konstantinos Theodosis from the end of the 1400s, Ioannikios Kartanos’ religious narrative printed 1536, Agapios Landos’ religious narrative printed 1664), as well as Papasynadinos’s memoirs from the mid 1600s (Odorico 1996). We have also included the verse epic Digenis Akritis, the Escorial version (Alexiou 1985), probably composed in the 12th but transmitted in a single manuscript of the 15th c., in order to compare the phenomenon with that of the previous era.

5. Results In this section we give the findings from our quantitative investigation of the phenomenon, examining each of the four factors of influence on the placement of the clitic object pronoun mentioned in section 3 (“Type of Data and Methodology”). In Table 1 and Figure 1 we give the variation in placement of the object clitic pronoun when the verb is in initial (thematic) position in the clause, either with elided or postverbal subject. This correlation is only strong in the case of Digenis Akritis Escorial version, the one text given by Mackridge as consistent in following the list of rules he sets up, and the three ‘low’ versions of the Life of Aesop.15 However, when our corpus was tested as a whole with Student’s t-Test, no significant variation was found in the distribution of the two word orders with clause-initial verb. Table 1.  Clause-initial verb (tokens), in the first four texts very significant variation (** p In the absence of medications capable of dependably eliminating the virus, the NIH recently embarked on a study to determine whether long-term administration of alpha interferon can slow liver damage in patients who fail to clear the virus. <seg> And we and other researchers are studying the simple expedient of taking a pint of blood from patients on a regular basis. The distribution of these phenomena in the context of And and Und is displayed in table 3.7 Like the figures for the diachronic development of the use of And/Und, the results for the synchronic distribution of the context phenomena suggest a difference between the conventions of using Und in the German translations and the German original texts. While the frequency counts presented in tables 1 and 2 above describe the diachronic development of the use of And and Und in terms of their occurrence on the linguistic surface of the texts, the proportions presented in table 3, which result from a recontextualizing analysis of the total of occurrences, provide a view on the functional diversification of And and Und in the texts. The German translations in both time frames consistently show more occurrences of Und than the German original texts and an increase in the use of Und which results in a larger number of occurrences of Und

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

than are licensed by the corresponding linguistic structures in their source texts. However, the position of the German translations between the English and the German original texts with respect to the realization of the context phenomena strongly indicates that identical surface forms need not necessarily express the same textual functions. In terms of the introduction of subject, tense and modality switches, the translations show similarities with the English texts, whereas considering the particular phenomenon of combined subject and tense/modality switches, the translations are more similar to the German original texts. In other words, the use of And and Und in English and German texts and German translations may be partly differently motivated. Hence, at least in the case of And/Und an alignment of German text conventions with English ones has to be considered on two levels: first, on the level of the linguistic forms and secondly, on the level of their textual function which derives from the context of their occurrence. In Section 5 below, we will see another particularly striking example for functional diversification behind an apparently identical surface form. In the following part of this section the method of corpus creation and the technology used for its analysis will be presented. Table 3.  Context phenomena in relation to the total of occurrences of And/Und in the time frame 1999-2002

subject switch subject switch + tense/ modality switch tense-/modality switch without subject switch no switch (referential continuity)

2.4

English (And)

German translations (Und)

German (Und)

67,8 % 37,5 %

62,5 % 19,4 %

53,1 % 15,6 %

8,9 %

8,3 %

28,1 %

23,3 %

29,2 %

18,8 %

Method and technology

2.4.1 Corpus creation and processing The corpus consists of published articles from popular scientific journals and texts taken from the external business communication of internationally operating companies. The texts are digitized through scanning, using OCR-software. After manual editing they are saved as text files. The texts are then automatically tokenized and annotated with part-of-speech-tags using the TnT-tagger and the SUSANNE and STTS tagsets for English and German, respectively.8 The translation part is aligned on the basis on translation-equivalent sentences (manual alignment).



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

2.4.2 Corpus analysis The corpus analysis is carried out with commercially available ready-to-use corpus software.9 The software allows to search the corpus for strings of characters (i.e. ‘words’), regular expressions and combinations of these. The search results are displayed in the form of KWIC-concordances.

Figure 3.  Screenshot of a query for “And*” in ParaConc. The upper part of the window displays the matches on the query expression, the lower part the translation equivalents

The concordances are manually checked for accuracy and the ensuing frequency counts are normalized on the basis of 10000 words. The normalized frequencies facilitate the comparison of the lexical and grammatical features across different data sets. Each of the occurrences is then subjected to qualitative recontextualizing analyses. This is carried out in order to assess the function of each instance of use of one particular linguistic item in its context of occurrence, i.e. with respect to the information organization on both sentence and textual levels and its contribution to the function of the textual whole. For this purpose, each occurrence and the immediately preceding and following context (5 to 10 orthographic sentences) are extracted into separate text files. These files form a subcorpus of the total of the linguistic items under investigation embedded in their contexts of occurrence. This subcorpus can be annotated with further information which characterizes the use of the linguistic item in question, for example, in terms of patterns of colligation, i.e., the co-occurrence of grammatical choices, and of collocation, i.e., the co-occurrence of lexical choices at clause, sentence and text level. This can be carried out with the help of a coding tool (e.g. Systemic Coder, O’Donnell 2004, figure 4) which furthermore allows to perform some statistical operations on the annotated subcorpora. The goal of this additional analytical step is

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

to provide close linguistic descriptions of each single occurrence in order to detect variation behind identical surface forms.

Figure 4.  Screenshot of the Systemic Coder annotation interface

3. Some methodological and technological issues in the study of computer readable corpora 3.1

Corpus linguistics as a method

The kind of linguistic research outlined in the previous section contains many elements that are typical of “corpus linguistics”. As Leech (1992) points out, “the term ‘corpus linguistics’ does not refer to a domain of study, but rather to a methodological basis for pursuing linguistic research.” – in other words: corpus linguistics is a research method, that is a manner of proceeding which generalizes over the individual case of a scientific investigation in order to provide a guideline for obtaining comparable results for related, but varying research questions or objects of investigation. The study presented here is an instance in which such a common method could be advantageous, seen as the research questions are similar in all three cases: they aim at finding quantitative evidence for language change in the area of coordinating conjunctions. A common research method could therefore help to make the results comparable. The objects of investigation, however, are highly different, not only in terms of the languages



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

(English/German, Old Swedish, Turkish) involved, but also because we are dealing with modern, written language in the first case, with historical, written language in the second case and with spoken language in the third case. This diversity, in turn, makes a method transfer a non-trivial matter. Therefore, the purpose of this section is to identify some salient characteristics of the corpus-linguistic method and to analyze if and how the manner of proceeding outlined above can be successfully transferred to other objects of study, and where and why such a transfer is found to be problematic.

3.2

The workflow of a corpus linguistic study

On a sufficiently abstract level, we can agree that a corpus linguistic study invariantly consists of four distinct phases as displayed in figure 5:

Corpus Processing

Sample Population

Model

Application level Conceptual level Physical level Language

Material

Corpus Annotation

Corpus Analysis

Selection / Query

Corpus Creation

III

IIc

Model

Corpus Design

IIb

Model

IIa

I

Query result 1 Query result 2 Query result 3

Corpus

Quantification Interpretation

IV

Figure 5.  Workflow of a corpus linguistic study

In phase I – corpus design – the researcher defines a population of language material that he wants to make a statement about and picks out a sample that he considers to be representative of that population. In phase II – corpus processing – he then starts by creating a corpus in which the salient information of the sample is represented in a number of digital files. In further processing steps additional structure or information may be added to that digital representation (e.g. tokenization or POS-annotation). When this process is completed, phase III – the actual corpus analysis – can start. Typically, this step consists in querying the corpus for the digital representation of a specific phenomenon, i.e. selecting those parts of the corpus that are relevant to the research question. Finally, in phase IV, this set of query results can then be quantified and interpreted with respect to the original population defined in phase I. The following subsections will discuss two aspects of this workflow which reveal differences with respect to the three corpus types.

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

3.3

The relationship between sample and corpus

One of the most fundamental differences with respect to the three corpus types – modern, written language, historical, written language and spoken language – lies in relationship between the sample and its digital representation. In a corpus of modern, written language, the transition from the former (e.g. a journal article) to the latter (e.g. a text file) is usually a simple mapping of printed symbols to the entries of a character chart (e.g. ASCII or Unicode). Although some abstraction is involved in this process, it is restricted to rather superficial properties (formatting and layout) of the original, and hence hardly requires an elaborate theoretical justification.10 This is different for corpora of historical, written language. In this case, the transition from the original text (e.g. a 16th century handwriting of a Bible text) to its digital representation (e.g. an XML file) will usually mean more than a simple abstraction over physical properties; it will also involve a number of theoretically motivated decisions and interpretations. These decisions – such as the writing out of abbreviations or a segmentation of the text into entities not provided by its author – may have been anticipated by the edition that the corpus is based on, or they may have to be made by the corpus linguist himself. In any case, they make the relationship between sample and corpus more complex than in the case of modern, written language. For corpora of spoken language, finally, it is an uncontested part of linguistic methodology that this relationship can only be characterized with respect to an underlying theory. The sample, in this case, consists of a number of audio recordings, whereas the corpus consists of a set of corresponding transcription files. The transcription process in which these recordings are transformed into a set of computer-readable files is widely acknowledged to be of a highly selective and interpretative nature (see, for instance, Rehbein et al. 2004 or Ochs 1979). Thus, when applying the corpus linguistic method to these different objects of study, one has to take into account that the transition from sample to corpus is a modelling process, determined by different degrees of simplification, abstraction and interpretation (see Schmidt 2005 for a more detailed account of this aspect).

3.4

Data models, file formats and software tools

Besides assessing which parts of the original to leave out, to simplify, to interpret etc, the decision on an adequate digital representation of the sample also involves the choice of an appropriate data model. Since a corpus of modern, written language can be viewed (at least in the corpus creation phase, i.e. before other processing steps are carried out) as a simple sequence of characters, it can be represented with the most straightforward of data models – a flat text. In addition to the explicit linear structure inherent in such a flat text, there is also an implicit hierarchical structure “encoded” in the punctuation marks.



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

For a corpus of historical, written language, this data model will usually not be sufficient: on the one hand, there is a need to represent those pieces of information that have been added to the original text in the editing process – for instance, it may be necessary to have both abbreviated and full forms or orthographic variants and their normalized lemmas side-by-side. On the other hand, a historical text may not have its hierarchical structure implicitly represented in its punctuation, so that boundaries of words, sentences etc. will have to be added explicitly and in a manner that allows the computer to distinguish between them and the alphanumerical characters that represent symbols of the original text. A data model that meets these more advanced requirements is the so-called OHCO (Ordered Hierarchy of Content Objects) model (DeRose et. al 1990). It sets the rules for ordering and markup of the beginning and the end of content objects and is nowadays closely associated with XML-based text processing. Finally, in addition to these requirements, an adequate data model for spoken language also has to provide a means of digitally representing temporally parallel relationships, as can be found, for instance, in overlapping speech or between different modalities. From the data models suggested for this purpose, graph-based frameworks like the AG formalism (Bird & Liberman 2001) or EXMARaLDA seem to be among the most promising at this moment in time.11 For reasons inherent in the various objects of investigation, different corpus types will thus require data models of different complexity. This has significant consequences for the practical conditions under which a corpus linguistic study is carried out: the more complex a data model is, the less support is available for it in terms of standardized data formats and, probably even more important, ready-to-use software for corpus processing and analysis. A linguist dealing with modern, written language can more or less act on the assumption that all the technical tools he might require for creating, processing and analyzing his corpus – such as taggers, tokenizers and concordancers – are readily available in some form or other. Therefore, the main challenge in his work is to put these tools to a meaningful use and to provide an adequate interpretation of the results that the chosen tools lead him to. The situation for a historical linguist is far more complex. Although XML-based data processing is gaining ground also in corpus linguistics, there is – to our knowledge – no integrated set of tools that would adequately support a researcher in all the phases of a corpus linguistic study. The fact that XML is now a widely used standard, supplemented by the TEI guidelines which specifically address linguistic concerns of XML based text encoding, certainly constitutes a solid basis for this technological side of things. Working with an OHCO-based data model, however, still implies that a substantial part of a corpus linguistic study will include finding and implementing appropriate methods of corpus processing and analysis. Finally, in the case of corpora of spoken language, it is debatable whether or not the currently available software allows a successful passage through all the phases of a corpus linguistic study at all. There are, of course, a number of software tools for tran-

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

scribing and annotating spoken language and for querying the resulting corpora. However, since there is as yet no standard that can ensure the same basis to graph based data models as XML and TEI do for the OHCO based one, these partial solutions often lack the inter-operability that would be necessary in order to profitably combine their abilities. The work of a linguist interested in spoken language will therefore be determined by the deficiencies of current corpus technology even more than that of a historical linguist. In the next two sections these considerations will not only be illustrated in more detail, we will also describe two partial solutions to such deficiencies.

4. Studying connectivity in a corpus of historical, written language 4.1 Research question: Functional characterization and diachronic development of word order patterns after sentence-initial conjunctions in Old Swedish The primary research question for the analysis of the Old Swedish text corpus was to investigate the role of contact with foreign languages (Latin, Middle Low German, Early Modern High German) on the diachronic development of syntax in Swedish. This investigation aims both at describing and quantifying the different word order patterns that are found in conjunctional main clauses and at identifying a possible functional distribution and a diachronic development in the use of those patterns. The starting point for this research question is provided by some general statements in the literature on word order in Old Norse: Christoffersen (2002, 2003) describes a difference in word order between main clauses beginning with ok (and) and non-conjunctional main clauses. After the conjunction ok so-called narrative inversion in declarative sentences is very common with the finite verb placed in initial position in front of the subject; the usual order with the subject in the fundamentfield and the finite verb in the first position of the nexusfield is rather rare.12 Some first unsystematic observations on the Old Swedish corpus indeed showed word order variation after ok, and this investigation is aimed at quantifying this variation. Based on the hypothesis of syntactic change through language contact we aim at describing a diachronic development of word order. The first step for such an attempt, which is described in the following, concentrates on developing a suitable method of analysis leading to a quantitative confirmation of our basic assumption. Moreover, by comparing our results with those of the other participating researchers working on different languages and situations of language contact we want to check the plausibility of our findings.



4.2

Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

Corpus: Bible texts and chronicles

The investigation is based on the following corpus of six Old and Early Modern Swedish prose texts altogether containing about 70.000 words: The Revelation of St John and The Gospel according to Mark from the Swedish translation of the New Testament from 1526, The Revelation of St John and The Gospel according to Luke from the Swedish translation of the Bible from 1541 (so called Gustav-Vasa-Bible), the municipal records of Kalmar (Kalmar stads tänkebok, 1381–1560) and the Old Swedish version of the story of Charlemagne (Karl Magnus, ca. 1430).

4.3

Result

As already mentioned in Section 4.1 Old Norse main clauses usually exhibit the word order VS (finite verb before substantial) after the conjunction ok (‘and’),13 whereas in non-conjunctional main clauses the unmarked word order SV (substantial before finite verb) is used. In several publications (Platzack 1985, Halldór 1990, Wessén 1992, Christoffersen 1993), however, it was possible to show differences regarding the frequency of this word order. Therefore, Christoffersen (2002: 185) discusses geographically motivated differences between Old West Norse (Norwegian and Icelandic) and Old East Norse (Old Danish and Old Swedish). The following results shown in table 4 were derived from the investigation of the Old Swedish corpus: Table 4.  Position of finite verb (first or second) in main clauses after och (‘and’) sentences Revelation 1526 Revelation 1541 Kalmar Charlemagne Luke 1541 Mark 1526

840 848 502 864 2302 1354

sentences with initial och 403 (48%) 458 (54%) 95 (19%) 77 (9%) 550 (24%) 366 (27%)

V1 after initial och 9 (2%) 13 (3%) 23 (24%) 26 (34%) 24 (4%) 42 (11%)

V2 after initial och 394 (98%) 445 (97%) 72 (76%) 51 (66%) 526 (96%) 328 (89%)

In addition to this the word order in main clauses after the conjunction men/æn (‘but’) was investigated.14 Eventhough it has to be stated that the frequency of occurrences of this conjunction varied greatly across the different texts, not a single case of a finite verb in first position could be found. A comparison with non-conjunctional main clauses could not be performed at this stage as it would require manual tagging of all finite verbs in the corpus. Hence, this has to be reserved for a later investigation.

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

A very interesting finding which can be seen in table 4 is that none of our texts show the initial position of the finite verb after the conjunction och (‘and’) to be the most frequent word order. This supports Christoffersen’s claim that East Norse (Swedish in this case) texts exhibit differences compared to West Norse (Icelandic and Norwegian) texts. Moreover this highlights the necessity of a precise quantification of the different word order patterns. Counting the absolute number of main clauses after och (‘and’) with verb initial word order is only of very limited use seen as the sentences in the bible texts in our corpus begin with och in up to 50% percent of the cases. In the story of Charlemagne, however, this only holds true for about 10% of the sentences. At the same time this text reveals the highest frequency of verb initial main clauses after och (34%). In order to confirm the hypothesis indicated in this pilot study, namely that in ochinitiated main clauses a development can be shown from verb-first to verb-second structures, however, this investigation would have to be extended to a more representative corpus.

4.4

Method and technology

4.4.1 Creation To test our hypothesis we investigated the word order in conjunctional main clauses taken from a corpus of texts from the Old Swedish period.15 A digital corpus providing all relevant syntactic information (case, finiteness etc.) would have been the best prerequisite for such a test. However, such a complete part-of-speech-tagging (POS) can not be done automatically for Old Swedish texts. Computer software was developed for tagging languages such as English or German, but not for Old Swedish because for the latter an application e.g. in modules of text processing programs (hyphenation, grammar check) is commercially unattractive. Manually tagging the whole corpus would go far beyond the available temporal and personnel resources. In cooperation with the other participating researchers we developed methods for a preparation of our corpus, enabling us to voice representative statements about special syntactic structures and make diachronic comparisons between the different stages of Swedish, but also between Swedish and possible contact languages. 4.4.2 Processing The texts in the Old Swedish corpus do have punctuation. However, in contrast to the contemporary written language this punctuation was not aimed at a syntactical structuring of the texts, but rather at representing shorter or longer breaks of its spoken equivalent. In contrast to contemporary text corpora in which sentence boundaries can be identified by full stops, question marks or exclamation marks, the preparation of the Old Swedish texts required a rather high amount of time consuming manual work. One of the texts (the story of Charlemagne) was taken from the fornsvenska textbanken (Old Swedish text bank),16 two other texts (the Gospel according to Luke and



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

the Kalmar municipal records) exist in editions suitable for optical character recognition, but the remaining three texts had to be typed in from facsimile reproductions. In order to obtain a structural basis for a grammatical analysis those texts existing as Microsoft Word texts had to be divided into sentences. This segmentation was mainly based on the identification of finite verbs. However, the final classification of syntactical units as separate sentences or clauses had to be based on the habits of contemporary written language, causing some variation seen as different annotators participated in the work. Due to the less unambiguous formal marking of clause types in Old Swedish a sentence like (3) Uerdher kyrkia brutin oc mæſſu fat ſtolen. þet er niþingſværk. is church broken and mass utensils stolen that is act.of.sacrilege can be analyzed either as two main clauses or as a conditional clause and a main clause: ‘A church is broken into and the mass utensils are stolen. This is an act of sacrilege’ or ‘It is an act of sacrilege if a church is broken into and the mass utensils are stolen’.17 In a next step the texts were converted to an XML format based on the TEI-compliant menota-standard.18 Using the Z2-tagger (cf. figure 6 below), the XML-texts were checked for occurrences of main clause-initial conjunctions. This search was based on word lists containing all the words searched for in all graphic variants existing in the corpus. The graphic variants had been taken from word lists created for each text with the software WordSmithTools.19 The need to quickly and efficiently identify and mark occurrences of main clauseinitial conjunctions and other phenomena led to the development of the Z2-Tagger.20 It was first used to generate TEI-conformant XML-files by tokenizing text files with the help of finite state machines. Since the segmentation into sentences had already been done manually (cf. above), only words and punctuation marks were identified in this step. The tagger was then used to manually assign attributes to the identified words. The tagger localizes words from a given wordlist, matches them against an XPathexpression, displays them with their surrounding and offers to assign values from a given set to attributes by clicking on the appropriate buttons or pressing keyboard shortcuts. The example in the screenshot in figure 6 shows an occurrence of Och, tagged with pos=’xCC’ (the tag for coordinating conjunctions) and the surrounding text. In this case the wordlist consists only of one form, [Oo]ch, which is the regular expression for either Och or och. All options and the wordlist can be changed while tagging and saved for later use.

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

Figure 6.  Screenshot of the tagging of the conjunction och with the Z2tagger

Thus, for every occurrence of the entries from the applied wordlist it was possible to verify the item as a conjunction on the basis of the given context. This was necessary to exclude occurrences of och (‘and’) connecting constituents and not sentences, but also to separate the conjunction och from graphic variants of the adverb ock (‘also’). Every form identified as a main clause-initial conjunction was tagged in order to enable a later search and quantification. Then all finite verbs that followed the already tagged conjunctions were manually tagged with the help of an XML-editor ( XML Editor 4.2). The conjunctions could very easily be identified using the searchroutine included in this software.21 With the help of different style sheets it was possible to display all sentences from the thus tagged corpus which exhibit a special word order pattern in a browser, to save them in a text file and finally to carry out automatic counts of the different patterns. For example, one of the style sheets first identifies all sentences with initial conjunctions. It then displays them in different colours, distinguishing between the ones followed directly by a verb and those with the verb located in a later position. Another style sheet does the same thing, counting the relevant results and presenting the numbers for further analysis. On accurately tagged texts, style sheets like these are easily written, establishing the possibility of all kinds of empirical analysis. Since the actual texts and the style sheets are based on standardized XML-technology, they can be used on almost every platform without specialized tools.



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

Figure 7.  Position of the finite verb after sentence initial conjunctions identified with a style sheet

5. Studying connectivity in a corpus of spoken language 5.1 Research question: differences of functional profile and procedural combination in the use of o zaman by Turkish monolinguals and Turkish-German bilinguals The following is an exploration of ways to contrast the usage of the Turkish expression o zaman ‘at that time’ as a means to achieve discourse coordination, in bilingual as opposed to monolingual child Turkish. The term ‘discourse coordination’ is understood as an integration of utterances at an inter-utterance level (Rehbein 1995). The study is based on the following three pre-assumptions: first, coordinating conjunctions crosslinguistically develop from linguistic expressions that primarily fulfil other functions (Mithun 1988, 2003). Second, Turkish, typologically seen, lacks the prototypical, IndoEuropean, construction-initial conjunctions as a homogeneous word class and uses other, more diverse, means of coordination instead.22 Third, while coordination takes place at several syntactic levels, it is at the level of discourse coordination (cf. Rehbein 1995) where, possibly due to a lesser degree of grammaticization, innovations and functional expansions occur. Therefore, it is in this area that one will find linguistic elements of various kinds taking over coordinating functions. Preliminary research on the basis of the project data has shown that the bilingual children tend to functionalize knowledge-marking and planning-signalizing linguistic elements for the purposes of discourse coordination to a lesser degree than the monolinguals do. They do, however, use more deictic, especially temporal-deictic, elements at this level. When comparing the two groups it is above all the usage of the expression o zaman ‘at that time, in that case, then’ which increases, namely from 1.7% of all discourse-connective means used in the monolingual data to 12.8% in the bilingual data (cf. Herkenrath, Özdil & Rehbein, in preparation). It can be assumed that the expression o zaman contains a deictic procedure causing a refocusing, anadeictic effect. This effect can unfold in different ways, thus accounting for at least two different usages of o zaman correlatable with different groups of speakers. As both a first qualitative interpretation of individual occurrences and the

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

observation of functional expansions in deictic elements in other areas suggest, the bilingual usage of o zaman should reveal a different functional profile and as a consequence a different combination of procedures than that of the monolinguals.23 In order to test this assumption, contrastive functional profiles of the different usages are to be established, taking into account both their different functions with respect to the structuring of the narrative or discourse and their specifically deictic effects.24 The research question calls for a suitable analytical method and tool in order to allow for a quantitative testing of the assumptions introduced above. With respect to the data analyzed in Sections 2 and 4, there is a common interest in the emergence of innovation in contact situations, specifically in the area of discourse coordination. While in the present contribution innovation is studied from the point of view of data of spoken language, we are interested in comparing its findings with those emerging in corpora of a different kind, namely modern and historical written data, such as those analysed in Sections 2 and 4, respectively. In his context, one distant aim is to see to which extent one can draw conclusions (or formulate hypotheses) about the interaction of spoken versus written modes of language with respect to structural innovation and diachronic change, even with only a selection of samples (spoken Turkish versus written English, German, and Old Swedish) being studied.

5.2

Corpus: oral story retellings by monolingual and bilingual children

For the purposes of a primary application of the search method, a subcorpus comprising 18 Turkish and German discourses was chosen. This subcorpus is based on the evocative field experiment (Evokatives Feldexperiment) EFE 04 Küçük Köstebek/Der kleine Maulwurf ‘The little mole’, consisting of a short silent cartoon that the children watch and reproduce in words for someone else. This subcorpus contains nine German and nine Turkish discourses with a total of 15849 words (6780 words in the Turkish and 9069 words in the German-based discourses). One German discourse is with monolingual and eight with bilingual children (1172 against 7897 words); among the Turkish discourses, three involve monolingual and six involve bilingual children (1732 and 5048 words respectively). The evocative design chosen requires that the children verbalize units of visual information, thereby creating coherence and connectivity irrespective of any previous verbalization, which they might otherwise rely on as a model. This method thus offers a good opportunity to study their spontaneous choice of discourse-coordinating elements.

5.3

Results

The occurrences of o zaman can be attributed to individual speakers, who were divided into three groups for the present purposes: bilingual children, monolingual children, and adults. The obtained occurrences of o zaman are split up among the three



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

groups as shown in table 5: with the one exception of a monolingual child using the expression o zaman, all the findings are can be attributed either to bilingual children (47 occurrences) or to adult interactants (16 occurrences). This seems to be quite a clear picture, even when taking into consideration that the Turkish-based part of the subcorpus comprises more bilingual than monolingual data (see above paragraph). Table 5.  Occurrences of o zaman divided into speaker groups in absolute figures Occurrences 47 1 16

bilingual children monolingual children adults

In a next step, the occurrences were categorized into different types, taking into account their communicative functions as well as the demonstration space to which the inherent deictic procedure points. With respect to this categorization, we receive the following results as displayed in table 6: Table 6.  Types of usage of o zaman, in absolute figures Type

Communicative function

0 1

– – – – – – – (aborted utterance) – – – – – – – refocuses on a state of action and discourse facts at level of action space and discourse space refocuses on a previous verbalized units, stretch of narration, narration space announcing progression refocuses on one single knowledge based on point of time in selfidiosyncratic experiexperienced past ence, action space refocuses on an knowledge based on extended stretch of idiosyncratic experitime in self-experience, action space enced past

2

3

4

Demonstration space

Procedure

deictic, symbolic ?

Amount 3 15

44

deictic, symbolic

1

deictic, symbolic, operative

1

Disregarding the three aborted utterances (type 0) and the one occurrence of type 4, the findings can be divided into three communicative categories. Type 1 refocuses on some state of facts at the level of the action and discourse space, as a condition for further actions. These usages often concern the negotiation of the communicative situation (e.g. who is to narrate what and when). Type 2 refocuses on some part of the

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

preceding narration, at the same time announcing a progression. Type 3 refocuses on a point of time in a self-experienced past. The demonstration space of the deictic procedure can be identified as the action and discourse space in the case of type 1, the narration space or verbalized units therein in type 2, and finally action space-related knowledge based on idiosyncratic experience, in type 3. When correlated with the three different groups of speakers, the types of usage are attributed to the speakers as shown in table 7: the bilingual children as a group seem to show a tendency towards type 2, whereas the adult speakers seem to prefer type 1. The monolingual children obviously do not use type 1 or 2 at all, as the sole monolingual occurrence of o zaman in the entire subcorpus is of type 3. This finding seems to corroborate native speaker intuition, but it still has to be investigated whether this pattern remains consistent when a larger amount of data is analyzed. Table 7.  Usage types related to the groups of speakers (absolute figures)

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3

Bilingual children

Monolingual children

2 43 -

1

Adults 13 1 -

Total 15 44 1

These figures seem to suggest that one can indeed speak of an innovative usage of the originally temporal-deictic expression o zaman in the bilingual children’s data, a usage that refocuses on a verbalized unit in the narration, taking it as a starting point from which further stretches of verbalization are announced. Such a usage can neither be found in the monolingual children’s nor in the adults’ data. It seems to suggest a functional shift at the level of the procedural quality as well as at the level of the demonstration space.25 At the same time, the findings, even though acquired in a different way, seem to correspond to those obtained in Section 2 in that they suggest a functional shift concealed behind an apparently unchanged surface.

5.4

Method and technology

5.4.1 Corpus creation The creation of a corpus of spoken language is a complex affair. The data originally appears in the form of audio-taped conversation consisting of stretches of monologic, dialogic, and simultaneous speech. In order to obtain a computer-readable corpus, this audio-taped data has to be manually transcribed, a process which takes time and requires theoretical reflection at various levels (see Rehbein et al. 1993, Rehbein et al. 2004). To the extent that spoken discourse involves several interactants, the linearity characteristic of written language corpora, such as the ones analyzed in Sections 2



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

and 4, has to be abandoned so that even at a minimal level of complexity, is it required that the digital structure represent the simultaneity of linguistic actions in multi-interactant events. The partiture editor EXMARaLDA offers a tier-based structure in which the complexity of spoken language can be retained and any given linguistic phenomenon can be located, viewed, and analyzed within the constellation in which it originally occurred (see Schmidt & Wörner 2005). 5.4.2 Corpus analysis The SKOBI-specific aim of the cooperation was to work out a method suitable for its own complex analytical needs. These needs were threefold: first, it was necessary to be able to quickly obtain an overview of all the occurrences of o zaman in a selected and prepared subcorpus. Second, the format should allow for a recontextualization of any occurrence in its original transcript at any given time. Finally, it should allow for an ad hoc indexation, ordering, quantification and correlation at the level of the individual occurrence according to flexible criteria, at the same time allowing for a fast quantitative testing of a diversity of analytical categories. The method to be developed needed to combine a fast search for all occurrences of any expression with an accessibility of the original discourse constellation in its full complexity, as well as a tool for indexation. An automatized search along these lines had so far only been applicable to digital corpora with a linear structure. For non-linear data, the only possibility had been to transform them into linear formats, such as utterance lists, and then then apply an automatic search tool. This had the disadvantage that, once obtained, the findings would have to be viewed out of context. One of the most important desiderata in this area is a concordance tool applicable to spoken-language corpora with a complex nonlinear structure and allowing for an immediate switching between an ordered list of findings on the one hand and these same findings as they occur in their original non-linear constellation in the discourse, on the other. Such a tool had so far not been available. The search tool Zecke (Schmidt & Wörner 2005) allows for an immediate search for a given linguistic expression in an entire EXMARaLDA corpus consisting of any number of files. The search result is presented in the upper part of the window in the form of a table listing the individual occurrences plus a surrounding context of flexible size (see figure 8). In the lower part of the window, the programme also allows for a direct access to the findings in their original transcripts so that speaker constellations, simultaneity relations, and information concerning the discourse and the individual speakers can be viewed at any time.

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

Figure 8.  Zecke window with KWIC-Concordance (upper part) and Score representation (lower part)

The obtained list can be saved in various formats, such as an Excel file (see figure 9), in which new columns for further information and categorization can be added. This format also makes it possible to group the occurrences according to whatever categorizations one may have chosen (such as type of usage, in the presented case) and to test for possible co-occurrences with other categories (such as group of speakers).

Figure 9.  Excel window with analytical categories added and list reordered according to types of usage

Thus reordered, the table then visualizes the overwhelming co-occurrence of type 1 usages with members of the group of adult speakers on the one hand and type 2 usages with members the group of bilingual children on the other.



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

6. Conclusion The individual investigations of coordinating elements described in this paper set out from the results of qualitative text, discourse and syntax analyses which all seemed to point to variation in the context of macrosyntactic conjunctions in written and spoken language use in situations of language contact. By applying a simple, unified method of querying larger computerized data bases for the occurrences of English And, German Und, Old Swedish och and Turkish o zaman we were able to confirm the hypotheses derived from the qualitative case studies, to find commonalities between the individual findings and, finally, to form an explanatory hypothesis as to what lies behind the functional diversification of the coordinating expressions. However, due to the pilot character of the investigations of o zaman and och in the Turkish and Old Swedish corpora respectively, for the time being this interpretation will remain a tentative one.26 The findings can be summarized as follows: First, we found evidence for an increase in the use of Und in sentence-initial position in German translations. This was interpreted as a dissociation of the text conventions determining the use of the stylistically marked option of Und as a means of textual cohesion in German translations from those operative in German original texts. Judging from the frequency of occurrence of Und in German translations it seems that the option of using Und as a macrosyntactic conjunction in written texts has become more readily available. Secondly, the investigation of the corpus of Old Swedish bible texts and chronicles revealed word order variation after och in sentence-initial position. This finding corroborates earlier assumptions suggesting geographically based differences between Old West Norse and Old East Norse. Thirdly, it was also possible to substantiate the claim of an innovative discourse-coordinative use of the Turkish temporal-deictic expression o zaman restricted to German-Turkish bilingual children. The analyses also revealed that these coordinating elements – even though they occur in the same syntactic position – are not always associated with the same context phenomena. In other words, English texts, German texts and German translations only partially overlap with respect to the triggering of subject, tense and modality switches across sentences conjoined by And and Und. Likewise, sentence-initial och does not always trigger narrative inversion. Apparently, variation in word order after och in Old Swedish varies at least across text types (e.g. biblical, biographic, administrative). But since we also find word order variation after och in different parts of the same text (cf. the books of the 1526 and 1541 versions of the Bible in table 4 above) it is maybe just as likely that this differentiation is related to the particular role which the sentences connected by och play with respect to the overall information organization. Finally, German-Turkish bilingual children, Turkish monolingual children and Turkish adults seem to employ the expression o zaman for different linguistic purposes. Among these, the innovative usage of the expression involves a function of refocusing on a unit at the level of the verbalization, as opposed to the level of the present or a past action and/or discourse space. This innovative usage, which mainly indicates a pro-

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert

gression in the narration, is almost exclusively restricted to the speaker group of Turkish-German bilingual children. Our findings lead us to hypothesize that macrosyntactic (or discourse) coordination could indeed be a level at which functional innovation or diversification of coordinating elements takes place. This functional diversification appears most clearly in texts and discourses from situations of direct language contact – i.e. in the present case German-Turkish bilinguals’ speech and translational German. The analyses of And/ Und and o zaman suggest that this functional diversification is associated with converging preferences for patterns of information organization/distribution in situations of language contact between English and German, and Turkish and German, respectively. Even though word order variation after och has not been correlated with language contact, the Old Swedish data nevertheless allow the hypothesis that it might be conventions of information structuring in different text types or particular stretches within texts which license or motivate narrative inversion after och. From a methodological point of view, these findings confirm that corpus linguistics, when seen as a method and not as a linguistic subdiscipline in its own right, holds the potential for a common perspective on highly different objects of investigation. The step from a qualitative analysis of a few examples to a quantification of a whole corpus not only increases the validity of the single study, it can also serve as a means to make the results of different studies more readily comparable. The circumstances under which these comparable results are achieved, however, still differ greatly for modern, written, for spoken and for historical corpora. As we have argued, this is initially due to a theoretical issue, namely the model-like relationship between a language sample and its digital representation in a corpus, which is much more pronounced in corpora of historical or spoken language than in corpora of modern, written language. More relevant for the practical work and hence for the actual outcome of a corpuslinguistic study, though, is the fact that this theoretical issue entails far-reaching practical consequences with respect to the technological formats and tools that a linguist requires for corpus processing and analysis. The availability (or lack of availability, respectively) of ready-to-use software determines how large a corpus can become within a given amount of time, how well such a corpus can be queried in search of a certain phenomenon and how easily the result of such a query can be analyzed in its original context. Ultimately, the tools will thus have a decisive impact on the scientific insight itself.27 In order to tap the full potential of corpus linguistics as a common method, it is therefore necessary to develop technological frameworks for the study of historical and spoken corpora that are comparable in functionality and ease-of-use to those available for modern, written corpora. With the tagging and style sheet methods demonstrated in section 4 and the query tool described in section 5, this paper has tried to give an idea of what such a technological framework should contain.



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

Notes 1. This investigation was carried out at the Research Center on Multilingualism at the University of Hamburg. The participating projects are: ‘Mehrsprachige Datenbank’ (Multiligual Database), ‘Verdecktes Übersetzen – Covert Translation’, ‘Skandinavische Syntax im mehrsprachigen Kontext’ (Scandinavian syntax in multilingual contexts) and ‘Sprachliche Konnektivität bei bilingual türkisch-deutsch aufwachsenden Kindern’ (Linguistic connectivity in bilingual TurkishGerman children (SKOBI)). The Center is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). 2. Another way of categorizing the differences is that in German, a ‘transactional’ style focusing on the content of the message is frequently preferred, whereas in English, speakers tend to prefer an ‘interactional’, addressee-focused style. 3.

The descriptions of sentence- and utterance-intitial Und are on the whole much more scarce.

4. The corpus contains translations from English into German for the genre of popular scientific texts only, and translations from German into English exclusively for the genre of external business communication. This is due to the fact that the two areas of text production are apparently determined by different language policies. In the area of popular scientific journalism there are virtually no translations from German into English. Conversely, in the area of international business communication, translations from English into other languages, and in particular into German, are increasingly rarely produced. German companies, however, generally provide English translations of their annual reports and mission statements. 5.

A more detailed interpretation of the results can be found in Baumgarten (to appear).

6. A similar observation is made in Givón (1990). 7. The table only presents the synchronic view of the time frame 1999–2002. The total of occurrences in the time frame 1978–1982 is too small to render reliable results for proportions. 8. The TnT-tagger is available at http://www.coli.uni-saarland.de/~thorsten/tnt/. For information on the tagsets see: http://www.grsampson.net/SueDoc.html and http://www.sfs.nphil.unituebingen.de/Elwis/stts/stts.html 9. For example ParaConc and MonoConc (http://www.athel.com/mono.html; Barlow 2001; Reppen 2001). 10. In the work with corpora of modern, written language, the difference between sample and corpus is therefore often ignored totally, for instance in Sinclair’s (1991) definition of a corpus as „ a collection of naturally occurring language text, chosen to characterize a state or variety of a language”. 11. For details on EXMARaLDA see Schmidt, Wörner (2005) 12. Theoretically the syntactic analysis was based on Paul Diderichsen’s (1971) topological model developed in the context of the Copenhagen school after 1935. Diderichsen’s description of the linear order of constituents in a topological scheme is based on the relation between finite verb and subject (nexus). The investigation is aimed at quantifying different word order patterns in main clauses that can be described on the basis of this model, concentrating on the area between sentence initial conjunction and finite verb (fundamentfield). For a detailed description of Diderichsen’s topological model cf. Diderichsen (1976). 13. Cf. Christoffersen (2003: 17).

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert 14. Besides och (‘and’) this is the most frequent conjunction in our corpus. 15. Of course the representativeness of this subcorpus consisting of approximately 70.000 words which is equivalent to about 10% of the overall corpus of the project is limited; yet we tried to avoid general conclusions based on structures that are typical only for a special register and to prevent interferences from a different language by choosing texts from different text types and by including translations from different source languages and also originally Swedish texts. 16. http://www.nordlund.lu.se/Fornsvenska/Fsv%20Folder/ [20.4.2005], edited by Lars-Olof Delsing, Lund. 17. Example from Äldre Västgötalagen (The Older Law of Västergötland, 1296), cf. Collin/ Schlyter (1827): 5. 18. Cf. http://gandalf.aksis.uib.no/menota/. 19. Michael Scott: Word Smith 4.0.0.165. Oxford University Press. 20. The Z2-Tagger is available as a free download from http://www.exmaralda.org/z2tagger. 21. Lüdeling/Poschenrieder/Faulstich (2004) describe an approach of annotating a historical German text corpus that is also semi-automatic but uses different kinds of annotations in different text levels that are aligned with each other. The menota-standard that is utilized here, however, is aimed at encoding all information in one document and providing the user with style sheets in order to enable him/her to display the amount of information she/he wishes. 22. For a thorough syntactic and semantic classification of different kinds of connectors (including conjunctions, sentence adverbials, as well as particles) in German see Pasch et al. (2003). 23. See Rehbein (to appear) as well as (2001) for a more thorough analysis of refocusing procedures in Turkish-German bilingual children’s narratives. 24. The authors are grateful to Kristin Bührig for a valuable reminder of the category of demonstration space (Verweisraum), as well as to Jochen Rehbein, Shinichi Kameyama and Rainer von Kügelgen for useful suggestions concerning a possible de-deictification (p.c.). 25. Thanks to Kristin Bührig (p.c.) for the idea of a linkage between these two at this level of innovation. 26. At the moment the ENDFAS/SKOBI corpus is in the process of being converted into the EXMARaLDA format. After that, the tools and methods tested in this study will be applicable to the entire data. It will then be possible to study occurrences of o zaman in a corpus of more than 200 transcribed discourses. 27. Orlandi (2002) puts this as follows: “[Some] colleagues refer to the computer as “just a tool” or “simply a bunch of techniques”, as if ways of knowing did not have much to do with what is known. Because the computer is a meta-instrument – a means of constructing virtual instruments or models of knowing – we need to understand the effects of modelling on the work we do as humanists.”

References Barlow, M. 2001. ParaConc: Concordance software for multilingual parallel corpora. http://www. athel.com/paraweb.pdf



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

Baumgarten, N. To appear. Converging conventions? Macrosyntactic conjunction with English and and German und. In Text and Talk. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Bird, S. and Liberman, M. 2001. A formal framework for linguistic annotation. Speech Communication 33: 23–60. Blakemore, D. and Carston, R. (1999). The Pragmatics of and-Conjunctions: The non-narrative cases [UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11]. London: University College London. Byrnes, H. 1986. Interactional style in German and English conversations. Text 6: 89–106. Christoffersen, M. 1993. Setning og sammenheng. Syntaktiske studier i Magnus Lagabøters landslov [Adh-serien 65]. Kristiansand: Agder distrikthøgskole. Christoffersen, M. 2002. Nordic language history and research on word order. In The Nordic Languages. An international handbook of the history of the North Germanic languages [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 22:], O. Bandle et al. (eds), 182–191. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Christoffersen, M. 2003. Noe om bindeord i eldre norsk, særlig om ok, en og nema. In Språk i endring. Indre norsk språkhistorie, J. T. Faarlund (ed.), 13–28. Oslo: Novus. Clyne, M. 1987. Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 101–124. Clyne, M. 1994. Intercultural Communication at Work: Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge: CUP. Collin, D. H. S. and Schlyter, D. C. J. (eds). 1827. Westgöta=Lagen. Stockholm: Haeggström. DeRose, S., Durand, D., Mylonas, E. and Renear, A. 1990. What is Text, Really? Journal of Computing in Higher Education 1(2): 3–26. Diderichsen, P. 1976. Logische und topische Gliederung des germanischen Satzes. In Ganzheit und Struktur. Ausgewählte sprachwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen [Internationale Bibliothek für allgemeine Linguistik 30], P. Diderichsen (ed.), 44–58. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag Doherty, M. 1996. Passive perspectives: Different preferences in English and German – A result of parameterized processing. Linguistics 34(3): 591–643. Doherty, M. 2002. Language Processing in Discourse: A key to felicitous translation. London: Routledge. Ehlich, K. 2001. Konsekutives ‘und’ – mündliches Erzählmerkmal. Lecture given at the University of Hamburg, Research Center on Multilingualism. Fabricius-Hansen, C. 1999. Information packaging and translation: Aspects of translational sentence splitting (German-English/Norwegian). In Sprachspezifische Aspekte der Informationsverteilung, M. Doherty (ed.), 175–214. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Givón, T. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halldór Á. Sigurđsson. 1990. V1 declaratives and verb raising in Icelandic. In Modern Icelandic Syntax [Syntax and Semantics 24], J. Maling and A. Zaenen (eds), 41–69. San Diego CA: Academic Press Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Herkenrath, A., Özdil, E. and Rehbein, J. In preparation. Code-switching as a discourse phenomenon: Evidence from Turkish-German bilingual children’s speech. University of Hamburg, SFB 538 Mehrsprachigkeit: SKOBI Working Paper, Ms. House, J. 1989. Politeness in English and German: The functions of please and bitte. In Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and apologies, S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper (eds), 96–122. Norwood NJ: Ablex.

 Nicole Baumgarten, Annette Herkenrath, Thomas Schmidt, Kai Wörner and Ludger Zeevaert House, J. 1996. Contrastive discourse analysis and misunderstanding: The case of German and English. In Contrastive Sociolinguistics, M. Hellinger and U. Ammon (eds), 345–361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. House, J. 2004. Linguistic aspects of the translation of children’s books. In Translation – Übersetzung – Traduction / Ein internationales Handbuch zur Übersetzungsforschung / An international handbook of translation studies /Encyclopédie internationale de la recherche sur la traduction [HSK 26:1], H. v. Kittel, A. P. Frank, N. Greiner, T. Hermans, W. Koller, J. Lambert, F. Paul, in cooperation with J. House and B. Schultze (eds), 683–697. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Kotthoff, H. 1989. Pro und Kontra in der Fremdsprache. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Leech, G. 1992. Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In Directions in Corpus Linguistics, J. Svartvik (ed.), 105–122. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lüdeling, A, Poschenrieder, T. and Faulstich, L. (2004). DeutschDiachronDigital – Ein diachrones Corpus des Deutschen. In Jahrbuch für Computerphilologie 6, G. Braungart, K. Eibl and F. Jannidis (eds), 119–136. Paderborn: Mentis. Mithun, M. 1988. The grammaticisation of coordination. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, J. Haiman and S.A. Thompson (eds), 331–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mithun, M. 2003. Functional perspectives on syntactic change. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda (eds), 552–572. Oxford: Blackwell. Nyström, I. 1985. Studier i äldre nysvensk syntax II. Ledstruktur och ledföljd i bisatser. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. Ochs, E. 1979. Transcription as theory. In Developmental Pragmatics, E. Ochs and B. Schieffelin (eds), 43–72. New York NY: Academic Press. O’Donnell, M. 2004. Systemic Coder Software. http://www.wagsoft.com Orlandi, T. 2002. Is humanities computing a discipline? In Jahrbuch für Computerphilologie 4, G. Braungart, K. Eibl, and F. Jannidis (eds), 51–58.. Paderborn: Mentis. Pasch, R., Brauße, U., Breindl, E. and Waßner, E. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen, Satzadverbien und Partikeln) [Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 9]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Platzack, C. 1985. Narrative inversion in Old Icelandic. Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði 7: 127–144. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 367–381. Rehbein, J. 1995. Aber, also, und, auch – Prozeduren der Diskurskoordinierung. Ms. Deutsche Fassung von: Aber, also, und, auch – elements of chaining in German discourse. Paper read at the Workshop on Discourse Markers and the Representation of Text, January 9–11, 1995 in Egmond aan Zee. Rehbein, J. 2001. Turkish in European Societies. Lingua e Stile 3: 317–334. Rehbein, J. To appear. Erzählen in zwei Sprachen – auf Anforderung. In Kinderkommunikation – einsprachig und mehrsprachig. Mit einer erstmals auf Deutsch publizierten Arbeit von Lev. S Vygotskij, Zur Frage nach der Mehrsprachigkeit im kindlichen Alter, K. Meng and J. Rehbein (eds), Münster: Waxmann. Rehbein, J., Grießhaber, W., Löning, P., Hartung, M. and Bührig, K. 1993. Manual für das computergestützte Transkribieren mit dem Programm SyncWRITER nach dem Verfahren der



Studying connectivity with the help of computer-readable corpora 

Halbinterpretativen Arbeitstranskriptionen (HIAT). Universität Hamburg: Institut für Germanistik I. Rehbein, J., Schmidt, T., Meyer, B., Watzke, F. and Herkenrath, A. 2004. Handbuch für das computergestützte Transkribieren nach HIAT [Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit / Working Papers in Multilingualism, Series B, No 56]. Reppen, R. 2001. Review of MonoConc Pro and Wordsmith tools. Language Learning and Technology 5(3): 32–36. Schiffrin, D. 1986. Functions of AND in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 41–66. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Schmidt, T. 2005. Modellbildung und Modellierungsparadigmen in der computergestützten Korpusanalyse. In Sprachtechnologie, mobile Kommunikation und linguistische Ressourcen. Beiträge zur GLDV-Tagung 2005 in Bonn, B. Fisseni, H. Schmitz, B. Schröder and P. Wagner (eds), Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Schmidt, T. and Woerner, K. 2005. Erstellen und Analysieren von Gesprächskorpora mit EXMARaLDA. Gesprächsforschung (Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion) 6. http://www. gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2005/heft2005.htm. Sinclair, J. 1995. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP. Weinrich, H. 2003. Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Hildesheim: Olms. Wessén, E. 1992. Svensk språkhistoria. III. Grundlinjer till en historisk syntax [Nytryck i nordiska språk och svenska 6] (1st. ed. 1956). Edsbruk: Akademitryck. Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L. and Strecker, B. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk: işte* Annette Herkenrath (Universität Hamburg) The paper examines systematic uses of the linguistic expression işte in elicited narrative conversations of Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children as well as of a few exemplary adult speakers. The theoretical framework is functional-pragmatic. The main hypothesis is that işte, originally functioning as a discourse particle on a biprocedural basis, with both deictic and incitive procedures, is on its way to develop into a coordinating expression, working both above and below utterance level. In this last use, its functional potential integrates an additional, operative, procedure. The method combines qualitative analyses of empirical occurrences with a quantitative comparison of usage types in the different groups of speakers. As a preliminary result, it can be said that the connective, arguably coordinative, use of işte is a function of narrative and homileïc discourse competence, prevalent in older children and adult speakers and generally in monolingual children, whereas it occurs to a lesser extent in the data of the younger and the bilingual children. While the primary functions of işte are made use of by all informants and seem to be part of early acquisition, the realization of its fully expanded functional potential, including the coordinative usages, seems to be part of later acquisition and can be subject to loss or delay under the influence of language contact.

1. Goals and questions The present paper is interested in the workings of one linguistic expression, Turkish işte1, at the level of utterance -internal and -external connectivity2 in monolingual and bilingual spoken Turkish. The phenomena will be referred to as ‘discourse coordination’ in the sense of Rehbein (1995)3, this concept being chosen because it is neutral to any precategorizations along the lines of traditional terms such as conjunctionhood or discourse markership. The central idea is that the functional area of discourse coordination can be realized by linguistic elements derived from a variety of word classes and serving a multitude of functions.

 Annette Herkenrath

The linguistic expression işte has been chosen for study out of a variety of candidates for discourse coordination. What makes it an interesting object of study is its wide range of discourse functions (from knowledge-marking to discourse coordination) and its markedly differentiated functional profile in the monolingual versus bilingual data. It will be hypothesized that its connective, i.e. coordinating, function emerges out of the knowledge-marking and deictic functions that it originally fulfilled and continues to fulfill alongside a newly developed coordinating one. It seems that both language contact and individual preferences can influence diachronic development in this precise area (cf. Mithun 1988). Innovations may also take the form of individual changes leading to a more systematized language change, first taking place in smaller groups or networks of speakers, as shown in Backus (1996) and Boeschoten (1997: 22). Finally, some studies (Matras 2000a, 2000b, Maschler 1997, 2000 and others) argue in favour of a fusion of discourse organization systems in bilingual communication. These processes are taken to be closely linked to the oral and interactive use of the language in spoken discourse and to be a function of advanced discourse competence. The research questions are the following: What are the general discourse-structuring functions of işte? How do they emerge in empirical spoken data and how can the given occurrences be categorized? How does the knowledge-marking potential of işte expand into the realm of discourse-coordination? Can the differentiated usages4 be shown to be a function of the activation and deactivation of specific procedures? And finally: how do preferences for the different functions of işte distribute over different speakers or groups of speakers? The goal is diachronic in perspective, in that the functional profile of işte in a situation influenced by language contact will be contrasted with that in a situation without this contact. The study attempts to relate its findings to the ongoing discussion about grammaticization (Heine and Kuteva 2005 and others), taking however a critical view from a functional-pragmatic theoretical framework. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 gives an overview of the state of the art with respect to the relevant terms and concepts, models of grammaticization of coordination, the functional-pragmatic concept of discourse coordination, and Turkological studies on işte. Section 3 presents the corpus from a quantitative view. Section 4 presents data displaying işte in generally discourse-structuring functions; section 5 focuses on more specifically coordinating usages. Section 6 theorizes and categorizes the contrast between the different types of findings in functional-pragmatic terms, and section 7 and 8 are a quantitative comparison between the monolingual, the bilingual and some adult data.

2. State of the art The following is an overview of some analyses of coordinating means that have shaped the research goals of the present paper. Among these figure the concepts of discourse particle and discourse markership, the concept of discourse coordination, functional-

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  pragmatic studies of coordinating expressions, grammaticization studies as well as Turkological work in the area concerned.

2.1 Conjunctions, particles, discourse markers, and discourse coordinators in grammaticization perspectives Coordination applies at various levels. Utterance-internally it takes place between small units such as NPs, PPs etc., between propositional contents sharing one illocution, and between illocutionary phrases of equal status within one utterance. Above the utterance level it serves to connect utterances (and their illocutions) to other, mostly preceding, utterances (by the same or a different speaker), and to the discourse at large, i.e. to patterns, discourse topics, or units of discourse knowledge. Connective devices may in some languages differ according to the level at which the coordination applies (Mithun 1988: 336ff, see also Haspelmath 2004, for a recent overview). When applying at the discourse level, coordinating elements have a referential scope extending well beyond the boundaries of the utterances to which they originally belong (cf. Haiman and Thompson 1988: ixf). Kerslake (1996:78) makes an according distinction, terming ‘conjunctions’ those elements that are involved in utterance-internal coordination and talking about ‘conjuncts’ when referring to inter-utterance coordination.5 With respect to Turkish, she mentions connectives such as ama ‘but’, ya da ‘or’ and ve ‘and’, which fulfill a double function in that they work as connectives both within and across utterance boundaries, connecting NPs, adjectives, adverbials on the one hand and utterances on the other. The question of whether or not Turkish uses conjunctions has been a matter of controversy. This controversy extends well beyond the area of coordination to include the realm of subordination as well. Kerslake (p.c., November 19th, 2004) takes the view that Turkish does use conjunctions, arguing for a conjunction status for elements such as ve ‘and’ or ama ‘but’. Johanson, within his copying framework (1975, 1996), presents a different view, suggesting a range of formal criteria for conjunctionhood some of which these elements fail to meet. Rehbein (2006a) excludes conjunctionhood for the element ki in monolingual Turkish, this being in contrast both with its original use in Persian and with the innovations they describe for their bilingual (Turkish-German) data. The question of conjunctionhood thus needs to be left suspended for the time being, later to be approached from a different analytical perspective. The terms ‘discourse marker’ and ‘discourse particle’, although somewhat different, are used synonymously in the present paper. Current definitions of the term ‘discourse marker’ (e.g. Schiffrin 1987, 2001: 57) hold that discourse markers are related to the ongoing discourse or text, operating at different levels or planes of discourse, such as knowledge and interaction, planning, and textuality/connectivity.6 Another characteristic is their multifunctionality, with coordination, in this case, being just one of several discourse-organizing functions they may fulfill (Schiffrin 2001), others being the marking of a proposition as part of common discourse knowledge, the location

 Annette Herkenrath

of an event in space or time, the marking of evaluation and speaker attitudes, or the marking of a planning interval. Yılmaz (2004: 51ff) uses the term ‘discourse particle’ (söylem belirleyicisi) for his analysis of Turkish expressions, referring to the general discussion and highlighting deictic (‘indexical’, cf. Schiffrin 1987) as well as floor-holding functions. By hypothesis, the way the coordination is achieved in each instance can be related to this general profile. E.g., if a given element can be observed to be used as a marker of common discourse knowledge and if it can also be established that it is used in a coordinating textual function, then it will be assumed that the way the coordination is realized is related to its otherwise functioning as a marker of discourse knowledge. In other words, the link between the new utterance and the previous discourse is at the level of discourse knowledge and this characteristic distinguishes the coordinating element in question from other expressions which establish links at other levels, such as the level of discourse planning or the level of the temporal structure of the narration. It is this special instance of one coordinative function emerging out of another, more generally discourse-marking one that this paper is interested in. Mithun (1988, 2003) in her diachronically typological analyses of Northern Iroquoian languages (such as Cayuga and Mohawk) describes instances of grammaticization of discourse markers into coordinating conjunctions under the influence of language contact, involving the colonizing languages English and French, within the last hundred or two hundred years. Mithun (1988) distinguishes several levels at which coordination may occur: between noun phrases, between predicates, between clauses, and at the level of independent utterances, linking these to previous utterances or to the previous discourse at large (Mithun 1988: 332ff, 347).7 The languages mentioned, in which coordination originally used to be realized by means of intonation alone, started developing coordinative conjunctions by way of a functional expansion of expressions originally used for other purposes, using them to connect ever smaller, lower-hierarchy syntactic entities as the grammaticization proceeded, finally turning into general coordinators operating at all syntactic levels. Schiffrin (1987: 247) in her empirical study of several so-called discourse markers in American English draws a boundary between a discourse-marking and a conjunction-like usage along similar lines, defining the utterance boundary as a domain into which a marker cannot operate and vice versa, the boundary within which coordination can work on syntactically defined units. This distinction, traditional though it may seem, will have to be taken up again in the later sections, where the question will have to be asked of whether işte can at all be shown to operate in relation to any concretely definable units of a morpho-syntactic category. Taking an opposite perspective, several studies argue for an emergence of all-purpose coordination out of more narrowly syntactic functions, more specifically from comitative relational nouns or adpositions, which then also take on clause-combining functions (Stolz 1998, Haspelmath 2004, Heine and Kuteva 2002, 2005: 16, 110 etc.). Haspelmath also offers a series of semantic and syntactic criteria for coordinatorship, roughly based on a refined notion of symmetry concepts. Under the terminological heading of ‘replication’, Heine and Kuteva view instances of

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  contact-induced change from a wide range of languages, which involve the “transfer of grammatical information (…) without involving any linguistic forms” (2005:79) and in which so-called minor use patterns turn into major ones both in terms of frequency and in terms of conceptual changes, under the influence of a contact language. Heine and Kuteva view these changes as processes of grammaticization, in the course of which discourse-related phenomena become structures with a grammatical function, thus taking a somewhat dichotomizing view on the relationship between discourse and grammar. Approaching from a more discourse-based analytical perspective, Matras offers the idea that discourse management systems might undergo an economically motivated process of fusion in situations of language contact, i.e. multilingualism. This fusion may take the form of one language assuming pragmatic dominance over another, depending on the discourse constellation (Matras 2000a: 521), such that the language material for discourse-marking items may be taken from just one language. Matras contrasts fusion against convergence in terms of the degree of separation between the systems involved. Fusion then is “the wholesale, class-specific non-separation of two systems”. Applied to the area of discourse markers, this means that for the speakers of a given bilingual variety, there remains only one set of discourse markers to opt for. Matras characterizes fusion as a cognitive process which, like convergence, allows for a “[reduction] of the processing load on bilinguals” (Matras 2000a: 510ff). Maschler (1997, 2000 etc.) documenting functions of discourse markers in Hebrew-English casual talk, argues in favour of a similar process, with discourse markers from both languages feeding into a unified bilingual system and acquiring additional, more differentiated functions, coming to express new categories of communicative contrast.

2.2

Previous Turkological work on işte

Traditional Turkish grammars such as Gencan (1975) have classified expressions such as işte and others as particles (ilgeç, bağlaç). Others list işte under the heading of gösterme belirteci (deictic or demonstrative adverb), thereby ascribing it a deictic function. In this connection, işte is also analyzed as an intensifier of meaning and of stance (conveying such attitudes as sureness, pride, or challenge), the intensification being a quality of its deictic function (see Şimşek 2003 for a critical overview). In her study on discourse connectives, Kerslake (1996) groups işte (together with neyse and sonra) under the heading of ‘organizational’, and on a more detailed level, as ‘resumptive’. Özbek (2000), contrasting işte against yani and şey, highlights several distinct functions, among them a reference to shared or assumed knowledge, a closing of discourse units or topics, a resumption of previously abandoned topics, as well as a marking of empathy when stating a point. Özbek places her categorization in the traditional context of a multifunctionality approach while at the same time assigning işte the core function of a reference to shared knowledge, which, she argues, is realized in every occurrence.

 Annette Herkenrath

Şimşek (2003), working within a functional-pragmatic framework (see next subsection), analyses işte as a discourse particle operating on different kinds of knowledge and functioning in the communicative areas of summarizing, evaluating, assessing, and verbalizing results. According to Şimşek’s analysis, işte is a deictic expression serving to focus on units of knowledge verbalized in a preceding utterance or about to be verbalized in what is yet to come. İşte consequently has both anadeictic and catadeictic characteristics. Both the deictic and the knowledge-related characteristics of işte are directly responsible for its functioning in structuring the discourse. Its knowledge-relatedness shows effects of highlighting a unit of verbalized knowledge and of situating it in relation to the general discourse knowledge built up in the course of an interaction, thereby effecting a restructuring of this knowledge. The general function of işte is to bring about a change of focus in discourse, something that tends to happen at phase or pattern boundaries. This change of focus is realized by way of a summary of knowledge verbalized in previous utterances. İşte also has an illocutionary function, which consists in contextualizing verbalized states of events with respect to the built-up discourse knowledge. This contextualization globally relates the new knowledge elements to larger units of knowledge, verbalized in longer stretches of discourse. According to the data analysis by Şimşek (2003), işte can fulfill the following functions: (1) pointing at something instead of verbalizing it, (2) pointing at something for assessment, (3) concluding some part of discourse, (4) introducing or initiating the verbalization of something new, and (5) planning and reorganizing. Yılmaz (2004), also starting from the assumption that işte is a deictic8 expression, or even a demonstrative pronoun, marks it off against şey and yani, working out both framing, highlighting, reporting, and connective functions. The connective function here interestingly applies at an intra-utterance level, between “distant pieces of utterances” (birbirinden uzak sözceleri birleştirme, Yılmaz 2004: iiif). Yılmaz’ analysis documents the following functions of işte, relating them to the larger functional domains of conversational structure and content: (1) claiming and initiating a turn, thereby marking the previous turn as completed and “disengaging from its informational projection”, there by serving as a disjunction marker “alerting recipients that what follows might not be related to what preceded” (Yılmaz 2004: 139f, Schegloff 1996), (2) projecting a new turn as extended and suspending, in cooperation with the other interactants (floorholder function), (3) marking a given information as an exemplification or detail of a previously established topic, (4) closing a topic, (5) highlighting an information unit, (6) introducing reported speech, (7) marking a tie-back of information, and (8) as an answer preface, signalizing that a piece of information delivered in answer to a question is not complete or in some other way dispreferred (in the sense of Levinson 1983, Yılmaz 2004: 55, 166f). These functions are all more or less derived from a basically deictic character of işte, with işte pointing at relevant interactional circumstances, at units conatining propositional information, or at aspects of a knowledge-related constellation. About the etymology of işte nothing certain seems to be known. As the preceding paragraphs have shown, Şimşek (2003) and Yılmaz (2004) holistically refer to its deic-

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  tic quality without analyzing it into any smaller parts. Fuat Bozkurt (p.c. to Jochen Rehbein, 22nd December 2005) suggests the following derivation: işte < uş + ta (ta = locative), uş > şu (by way of metathesis), cf. Eyuboğlu (1991: 355), who however assumes an identity of the first part iş/uş not with şu, but with iş as in işbu/uşbu. Whereas these latter suggestions seem to lack a thorough documentation, Clauson’s (1972: 254) carefully documented etymology lists a linguistic expression oş as “an exclamation used to call attention to something or someone, ‘look, see here’ (...), not noted as an independent word after about XVI, but fr[equently] used about XIII fused with the Demonstrative Pron[noun] ol ‘that’ and bu ‘this’ to add emphasis to them”. By way of distortion these expressions seem to have turned into şu and işbu in Ottoman Turkish, and to also have contributed to the Modern Turkish expression şimdi < oş emdi ‘now at once’, in contrast to imdi ‘now’ in Old Anatolian Turkish. With the help of Clauson’s documentation, both the Turkic origin of işte and a deictic or incitive9 10, quality of the morpheme iş- can be retraced. Hacıeminoğlu (1992: 307f) mentions usages of uş in several historical Turkic varieties, which he parallels to uşda (= uş + da)/uşta/işte in Western Turkic and finally işte in modern Turkish. The origin of the second part of işte, -te, however, still seems to be less well documented; assumptions hinting at a locative case suffix (e.g. Ergin 1993: 351) lack documentation and therefore must be regarded as hypothetical for the time being. The segmentation into two components does not seem to be part of the linguistic knowledge of present day speakers, so that its morphological structure can no longer be regarded as agglutinative, but should rather be perceived as amalgamated, no longer analyzable, opaque.11

2.3

Theoretical framework

From a functional-pragmatic theoretical perspective, what is of interest is the exact procedural composition of individual coordinating elements, irrespective of traditional word class membership. The functional-pragmatic notion of ‘procedure’ refers to the communicative characterization of the smallest parts of a given linguistic element as the “smallest units of action” mediating between “a formal, an interactional, and a mental side” and “unfold[ing] a specific action dynamic between speaker and hearer” (Rehbein 2006b, this volume; see also Rehbein and Kameyama 2004, Ehlich 1991). Procedures belong to one of several linguistic fields12 (symbolic, deictic, operative, incitive etc.).13 With respect to the present study, the differentiation between ‘deictic’, ‘incitive’ and ‘operative’ procedures will prove to be relevant. Expressions containing deictic procedures (generally demonstratives of different kinds, i.e. spatial, temporal, and personrelated) are employed by the speaker to directly focus the hearer’s mental attention on some object or concept, without reference to any symbolic/lexical verbalization thereof. Incitive expressions (such as imperatives, vocatives, or interjections) serve to interfere with the actional apparatus of the hearer, without recurrence to propositional verbalizations. Operative procedures (for instance phoric expressions, determiners, many instances of verbal morphology, discourse particles, as well as syntactic complementiz-

 Annette Herkenrath

ers) realize a processing of language at a formal and knowledge-categorizing level (see Rehbein, this volume, for the most recent overview). The crucial difference between deictic and incitive procedures on the one hand and operative procedures on the other is that while deictic procedures point at and incitive procedures interfere with aspects of an extra-linguistic reality, operative procedures are units of language processing other units of language. Expressions having undergone a change of field are referred to by means of the prefix ‘para-’; e.g. a formerly deictic or incitive expression having taken on an operative procedure is referred to as ‘para-operative’ to indicate that its operative quality is based on a secondary procedure superseding an historically earlier, but not necessarily inactive, deictic (or incitive) procedure. Processes of linguistic change, instead of being referred to by the term of ‘grammaticization’ or ‘grammaticalization’, is conceived of in terms of such field transpositions, in consideration of the fact that a grammatical function, albeit of a different kind, may have existed before as well as after the change (e.g. Rehbein 2001, Rehbein and Karakoç 2004). Redder’s (1990) analysis of the German expressions denn ‘then’ and da ‘there’ and Rehbein’s (1995) analysis of the four German discourse-coordinating elements aber ‘but’, also ‘well’, und ‘and’, and auch ‘also’14 are illustrations of a procedure-analytical approach applied to connective expressions in German data. Redder (1990) presents a model for analyzing the inner (procedural) and outer (morpho-syntactic) structure of the two German connective expressions denn and da. The method followed there is to systematically present a given expression in the variation of its empirical occurrences and to work out its contribution to a given linguistic action in a given morphosyntactic environment, also taking into account the functional etymology (or history of usage, Verwendungsgeschichte) of the expression. Rehbein (1995) develops the concept of discourse coordination as a way of establishing a relation between discourse knowledge built up until a certain moment and the knowledge to be subsequently added. The coordinating effect is conceived of as unfolding against the background of a communicative constellation involving mental processes on both the speaker and hearer sides and a domain of common discourse knowledge shared by both participants, as well as their verbalization. It connects a new utterance to the immediately previous one, to a larger segment of discourse, such as a communicative pattern in the functional-pragmatic sense, or to a segment of such a pattern (pattern position). Discourse coordination in such a sense is about “operating on the knowledge” and the “coordination of knowledge structures between a speaker and a hearer”. The discourse-coordinating element may have functional scope over one or several utterances, where an utterance can be defined as an actional unit containing both a proposition and an illocution of its own.15 The workings of the coordinative effects generally consist of a qualification of an already verbalized utterance in retrospect and the opening of an expectation regarding the next utterance to be verbalized. The new utterance is then integrated into the larger discourse by way of being contextualized with regard to built-up or shared knowledge and expectations. Coordination understood in this way is directly connected to planning, hearer-direction, and to the marking of discourse elements as es-

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  tablished units of common knowledge. Coordinating elements often fulfill more than one function in this respect: their functional compositionality can be quite complex and integrate several procedures. In functional-pragmatic terms, coordinating elements realize para-operative procedures. The coordinating elements analyzed in Rehbein (1995) historically each emerged from the fusion of a deictic and a phoric16 procedure, respectively. Their functioning in discourse crucially relates them both to the previous part of discourse, which they requalify as something to be completed, elaborated on, contrasted or restated in other terms, and to the new part of discourse yet to be verbalized. The differences between them are related to the specific ways in which they relate the previous and the following part of discourse.17 Crucially and interestingly, this approach is agnostic with regard to a categorization into word classes. The action-theoretical notion of procedures applies to units originating below the word boundary18 and at the same time operating within and beyond the utterance boundary. The approach also transcends a neat distinction between discourse markers and conjunctions, thus overcoming in a way the categories that formed the basis for a grammaticization view in the first place. The following sections will present işte under a quantitative perspective (section 3), then proceed to an illustration of several functions of işte by looking at some examples from the ENDFAS/SKOBI data.19

3. Discourse coordination in the data: more o zaman, less işte With respect to the ENDFAS/SKOBI data, an overall screening of a sample of approximately 60,000 utterances for markers of discourse coordination has shown that the knowledge-marking particle işte is one of the most frequently occurring forms used for this purpose (8.9% of all the discourse-coordinating items), in the monolingual data. The bilingual data have shown a reduced employment of işte (1.7 % of all the discourse-coordinating items) in favor of more temporal deictics such as o zaman ‘then, at that time, in that case’ and conjunction-like elements such as ama ‘but’, a tendency of preferences corresponding to the findings in monolingual and bilingual German, cf. table 1.

 Annette Herkenrath

Table 1.  Preferred coordinating elements in monolingual and bilingual data (Herkenrath, Özdil & Rehbein 2004) Turkish

German

monolingual dA ama işte ondan sonra sonra ee böyle bir de yani şey şimdi ya çünkü o zaman tabii ve tamam mı

bilingual 27.6% 9.2% 8.9% 9.1% 5.5% 4.6% 3.9% 3.8% 3.4% 3.3% 2.3% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.5% 1.3% 1.0%

dA sonra (+) o zaman (+) ama ondan sonra şey bir de böyle hani işte (-) çünkü şimdi ve ee (-) ya

monolingual 20.7% 14.7% 12.8% 12.7% 10.4% 4.5% 4.5% 3.1% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1%

und aber und dann dann auch da und da also weil (+V2) oder

bilingual 20.9% 17.6% 17.2% 9.8% 9.0% 6.9% 5.3% 4.5% 4.1% 1.6%

und und dann dann aber auch also weil (+V2) oder da und da danach nur

33.8% 17.0% 11.7% 11.2% 9.7% 3.5% 2.9% 2.5% 2.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%

The presently investigated subcorpus comprises 39 Turkish tape-recorded discourses (47,500 transcribed utterances20), 22 discourses (28,593 utterances) involving bilingual and 17 discourses (18,907 utterances) involving monolingual children. The discourses are of an average length of 60 minutes (some 1,200 transcribed utterances). Speakers include the child informants, their friends and siblings, interviewers, as well as other members of the families or neighborhoods. The counted utterances are those made by the main informants, i.e. 8,215 utterances from the monolingual and 11,744 utterances from the bilingual subcorpus. Table 2 shows the distribution among individual children.

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  Table 2.  İşte realized by monolingual and bilingual speakers monolingual

bilingual

speaker

age

Azim Emel Gözde Halime Melike

8;09 5;08 8;03 6;09 5;11 6;11 7;09 5;06 7;02 6;09 7;11 9;02 4;03 4;10 8;02 9;02 9;11

Memduh Musa Seda Simge Şeyda Tahir Taner

utterances 1,730 251 678 475 586 464 169 327 169 1,288 279 118 359 224 441 291 366

işte

%

13 0.75 4 1.59 14 2.06 4 0.84 60 10.23 22 4.74 0 0 1 0.30 2 1.18 67 5.20 2 0.71 4 3.38 0 0 3 1.33 13 2.94 3 1.03 9 2.45

speaker

age

Binnaz

5;05 7;03 12;01 12;02 5;10 8;01 9;00 7;11 4;01 5;02 5;08 5;00 5;02 10;05 11;00 6;04 12;02 12;08 11;00 11;01 11;07 5;07 9;01

Burçin Emrah Enis Erkin Esen Faruk Handan Kubat Özer Pervin Sebat Selim Sema

Sezen Şehmuz ∑ monolingual corpus

18,907

∑ monolingual children

8,215

221

2.69

utterances 593 625 500 226 321 306 612 202 78 325 377 598 17 983 238 186 2,158 737 890 6 223 814 729

∑ bilingual corpus

28,593

∑ bilingual children

11,744

işte

%

0 1 0 0 4 15 7 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 6 0 61 6 0 0 0 10 2

0 0.16 0 0 1.24 4.90 1.14 0.99 0 0.61 0.26 0.16 0 0 2.52 0 2.82 0.81 0 0 0 1.22 0.27

118

1.00

Table 2 lists the monolingual (on the left side) and the bilingual children (on the right side) as well as their respective ages at recording time. For some children, the subcorpus comprises transcribed discourses recorded at several ages. The table also lists the number of utterances attributable to each child, the occurrences of işte (regardless of their functions, to be looked at below) in absolute numbers as well as the number of occurrences per 100 utterances. As an overall picture, it can be seen that there are fewer recordings without işte on the monolingual than on the bilingual side and that the overall frequency of işte per 100 utterances is 2.69 times as high in the monolingual

 Annette Herkenrath

data (2.69) as in the bilingual data (1.00). The quantification also reveals some individual variation, some children using işte a lot more than others. There are, however, tendencies which do suggest that the employment of işte is an, albeit indirect, function of age as well as of language contact: of the twelve most frequent users of işte, only three are bilingual children21 (Enis at 8;1, Selim at 12;0, and Pervin at 11;0); besides, there seems to be an age level at around six years (for the monolinguals, eight years for the bilinguals), after which işte starts to become more frequent. In the inverse, among the twelve children whose data display no occurrences of işte, there are only two monolingual ones, and they are rather at the lower end of the age scale (Melike at 7;9 and Tahir at 4;3). The corpus additionally contains 99 occurrences of işte by adult speakers. These usages seem to be highly contingent on the discourse constellations, the highest density arising in homileïc discourses among the adults only, such as casual side talks incidentally recorded independently of the original research interests. This group, which is made up of speakers belonging to a continuum of L1-L2 constellations (ranging from monolingualism in Turkish through L1 Turkish/adult or adolescent L2 German to successive bilingualism in Turkish and German), cannot be looked at systematically in the framework of this study. The set of işte occurrences will however be considered in its internal distributive structure in section 8. The following sections will present individual occurrences of işte under a qualitative perspective, aiming at a functional categorization. The preliminary assumption is that discourse samples with frequent occurrences of işte could be viewed as potential contexts for its systematic use in a connective, concatenating function. Samples with a less frequent use might be more likely to display isolated occurrences in passages of a more sequential kind.

4. Usages of işte in the data The usages of işte documented in Şimşek (2003) and Yılmaz (2004) (subsection 2.2) can also be found in the ENDFAS/SKOBI data. For reasons of space, however, they cannot be documented within the limits of this paper. The following qualitative analyses will therefore be based on just two discourse passages illustrating one basic, nonconnective, and several expanded, connective, usages. (E1) illustrates a typical nonconnective functioning of işte, in which it focuses the hearer’s attention on a non-linguistic concept, in a holistic, summarizing fashion, calling upon her to recognize the element in question as part of a shared or common knowledge. The knowledge pointed at need not have been verbalized in the preceding discourse, nor does it need to be about to be verbalized. Its verbal form may be irretrievable at the actual moment of speaking, or the knowledge itself may be so well established in the shared system of assumptions, beliefs, and known facts that it seems self-evident to all participants. In a slightly different sense, işte can also help to suspend a verbalization or to

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  altogether avoid the elaboration of some unpleasant fact, simply by hinting at the discourse knowledge and thereby summarizing the non-verbalized events as somehow being negligible details. In this case, işte functions as a placeholder or highlighter of knowledge that will not be verbalized. (E1) is a conversation between five-year-old Emrah22 and an adult visitor to the family, Ferda. The topic concerns the children at Emrah’s kindergarten. (E 1)

EFE07tk_Emr_b_0677_f_SKO_010301, doc 2, score areas 87-100 010301/SKOBI/EFE7tk/Familie/Taşdemir/Sony WM-GX670/639 110402/Babur/1:60/Yaman/1:30 / / // Ende der Transkription/Sony TC-KB 920 S Fer Ferda, female interviewer Emr Emrah, bilingual boy, 5;10 years old, attends kindergarten

[87] Emr I’ıh˙ • Doch! PTC Emr [TL] IJ Emr [eng] Uh uh • I do! Fer Sevmiyosun. • Peki Kubat’ı like-NEG-PRS-2SG okay Kubat-ACC Fer [TL] Fer [eng] You don’t like him. • Okay then, do you like negating

[88] Emr Emr [TL] Emr [eng] Fer seviyo PRS Fer [TL] like-��� Fer [eng] Kubat?

I’ıh˙ 

I’

IJ

IJ

Uh uh

musun?

Onu da sevmiyosun.

Q-2SG

DEI-ACC also like-NEG-PRS-2SG

You don’t like him either. negating

[89] Emr ıhh˙  İşte. PTC Emr [TL] Emr [eng] Uh uh İşte. Fer Niye? Anlaşmıyo musunuz what-DAT understand-REC-NEG-PRS Q-2PL Fer [TL] Fer [eng] Why? Don’t you get on so well with each other? negating

 Annette Herkenrath

[90] Emr I’ı˙  İştee. IJ PTC Emr [TL] Emr [eng] Uh uh İşte. Fer onunla? Niye? Ama sen hep “İşte, GEN-COM what-DAT but DEI2SG always işte Fer [TL] DEI-������� Fer [eng] Why? But you keep saying “İşte, işte”,

[91] Emr Emr [TL] Emr [eng] Fer işte” diyosun, bi şeyin nedeni olması lazım. Fer [TL] işte say-PRS-2SG one thing-GEN reason-PSS3SG be-PAR-PSS3SG necessary Fer [eng] a thing must have a reason.

[92] Emr İşte. Emr [TL] PTC Emr [eng] İşte. Fer Seni kızdırıyo muu, yoksa seni DEI2SG-ACC be angry-CAU-PRS Q or DEI2SG-ACC Fer [TL] Fer [eng] Does he make you angry, or does hit you,

[93] Emr Dövüyo. Dövüyo. beat-PRS beat-PRS Emr [TL] Emr [eng] He hits. He hits. Fer dövüyo muu, yoksa sana bi şeyler mi or DEI2SG-DAT one thing-PL Q Fer [TL] hit-PRS say-PRS Q Fer [eng] or does he say things to you?

[94] Emr Dövüyo. beat-PRS Emr [TL] Emr [eng] He hits. Fer diyo? Dövüyo. beat-PRS Fer [TL] say-PRS Fer [eng] He hits.

Hıhı˙  IJ

Uhuh

Pekii okay

• • Carola Carola

Okay, and • • Carola and

[95] Fer falan onlar kızmıyolar mı seni dövdüğü DEI-PL be angry-NEG-PRS-PL Q DEI2SG-ACC beat-PAR-PSS3SG Fer [TL] and so on Fer [eng] the others, don’t they get angry when he hits you?

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  [96] Emr Doch. PTC Emr [TL] Emr [eng] They do. Fer zaman? Peki sen de onu • dövüyo okay DEI2SG also DEI-ACC hit-PRS Fer [TL] time Fer [eng] Okay, and you, • do you hit him

[97] Emr Hıı̀˙ • • I’ıh˙  IJ IJ Emr [TL] Emr [eng] Uhuh • • Uh uh Fer musun geri? Sen ona DEI2SG DEI-DAT Fer [TL] Q-2SG back Fer [eng] back? You don’t interfere with affirmative negating

[98] Emr Hıı˙  IJ Emr [TL] Emr [eng] Huh Fer karışmıyosun, hep o sana karışıyo. NEG-PRS-2SG always DEI DEI2SG-DAT interfere-PRS Fer [TL] interfere-����������� Fer [eng] him, it’s always him who interferes with you.

IJ

[99] Emr Şimdi yeter! ((2s)) now enough Emr [TL] Emr [eng] Now that’s enough! ((2s)) Fer Hmm˙  Fer [TL] Fer [eng] Hmm

Yeter şimdii! enough

now

Enough for now!

Peki okay

Okay then,

[100] Fer bugün n’aapcaksın? Bugün hep benim what-do-FUT-2SG today always DEI1SG-GEN sideFer [TL] today Fer [eng] and what are you gonna do today? Are you gonna stay with me

In what precedes the quoted passage, Ferda asks Emrah about the children at his kindergarten. Emrah briefly mentions a boy named Kubat, who happens to be a relative of Ferda’s, and then tells her about some other boy he does not like and a third one he does like even though he spoils his drawings. Ferda then asks Emrah about Kubat: Peki Kubat’ı seviyor musun?‘ Okay, do you like Kubat?’ Emrah laconically responds in the negative I’h I’ıh (score area23 87). Being questioned about his relationship with Kubat puts Emrah in a double-bind situation involving conflicting politeness requirements:

 Annette Herkenrath

on the one hand, principles of communicative cooperation require that he attend to Ferda’s questions and subject proposals. On the other hand, a different politeness requirement towards the adult visitor and her family prevents him from making negative statements. The only adequate solution would seem for Emrah to keep his verbalizations to a minimum. When Ferda is not content with the obtained answer and tries to suggest an expansion of the topic (by restating Emrah’s answer in more elaborate wording: Onu da sevmiyorsun ‘You don’t like him either’, score area 88), Emrah still does not venture any more explicit details, but rather remains with his original version: I’h I’ıh (score area 89). What can be observed here is an opposition between Emrah’s reticence on the one hand and Ferda’s determination to engage him in a conversation on the other. Ferda’s determination to make Emrah talk is doubly motivated; first by an elicitation interest and second by her personal interest in learning about her own relative’s standing at the kindergarten. Ferda then continues with two identical, overtly hearer-directed wh-utterances in score areas 89f: Niye? ‘Why?’ Emrah, trying to cut the conversation short while at the same time trying to avoid a violation of the cooperation requirement, uses işte twice (in score areas 89 and 80). When the interviewer is not content with this nonverbalization strategy (cf. her meta-communicative comment on Emrah’s evasiveness in score areas 90f: Ama sen hep “İşte, işte” diyorsun, bi şeyin nedeni olması lazım ‘But you keep saying “işte, işte”, a thing must have a reason’), Emrah realizes işte a third time (score area 92). In this sense, Emrah’s detopicalizing strategies remain unsuccessful, and even after the third işte (in score area 92), Ferda insists on a full verbalization: Seni kızdırıyor mu, yoksa seni dövüyor mu, yoksa sana bi şeyler mi diyo? ‘Does he anger you, does he beat you, or does he say things to you?’ (score areas 92ff). Thus coerced, Emrah surrenders a laconic, but at the same time emphatically repeated Dövüyor. Dövüyor. Dövüyor ‘He hits. He hits. He hits’ (score areas 93f). Ferda nevertheless continues asking questions and suggesting possible answers for the remaining score areas 94 to 98, without ever again obtaining anything more elaborate than monosyllabic affirmative or negating utterances. It is this obvious lack of success of Emrah’s employment of işte that in the end calls for a more directive plea for a closure of the topic – Şimdi yeter! ((2s)) Yeter şimdi:! ‘Now that’s enough! ((2s)) Enough for now!’, score area 99 – a plea that Ferda finally has to accept, cf. her change of topic in score area 99f: Peki bugün n’ a:pcaksın? ‘Okay then what are you up to today?’. The way işte is used in this example is deictic in that it demonstrates to the listener (who is an inquisitive listener incessantly verbalizing – ostensible – knowledge deficits) knowledge elements that would fit more or less precisely to fill the verbalized gaps and to thereby supply the knowledge in the requested way. It is also incitive, in that the hearer is brought to agree on an assumption to be taken as shared or common knowledge. The required knowledge elements are available in the form of incidental experiental knowledge (‘partikuläres Erlebniswissen’) shared in principle by the two interlocutors, yet for some reason, Ferda seems reluctant to focus her attention on her own

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  domain of specific knowledge and this is why Emrah uses işte in order to hint at the relevant shared knowledge and to tell her to accept it as a given fact.

5. İşte as an individually used discourse coordinator The following section presents an example in which işte is used in a different way, namely to concatenate chains of events. This employment of işte principally relies on the deictic, incitive, and summarizing procedures that bring about the effects described in the above section. It will be argued that işte can also unfold this multifunctional potential to achieve a kind of coordinating effect, linking a piece of verbalized know­ ledge with the surrounding discourse. In other words, it is the very knowledge-categorizing quality of işte that makes it a good candidate for coordinatorship. The example presented in this section is a discourse passage from a talk with two monolingual children, in which işte is used in a concatenating function. There are three levels at which işte is employed in a coordinating function. One is the level of the turn, at which a new turn is integrated within the surrounding discourse. This integration is achieved by relating the new contribution to the previously verbalized knowledge, thereby making it interactionally relevant. The knowledge in turn serves as a background against which the information offered in the new contribution can be highlighted. The second is the level of the integration of an utterance within a turn, and the third, the integration of parts of utterances within one utterance. For reasons of space, only one example (E2) can be given. It contains illustrations of both the second and the third cases. (E2) illustrates the frequent, swift and routinized use of concatenating işte. In the passage in question, monolingual Melike speaks about some toys her father bought for her and her brother on the occasion of their visiting his workplace and about what happened to the toys (they accidentally broke one after the other, during play). The passage contains ten occurrences of işte, seven of which (in score areas 62, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, and 76) achieve an effect of coordination at a turn-internal, inter-utterance level, the remaining three (in score areas 58, 66, and 83) at an utterance-internal level. The present subsection briefly comments on both in order to show the interplay of both kinds of usage in an extended concatenative discourse passage. The constellation involves Melike, her brother, and both her parents, all of whom have first-hand know­ ledge of the events she is going to narrate, plus the as yet uninformed interviewer Anna. Score area 57f begins a longer narrative realized by Melike, who has been asked whether she had ever seen her father’s workplace. The passage starts with Melike claiming the right to an uninterrupted turn from her mother, who has been offering to coach her along by asking questions (Sussana yaa sana ne! ‘Oh, come on, shut up, it’s none of your business!’). From then on she realizes an extended turn, interrupted only twice, by an unsuccessful attempt at changing the topic (score areas 74f), and an attended-to question (score area 84f), both realized by her brother Taner (Anna contributing a few hearer signals in the form of interjections).

 Annette Herkenrath

(E 2)

EFE07tk_Mek_m_0658_f_SKO_290100, doc 5, score areas 57-85 290100/SKOBI/EFE7tk/Familie/Herkenrath/Sony WM-F2041/0826 170402/Babur/1:60/Esen/1:40/Babur/1:50/Taşdemir/1:40/270902/SonyTC-KB920S Mek Melike, monolingual girl, 5;11 years old, attends preschool Tan Taner, Melike’s brother, 8;2 years old, third form of primary school Mut the children’s mother Ann Anna, interviewer, Turkish L2, L1 German

[57] Mek Sussana yaá sana ne! shut up-IMP PTC DEI2SG-DAT what Mek [TL] Mek [eng] Oh, come on, shut up, it’s none of your business! Mut çöp şiş yediniz. Mut [TL] Mut [eng] eat, you had çöp şiş.

[58] Mek Babam bize • çöp şiş yedirdi, • • işte bize Mek [TL] father-PSS1SG DEI1SG-DAT straw spit eat-CAU-PST PTC DEI1PL-DAT Mek [eng]My Dad gave us • çöp şiş to eat, işte he bought

[59] Mek oyuncak aaldı bi de. • Eve getirdik. Bebek buy-PST one also house-DAT bring-PST1PL doll Mek [TL] toy Mek [eng]us toys, too. • We took them home. He bought me

[60] Mek aldı banaa, sonra bana ütü aldı • dimi anne, Mek [TL] buy-PST DEI1SG-DAT then DEI1SG-DAT iron buy-PST NEG-Q mother Mek [eng]a baby doll, then he bought me an iron, • didn’t he, Mum,

[61] Mek ütü aldı? Bi de dikiş makinası aldı. buy-PST one also sew-DER machine-PSS3SG buy-PST Mek [TL] iron Mek [eng]he bought an iron? And he bought a sewing machine. Ann Ann [TL] Ann [eng]

Ihım˙  IJ

Hm

[62] Mek İşte o kadar şey al dık, Mek [TL] PPPTC DEI degree thing buy-PST1PL Mek [eng]İşte we bought so many things

• eve house-DAT

gel dik… come-PST1PL

• we got home…

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  [63] Mek Mek [TL] Mek [eng]

Böyle…

Oyuncak

ev

DEI

toy

house also

de

Like…

He had also bought like a

((microphone problem))

[64] Mek böyle almıştı şöyle, • • ağbime tabanca buy-PTE-PCOP DEI elder brother-PSS1SG-DAT gun Mek [TL] DEI Mek [eng]toy house, like that, he bought my brother a gun,

[65] Mek aldı, kamera aldı, böyle oyuncak teyip aldı buy-PST DEI toy tape recorder buyMek [TL] buy-PST camera Mek [eng] he bought a camera, and he also bought like a toy tape

[66] Mek işte ağbime bi de. İşte • o/ PTC DEI Mek [TL] come-PST PTC elder brother-PSS1SG-DAT one also Mek [eng]recorder, işte for my brother. İşte • that/ we Ann Hm̀hm˙ IJ Ann [TL]

[67] Mek geldik, • evde o oyuncak evi bozduu, house-ACC break-PST Mek [TL] come-PST1PL house-LOC toy Mek [eng]came, • at home he broke that toy house,

I tried to,

[68] Mek yapmaya DAT Mek [TL] do-VN-���� Mek [eng]

çalıştım,

yaptım

try-PST1SG

do-PST1SG

I did

((yutkunur))

tabii. of course

((swallows))

of course.

[69] Mek İşte yap tım, • • sonra oyuncaklarımlan then toy-PL-PSS1SG-INS Mek [TL] PTC do-PST1SG Mek [eng]İşte I did, • • then I played with my toys.

[70] Mek oynadım. İşte • böyle DEI Mek [TL] play-PST1SG PTC Mek [eng] İşte • like

ağbim

bigün’ •

elder brother-PSS-1SG one-day

my brother • played with them one

[71] Mek oynuyodu onlarla. İşte be/ ağbim Mek [TL] play- PRS-PCOP DEI-PL-INS PTC PSS1SG elder brother-PSS1SG Mek [eng]day. İşte my/ my brother was/ my brother

 Annette Herkenrath

[72] Mek benim/ ağbim benim oğlumdu mahsuz. Mek [TL] DEIPSS1SG elder brother-PSS1SG DEIPSS1SG son-PSS1SG-PCOP on purpose Mek [eng]was my son, for the sake of for: mahsus

[73] Mek İşte oyuncak evinen oynuyodu PTC toy house-INS play-PRS-PCOP Mek [TL] Mek [eng]the game. İşte he played with the toy house, with the mahsus for: ev ile 

[74] Mek oyuncak evlen. house-INS Mek [TL] toy Mek [eng]toy house. Tan Tan [TL] Tan [eng] for: ev ile 

Böyle

yere

DEI

ground-DAT throw-PST

attı,

oy toy

He like threw it on the ground, the toy/

Bi tuvalete

gelsene,

one bathroom-DAT come-IMPone

bi şey one thing

Come to the bathroom, will ya, I wa/ I want

[75] Mek unca k/ oyuncak ev kırıldı’ toy house break-PAS- PST Mek [TL] Mek [eng] the toy house broke. Tan de/ bi şey göstericem! also one thing show-FUT-1SG Tan [TL] Tan [eng] to show you something!

[76] Mek Mek [TL] Mek [eng]

İşte sonra • bebek vardı,

onu

PTC

DEI-ACC DEI1SG

then

İşte then

doll

exist-PST

ben

• remember that baby doll, I was rocking it,

[77] Mek sallıyodum, dedim “Ağbicik, bunu • Mek [TL] rock-PRS- PCOP1SG say-PST1SG elder brother-DIM DEI-ACC cradleMek [eng] I said: “My dear brother, put this one • to

[78] Mek beşiğine yatır!” dedim, böyle beşik vardı cradle exist-PST Mek [TL] PSS3SG-DAT lie down-CAU say-PST1SG DEI Mek [eng]sleep in her cradle! “ I said, there was like a cradle

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  [79] Mek ((anl.)). Mek [TL] Mek [eng] ((inc.)).

Beşik ((anl.))

(böyle yapmışım

cradle

DEI

böyle)

make-PTE-1SG DEI

The cradle (like I had like made it)

[80] Mek masaya beşik yaptım. Bi geldim “Onu Mek [TL] table-DAT cradle make-PST1SG one come-1SG DEI-ACC Mek [eng]I made ���������������������������� a cradle on the table. So I went like “Put that one to

[81] Mek yatır!” dedim. • • Bebek böyle bi düştü, • doll DEI one fall-PST Mek [TL] lie down- CAU say-PST1AG Mek [eng]bed! “ I said. The baby dollshe like fell down, the

[82] Mek beşik/ (geldi şöyle tam aşağı) cradle come-PST DEI exactly down Mek [TL] Mek [eng]cradle/ (came like this right downwards)

bebeği doll-ACC

he rolled the baby doll

[83] Mek yuvarla • dı bebek kırıldı işte ayağı. Ayağı doll break-PAS-PST PTC leg-PSS3SG leg-PSS3SG Mek [TL] roll-PST Mek [eng]• about, the baby doll broke işte her leg. Her leg

[84] Mek kırıldı, ((anl.)) iki ayağı da kırıldı. two leg-PSS3SG also break-PAS-PST Mek [TL] break-PAS-PST Mek [eng]broke, ((inc.)) both her legs broke. Tan Gerçek real Tan [TL] Tan [eng] Your real baby?

[85] Mek Mek [TL] Mek [eng] Tan bebeğin? PSS2SG Tan [TL] doll- ������� Tan [eng]

A’a’˙,

• mahsuzdan.

Sonra

IJ

purpose-ABL

then

neck-

Uh uh,

in the game.

Then

her neck,

negation 

Melike first mentions the food her father treated them to, thereby answering her mother’s question and completing the frame of common memories of that special day. This frame having been established, other memories come up, with the food and the toys as two new subtopics. Melike utterance-internally coordinates these two subtopics by

 Annette Herkenrath

means of the procedures of işte described in the above sections, i.e. a storing-away of the food-related memories and a steering of the listeners’ attention onto something new to come, namely the toy-related memories and their verbalization. Melike then adds memories as they come up, generally following a temporal linearization, but also adding elements of knowledge as they come to her mind. Her general principle of discourse coordination consists in packaging the verbalization up into processable units, to incite her listeners to store them away in memory and then to add new elements. In score areas 59ff, Melike lists the things her father bought: Bebek aldı bana, sonra bana ütü aldı • dimi anne, ütü aldı? Bir de dikiş makinası aldı ‘He bought me a baby doll, then he bought me an iron, didn’t he, Mum, he bought me an iron? And he bought a sewing machine’. Then, summing up, she finishes this package of knowledge elements and passes on to information of a different category, an advancement in time and a change of place: İşte o kadar şey aldık, • eve geldik ‘İşte we bought so many things • we got home’ (score areas 62f). The function of işte here is to state the achieved development of the knowledge constellation and to thereby create the conditions to further advance the plot. Similarly, the two occurrences in score areas 65ff (… böyle oyuncak teyip aldı işte ağbime bi de. İşte • o/ geldik • evde o oyuncak evi bozdu... ‘he also bought like a toy tape recorder, işte for my brother. İşte • that/ we came • at home he broke that toy house...’), although working on different syntactic levels, both mainly help to advance the plot of the narration by concatenating pieces of knowledge. The concatenation relies on the relevance of the elements added to the background of what has up to then been established as verbalized and thereby shared knowledge. The passage from score area 68 to 72 again contains four occurrences of işte: ... yapmaya çalıştım, yaptım tabi. İşte yaptım, • • sonra oyuncaklarımlan oynadım. İşte • böyle ağbim bigün • oynuyordu onlarla. İşte be/ ağbim benim/ ağbim benim oğlumdu mahsuz. İşte oyuncak evinen oynuyordu oyuncak evlen ‘... I tried to, I did, of course. İşte I did, • • then I played with my toys. İşte • like, my brother • played with them one day. İşte my/ my brother was/ my brother was my son, for the sake of the game. İşte he played with the toy house, with the toy house’. Each realization here occurs in an utterance-initial position, such that each in this series of utterances is initiated by means of işte. The progression of the narrative is realized in a stepwise fashion and what has been established becomes fixed in memory as a base on which Melike then proceeds: the unspecified activity at the beginning of the passage is first introduced as something in the process of being attempted (yapmaya çalıştım ‘I tried to do’), then as something achieved (yaptım tabi ‘I did, of course’), then, at the beginning of the new utterance, the result of the transformation is resumed and stored away as shared knowledge (işte yaptım ‘işte I did’), before the next step of the verbalization is undertaken, the playing with the toys (İşte yaptım, • • sonra oyuncaklarımlan oynadım ‘İşte I did, • • then I played with my toys’). This again is stored away at the beginning of the next utterance (... oynadım. İşte....‘...I played. İşte...’), which then introduces the subtopic of the brother: İşte be/ ağbim benim/ ağbim benim oğlumdu mahsuz ‘İşte my/ my brother was/ my brother was my son, for the sake of the game’. So, one by one, Melike verbalizes and

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  thus establishes as shared knowledge first, her having achieved some attempted activity, second, the situation of her playing with the toys, as well as third, her brother being there and being her son for the purposes of the game. Resuming these three established elements of knowledge with her listeners, by means of işte (score area 73), Melike finally goes one step further and advances the crucial aspect of her brother actually playing with the toy house: İşte oyuncak evinen oynuyordu oyuncak evlen ‘İşte he played with the toy house, with the toy house’ (score area 73f), which is the very prerequisite for the delivery of the scandalon of the narrative (Fienemann 2005, Rehbein 1980), the brother’s accidentally breaking the toy house during his play. The last occurrence of işte at this level of utterance coordination is in score area 76. The scandalon has been delivered (Böyle yere attı, oyuncak/ oyuncak ev kırıldı ‘He like threw it on the ground, the toy/ the toy house broke’, score areas 74f) and Melike proceeds to the next narrative unit (in fact, her narrative displays a succession of like scandalons, her brother apparently breaking several of her newly acquired toys): ... oyuncak ev kırıldı. İşte sonra • bebek vardı... ‘... the toy house broke. İşte then • remember that baby doll...’. (E2) also contains three usages of işte as a coordinator working below utterance level. In the first occurrence – Babam bize • çöp şiş yedirdi, • • işte bize oyuncak aldı bi de, • eve getirdik ‘My Dad gave us çöp şiş to eat, • • işte he bought us toys, too, • we took them home’ (score areas 58f) – I would like to argue, işte serves to coordinate intra-utterance constituents depending on a finite verb each (IPs so to speak): the IP Babam bize • çöp şiş yedirdi ‘My Dad gave us çöp şiş to eat’ is coordinated with the IP bize oyuncak aldı bi de ‘he bought us toys, too’, işte concluding the first and announcing the second IP. The other two occurrences are Oyuncak ev de almıştı şöyle, • • ağbime tabanca aldı, kamera aldı, böyle oyuncak teyip aldı işte ağbime bi de ‘He had also bought like a toy house, • • he bought my brother a gun, he bought a camera, and he bought like a toy cassette recorder işte for my brother, too’ (score areas 63ff) and Bebek böyle bi düştü, • beşik/ (gerçi ) bebeği yuvarla • dı bebek kırıldı işte ayağı ‘The baby doll like fell down, • the cradle ( though) he • rolled the baby doll about, the baby doll broke işte her leg [broke]’ (score areas 81ff). In both occurrences, the coordination takes place at the level of NPs; however, there are no two parallel NPs, but rather, the respective NPs are added as in devrik cümle constructions, additional afterthought information or precision delivered after the finite verb.24 What distinguishes the usages of işte in (E2) is their being used not only very routinely, swiftly, and frequently, but crucially the functional extension of işte allowing it to work below the utterance-internal level. By being used in a series, their deictic and incitive effects seems to not entirely disappear, but to fade away so as to mainly show a concatenative, coordinating effect. In functionalpragmatic terms, these instances of işte contain an operative procedure, whose functional scope includes units of verbalization, be it at an utterance-internal syntactic level or at a level transcending the utterance boundary, and whose communicative function is to categorize the knowledge verbalized in these units as having become shared knowledge.25

 Annette Herkenrath

6. Functional analysis and typification In the following, I am assuming three types of occurrences of işte, each of them showing a differentiated unfolding of its basic fuctional potential. This basic functional potential, as realized in both the monolingual and the bilingual data (cf. E1) and in accordance with the etymological information available (cf. subsection 2.2) is biprocedural since işte is a morphologically fused expression: it is incitive, in that it directly interferes with the actional apparatus of the hearer, calling upon her to recognize a specific element as part of a knowledge to be shared. It is also partly deictic in focusing the hearer’s attention on this element in the first place. Depending on which of the two procedures was integrated later to supersede the original one and to become responsible for the main communicative effect, işte would have to be analyzed as either paradeictic or para-incitive. Since the etymological knowledge about işte is sparse, however, it is at present difficult to decide whether işte is to be analzyed as para-deictic or paraincitive. I am henceforth referring to occurences of this type as type 1 occurrences. The unit referred to can be an element in the perception space or in one of several involved domains of knowledge. In many cases, however, işte takes into its scope stretches of previous verbalization, which thereby become marked as having become shared knowledge. As the previous sections have shown, the coordinating effects of işte come about as side effects to their primary functions, but they may also involve the integration of an additional procedure, so that the communicative function of each occurrence becomes even more complex, comprising a combination of functional procedures.26 With respect to the realizations in E2, one can argue in favour of a connective function of işte, both at the inter-utterance and the utterance-internal level. Since the connectivity of işte is based on a processing of the verbalization activity and on a categorization of verbalized units as representing what has become shared knowledge, it seems justified to speak of an operative procedure in this connection. Those occurrences, in which connectivity is utterance-internal, i.e. between parts of utterances of different syntactic status can also be argued to have reached an advanced stage in a process of monologization, as described in Redder (1990). I will henceforth refer to examples of inter-utterance connectivity as type 2 and to those of utterance-internal connectivity as type 3 realizations.27 A schematization of this categorization is given in Table 3. Type (1) contains examples of the kind illustrated in subsection 4.1, where işte primarily works in a biprocedural way, focusing the hearer’s attention on non-verbalized elements of knowledge and inciting her to recognize them as being part of a shared or common knowledge. İşte in this function helps to avoid verbalization, and its functional scope contains non-linguistic rather than linguistic elements (part of the perception or imagination space).

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  Table 3.  Categorization of usage types of işte connectivity 1

none

2

inter-utterance: discourse coor-dination utterance-internal: discourse and syntactic coor-dination

3

functional scope

procedures

changes

extra-linguistic: actional apparatus, perception space, imagination space linguistic units: parts of dicourse

biprocedural: paradeictic or para-incitive

none

para-operative

beginning monologization

linguistic units: parts of utterances

para-operative

further monologization, syntactification

In type (2) examples, işte works in a complex way, operating on the knowledge constellation and making possible new verbalizations of knowledge against the dynamic background of knowledge distribution among the interactants. These workings of işte can best be classified against the background of Rehbein (1995) and Redder (1990). They are discourse-coordinative in that they integrate new verbalization into a discourse, where discourse is conceived of functional-pragmatically, i.e. as comprising (1) the space of realized verbalizations, (2) the space of knowledge activated or acquired by these verbalizations, (3) the representations of the knowledge elements in the respective knowledge domains of the speakers and hearers present, as well as (4) the perception space as an array of non-linguistic elements with their own representations in the knowledge domains of the interactants. The workings of type (2) realizations of işte, while retaining part of their original deictic and incitive functions (in terms of attention-focusing and incited recognition of known facts or assumptions), are also becoming operative: they take into their functional scope the verbalization process as such, categorizing verbalization units in terms of discourse knowledge by ckecking them off as having become part of shared information. What continues to happen in terms of a deictic (and incitive) procedure occurs with specific reference to a given unit of verbalization. Type (3) refers to the special cases in which işte comes to work as a coordinator below the utterance level. This category can be seen as a subset of (2), analyzable along the same lines. The difference with respect to (2) however is a shift of functional scope from units of constellation-related information in (2) to more specifically linguistic units below the utterance level in (3). These utterance-internal workings of işte can be categorized into (3a) a coordination of IPs, (3b) a coordination of NPs, (3c) an integration of an afterthought, (3d) an integration of a rhematic element28, and (3e) other forms of utterance-internal coordination. The main hypothesis of the present paper hinges on the observation that, if işte is to be categorized as a coordinating element,

 Annette Herkenrath

there should be not only category (2), but also category (3) examples. The following is an attempt at quantifying the distributions of the three types in the bilingual and monolingual data, also considering realizations by the adult interlocutors.

7. Quantitative comparison: the distribution of types The presented examples have shown that discourse-coordinative usages of işte do also occur in the bilingual data. The question now arises as to their quantitative distribution. Table 4 presents the frequency of the different types in the subcorpora of the monolingual and bilingual children and the adults, in absolute figures and in proportion to the overall number of işte occurrences (221 in the data of the monolingual, 118 in those of the bilingual children, 99 in those of the adults). Table 4.  Distribution of usage types in monolingual and bilingual child data and in adult data usage type (1) (2) (3) (3a) (3b) (3c) (3d) (3e) (2) + (3)

deictic/incitive, no coordination coordination above utterance level coordination below utterance level coordination of IPs coordination of NPs integration of afterthought integration of rhematic element other total discourse-coordinative usages total of işte usages

monolinguals abs. 27 128 66 16 2 6 33 9 194 221

% 12.21 57.91 29.86 7.23 0.90 2.71 14.93 4.07 87.78 100

bilinguals abs. 43 61 14 1 2 8 3 75 118

% 36.44 51.69 11.86 0 0.84 1.69 6.77 2.54 63.55 100

adults abs. 6 46 47 21 1 4 14 7 93 99

% 6.06 46.46 47.47 21.21 1.01 4.04 14.14 7.07 93.93 100

As can be seen, all three groups employ işte in a primarily deictic/incitive function (1), in a discourse-organizing function above utterance level (2), and in an utterance-internally coordinating way (3). There are however quantitative differences. For all three groups, type (2) is the most frequently realized one: roughly half of the occurrences of işte fall into this category. Differences arise with respect to the quantitative weighting of type (1) versus type (3) occurrences. Type (1) is most frequent in the bilingual group (36.44% of the işte occurrences), about three times as frequent as in the monolingual group (12.21%) and about six times as frequent as in the adult group (6.06%). Type (3) occurrences (utterance-internal coordination) constitute only 11.86% of the findings in the bilingual children’s data. This type is realized 2.5 times as frequently in the monolingual (29.86%) and four times as frequently in the adult data (47.47%). Table 5 visualizes these overall distributional tendencies.

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  Table 5.  Proportion of usage type distribution in monolingual and bilingual child data and in adult data 100%

11,86 29,86

80%

60%

47,47 51,69 intra-utterance connectivity inter-utterance connectivity no connectivity

57,91

40%

46,46 20%

36,44 12,21

0%

bilingual

monolingual

6,06 adult

The most frequent syntactic subtypes within the set of type (3) occurrences are the integration of rhematic information (type (3d), with no parallel syntactic constituents) and the coordination of parallel IPs (3a), cf. table 4. Type (3d) makes up around 14% in both the monolingual and the adult, and only 6.7% in the bilingual data. The coordination of IPs (3a) is at 7.23% in the monolingual and at 21.21% (three times as high) in the adult subcorpus; it does not occur in the bilingual data. The coordination of parallel NPs (3b) makes up a small proportion in all three subcorpora: around and below one percent, respectively. All in all, it can be said that the two main tendencies, namely of type (3) to be more frequent in the monolingual than in the bilingual data and of type (1) to occur less often in the monolingual than in the bilingual data, are both topped by an even stronger tendency in the adult data, which point further in the direction evidenced by the monolingual values. Being primarily para-deictic/para-incitive and often serving as a means for circumventing verbalization, işte is coming to be used to categorize verbalized knowledge both at a discourse and at a syntactic level, thereby taking into its functional scope units of verbalization proper and thus assuming operative functions, in a functionalpragmatic sense of the term. The full realization of the operative procedures of işte seems to be related to age and to be more prevalent (or just occur earlier or more reliably) in monolingual than in bilingual children. However, some functions that one might expect to regularly occur in a typical coordinator, such as the ability to coordinate NPs29, seem to be, if not impossible, rare in all the three subcorpora looked at.

 Annette Herkenrath

8. Functional profile of işte in the bilingual versus the monolingual use The previous sections have shown that, even if the exact syntactic and scopal characteristics of işte need further clarification, işte does present a clearly utterance-internal connective usage, in which it takes on an additional, operative, procedure. One question remaining to be discussed however is the question of how these results can be theorized against the background of the language-change-and-language-contact discussion reviewed in section 2 and the project hypothesis of an emerging contact variety of Turkish (Rehbein 2001, Herkenrath, Karakoç and Rehbein 2003, Rehbein and Karakoç 2004, Rehbein 2006a). While the cited literature and the working hypothesis both lead one to expect a functional expansion of discourse particles into coordinating conjunctions mainly under contact influences, the ENDFAS/SKOBI findings seem to point in an opposite direction: the functionalization of işte as a coordinating element marking progression in narratives occurs least in the bilingual children’s data, more often in the monolingual children’s data, and seems to be most firmly established in homileïc data from adult speakers. With the bilingual children, there is much less of an expansion of knowledge marking into coordination. Rather, the approximate tendency in German, namely to rely on temporal and spatial deictics and to announce a narrative progression by way of refocusing techniques, seems to be extended into Turkish, at the cost of işte (Tables 1 and 2).30 The functional expansion then must have existed before the presently investigated contact situation came about and in fact seems to have been diminished, rather than increased by it. One possible answer is that the unfolding of the full functional profile of işte is also a matter of late acquisition, in this case of the acquisition of sequential and concatenative discourse connectivity, extending into later childhood. On the basis of the available data, an acquisitional sequencing cannot be established at the present stage, but one might hypothesize that those procedures of işte which are responsible for its employment with a wide, discourse-related perspective are acquired earlier, whereas its functionally expanded aspects, which make for an additional usage type with a narrow, utterance-internal operational scope, are acquired later. This at least would account for the differences between the monolingual children and the adults. With respect to the monolingual children, one could argue that they are at some advanced acquisitional stage without as yet having reached the competence level of the adults. With regard to the bilingual children, one could expect there to be (individually) less interactional experience in Turkish, less involvement in concatenative discourse (both as hearers and speakers), and therefore a postponed and less reliable unfolding of the full functional potential of işte. This might be compensated for by an increased reliance on temporal deictic means instead (such as o zaman ‘at that time, then’, see Table 1), thereby creating a more economical bilingual system of discourse marking and coordination, roughly in keeping with the suggestions made by Matras (2000a).

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk 

Notes This work was funded within the framework of the project SKOBI “Linguistic Connectivity in Turkish-German Bilingual Children” with Jochen Rehbein as principal investigator, at the SFB 538 Mehrsprachigkeit (Collaborative Research Centre 538 Multilingualism) by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation). My thanks further include the participants of the International Colloquium on “Connectivity in Multilingual Settings” held at the University of Hamburg (18th – 20th November, 2004), those of Kristin Bührig’s and Jochen Rehbein’s Kolloquium “Pragmatik – Deutsch als Fremdsprache” at the Institut für Germanistik I at the University of Hamburg (session of 30th November, 2005), and those of the Workshop “Sprachforschung und Sprachlehre”, held at the University of Hamburg (20th to 21st January, 2006). Birsel Karakoç and Jochen Rehbein generously discussed various aspects of the data and gave valuable insights as well as helpful literature hints. Gülden Akgün, Rasim Aksoy, Ayşe Ars­ lan, Ezel Babur, Ünal Bilir, Yasemin Ergin, Nesrin Esen, Nurkan Darıcalı, Tuba Özcan, Tülay Selçuk, Eylem Şentürk, Filiz Taşdemir, Esra Yaman, Hatice Yıldırım, and Seçil Yusun provided valuable help with the collection, transcription, transformation and administration of the data. My thanks also go to two anonymous reviewers for valuable hints and ideas. Furthermore, without the children’s and their families’ friendly cooperation and patient participation in the project’s longitudinal recording sessions, there would have been no data in the first place. *

1. Tentative and very approximate translations of işte into English would cover a range of expressions: so, and, well, there you are, here we go, that’s the way it is, consequently etc. 2. See Rehbein (1999) for a definition of the term ‘connectivity’. 3.

But see Schiffrin (1987) for an earlier use of the term, in a different framework.

4. In the present paper, the terms ‘usage’ and ‘use’ are meant to refer to a systematic employment of forms for communicative purposes, part of linguistic competence and not to be confounded with another concept of these terms, referring to arbitrariness and performance. 5. In connection with conjunctions, Kerslake (1996: 78) speaks of ‘structural’ coordination, as opposed to the ‘adverbial’ status of elements functioning at the discourse level. While it seems problematic to limit one’s concept of ‘structure’ to an intra-utterance (or, for that matter, intrasentential) domain, one might also wonder what should exclude adverbial elements from being involved in structural mechanisms. The notion of a possible transition area between conjunctive adverbials and coordinating conjunctions has some interest though and will be brought up again in the course of the argumentation. 6. See Schourup (1985) for an earlier attempt at also taking into account a function with respect to undisclosed or unexpressed thinking, with “speakers as thinkers with one foot in the collaborative world of talk and the other in the internal world of their thoughts” (Yılmaz 2004: 25). Discourse markers used in this sense then externalize hidden mental processes such as planning, thereby serving as floor holders, among other things. 7. Whereas Mithun, focusing on the first three types, dismisses the fourth type to a realm of “pragmatic, discourse level” linking, a functional-pragmatic understanding attributes pragmatic relevance to all four types. As the examples will subsequently show, it is the very tension between morpho-syntactic-level marking on the one hand and discourse-level interpretation on the other which makes coordination an intriguing subject of research.

 Annette Herkenrath 8. The concept of ‘deixis’ referred to by Yılmaz differs from the functional-pragmatic concept. In a functional-pragmatic framework, what is central with respect to the workings of a deictic expression is its working on the mental domain of a hearer, i.e. its focusing the hearer’s attention on some object. The object focused on may belong to one of various spaces: action space, perception space, common knowledge space, thought or imagination space, and text or discourse space. 9. The author would like to thank Angelika Redder and Jutta Fienemann (p.c., 21st January, 2006) for bringing to her attention this second possibility as well as Jochen Rehbein and Birsel Karakoç for further discussing it. 10. See the next subsection for a brief introduction of the functional-pragmatic terms relevant to this study. 11. The author is grateful to Birsel Karakoç for this observation, for the valuable literature hints, and for discussions of the history of the mentioned expressions in several Turkic languages. 12. For the functional-pragmatic development of the theory of linguistic fields see Ehlich (1979, 1986 etc.), for a first formulation Bühler (1934/1999). 13. See Rehbein and Kameyama (2004) or Rehbein (this volume) for a recent terminological overview, as well as Ehlich et al. (2006) for a list of functional-pragmatic terms in German, English, and Dutch. 14. The translations are problematic and can only be approximate in that the English counterparts have different usages, histories, and procedural compositions. 15. In the transcriptions of the SKOBI and ENDFAS recordings, utterance boundaries are encoded by means of full stops, question or exclamation marks as well as a special sign marking the utterance-equivalent status of interjections. These are the HIAT standards (cf. Rehbein et al. 1993 and 2004), on which the project-internal standards are also based and according to which the recorded flow of speech is segmented into utterances in the process of the transcription. 16. ‘Phoric’ procedures are operative procedures that refer back or forward to symbolic or deictic units of verbalization representing concepts or actants at the level of the propositional content in a discourse unit. They create a continuity of actants and concepts in the mental space of the hearer. Depending on its reference direction, a phoric expression can be either anaphoric or cataphoric. 17. These can be rather unspecific, as in the case of und ‘and’, realizing a general replanning ex post, sometimes introducing an in-depth elaboration of what has previously been verbalized. Und ‘and’ usually connects two verbal units of the same categories. They can also be more specific, as in the case of aber ‘but’, which additionally expresses a propositional attitude, such as a negative presupposition, with regard to the relation between the two parts connected. What the different procedures have in common is that they operate on the propositional content of the utterances related, qualifying it with regard to the discourse knowledge of the hearer. 18. This description most closely fits the phenomena under study. In other cases however, procedures such as intonation contours or word order mechanisms may simply transcend the category of word boundary and apply at suprasegmental or syntactic levels. 19. For reasons of space restrictions, there will be only two examples. Since ‘examples’ in functional-pragmatic methodology comprise relatively large segments of discourse, each of them will cover several pages and contain several occurrences of işte. There will be thirteen occurrences all in all, each of which will be analyzed in some depth, in systematic consideration of the

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  communicative constellations in which they occur (see Rehbein and Kameyama 2004 for a recent explanation of the functional-pragmatic concept of ‘constellation’ as well as for original references). As an anonymous reviewer suggested, it would be desirable to have more examples, as indeed an earlier, unpublished, version of this paper did. On the other hand, it would be difficult to present additional, shorter, examples in isolation, dissociated from their constellations. Therefore, space limitations seem to allow for just these two examples. 20. The transcriptions follow the HIAT standards published in Rehbein et al. (1993, 2004), as well as the standards of the project SKOBI. These standards involve the representation of spoken language in partiture format, i.e. comprising one tier for each speaker, as well as annotational tiers for translations, morphological transliterations, suprasegmental phenomena, acoustic nonverbal phenomena, and comments. The idea is to give, among other things, an adequate representation of the simultaneity relations of spoken language. 21. The term ‘child’ is used here in the meaning of ‘a given child at a given age’. 22. Emrah is one of the bilingual children of the corpus and one might question the representativity of his usage of işte for the general, including the monolingual, one. The example was chosen for being highly illustrative for this type; in fact, there are similar usages in the monolingual data. As native speakers Ezel Babur and Birsel Karakoç (p.c.) confirm, this particular example does not differ from the monolingual usage. 23. The term ‘score area’ (Partiturfläche) refers to a line of transcription as broken down to page format, in principle corresponding to a partiture line of musical notation, i.e. consisting of several tiers in itself, cf. note 20 as well as Rehbein et al. (1993, 2004) for the HIAT conventions. 24. See Erdal (1999) on the function of the postfinite position in Turkish. 25. In her study on the German complex expression auf jeden Fall ‘in any case, anyway’, Bührig (2003) argues for an operative quality on the grounds that, as an overall effect of the communicative contributions realized by the individual procedural components, the speaker gains access to the mental domain of the hearer, taking her knowledge as a basis on which to build the progression of her narration or argumentation. By evoking the existence of this previous hearer knowledge, the speaker at the same time intervenes in the mental actions of the hearer, thereby achieving a coordination of the ‘speech time space’ (Sprechzeitraum) and the psychic actions of S and H. One could say that in spite of all the differences between the two expressions, both make connective use of categorized hearer knowledge. In the case of auf jeden Fall, the hearer knowledge is categorized as potentially diverse and even in contradiction with the conclusions the speaker is about to draw. With işte, the knowledge is categorized as basically shared and identical with the speaker’s own assumptions. 26. This process does not necessarily entail a loss of deictic qualities: as one anonymous reviewer also pointed out, these can be part of the grammatical meaning. They do however end up superseded by the newly integrated operative procedure. 27. The question of whether or not one is justified in speaking of ‘coordination’ is still in need of clarification. Rehbein (p.c., 21st August 2006) argues that while connectivity can be realized by deictic means, coordination is crosslinguistically realized by means of operative, and never deictic procedures (e.g. Rehbein and Karakoç 2004). Analyzing an expression such as işte as (para-)deictic and coordinative at the same time would lead to incongruent assumptions. Before qualifying as a coordinator, işte would therefore have to qualify as (para-)operative. (The argumentation of the present paper however is slightly different, in that the connectivity of işte is seen as a function of its knowledge-categorizing rather than of its deictic qualities.) Haspel-

 Annette Herkenrath math (2004), working on syntactic coordination, bases his argumentation on a criterium of symmetry, which he then refines and thereby partly revises. Rehbein (1995), working on discourse coordination and thus including both utterance-internal and inter-utterance coordination, also includes connectivity between syntactically asymmetrical units. 28. As it seems, işte is frequently positioned in the vicinity of the syntactic borderline between topic and comment. The function of işte however is not to mark the topic/comment border (which is often achieved by the particle dA), but rather to mark the thematic part of the proposition as the first package to be stored away in discourse memory and to free the hearer’s attention for the ensuing rhematic part. 29. Mithun (1988), Hoffmann (p.c. January 21st, 2006), Haspelmath (2004). 30. This is not to be confounded with a strengthening of the deictic or incitive procedures; rather, what one could say is that in the bilingual data, and more generally with younger speakers on the whole, the para-operative use of işte seems to have the status of a minor pattern in the sense of Heine and Kuteva (2005), whereas it is a major pattern in the monolingual use and, more generally, with older and more experienced speakers. The decrease of type 3 realizations also adds up to a generally less frequent employment of işte in the bilingual data.

Abbreviations 3SG ABL ACC CAU CDCOP CMP CND COM COP CVCOP DAT DEI DER NMN DIM EQU FUT GEN ICOP IJ INS

3rd person singular Ablative Accusative Causative Conditional copula Comparative Conditional Comitative Copula Converbial copula Dative Deixis Derivational suffix Nominalizer Diminutive Equative Future Genitive Indirective copula Interjection Instrumental

INT LOC MOD NEG OPT PAR PAS PL POP PRS PSS PST PTC PTE PTECOP Q REC REF SUP VN

Intensifier Locative Modal Negation Optative Participle Passive Plural Postposition Present tense Possessive Past tense Particle Postterminality (-mIş) Postterminality copula Interrogativity marker Reciprocal Reflexive Superlative Verbal Noun

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk 

References Backus, A. 1996. Two in One. Bilingual speech of Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Boeschoten, H. 1997. Codeswitching, codemixing, and code alternation. Codeswitching Worldwide, R. Jacobson (ed.), 15–24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bühler, K. 1934/19993 Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius. Bührig, K. 2003. Zur Strukturierung von Diskurs und Hörerwissen: auf jeden Fall im alltäglichen Erzählen und in der Hochschulkommunikation. In Funktionale Syntax. Die pragmatische Perspektive, L. Hoffmann (ed.), 249–269. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Clauson, Sir G. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon. Ehlich, K. 1979. Verwendungen der Deixis beim sprachlichen Handeln. Linguistisch-philogogische Untersuchungen zum hebräischen deiktischen System [Forum Linguisticum 24, Teil 1]. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Ehlich, K. 1986. Interjektionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ehlich, K. 1991. Funktional-pragmatische Kommunikationsanalyse. Verbale Interaktion. Studien zur Empirie und Methodologie der Pragmatik, D. Flader (ed.), 127–143. Stuttgart: Metzler. Ehlich, K., Mackenzie, L., Rehbein, J., Thielmann, W. & ten Thije, J. D. 2006. A German-EnglishDutch Glossary for Functional Pragmatics. Chemnitz: Technische Universität. Erdal, M. 1999. Das Nachfeld im Türkischen und im Deutschen. Türkisch und Deutsch im Vergleich, L. Johanson and J. Rehbein, J. (eds), 53–94. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ergin, M. 1993. Türk Dil Bilgisi. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları. Eyuboğlu, İ. Z. 1991. Türk Dilinin Etimoloji Sözlüğü. Genişletilmiş ve gözden geçirilmiş ikinci basım. İstanbul: Sosyal Yayınlar. Fienemann, J. 2005. Erzählen in zwei Sprachen. Diskursanalytische Untersuchung von Erzählungen auf Deutsch und Französisch. [Reihe Mehrsprachigkeit 18]. Münster: Waxmann. Gencan, T. N. 1975. Dilbilgisi. Istanbul: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları. Hacıeminoğlu, N. 1992. Türk Dilinde Edatlar. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. 1988. Introduction. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, J. Haiman and S. Thompson (eds), ix-xiii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haiman, J. and Thompson, S. (eds). 1988. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, M. 2004. Coordinating constructions: An overview. In Coordinating Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 58], M. Haspelmath (ed.), 3–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: CUP. Herkenrath, A., Karakoç, B. and Rehbein, J. 2003. Interrogative elements as subordinators in Turkish: Aspects of Turkish-German bilingual children’s language use. (In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism [Hamburg Studies in Multilingualism 1], N. Müller (ed.), 221–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Johanson, L. 1975/1991. Some Remarks on Turkic ‘Hypotaxis’. In Linguistische Beiträge zur Gesamtturkologie, L. Johanson (ed.), 210–224. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadió. Johanson, L. 1996. Kopierte Satzjunktoren im Türkischen. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49(1): 39–49.

 Annette Herkenrath Kerslake, C. 1996. The role of connectives in discourse construction in Turkish. In Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 12–14 August 1992, Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Türkiye, A. Konrot (ed.), 77–104. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi. Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Maschler, Y. 1997. Emergent bilingual grammar: The case of contrast. Journal of Pragmatics 28(3): 279–313. Maschler, Y. 2000. Toward fused lects: Discourse markers in Hebrew-English bilingual conversation twelve years later. International Journal of Bilingualism 4(4): 529–561. Matras, Y. 2000a. Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. Bilingualism 4(4): 505–528. Matras, Y. 2000b. Mixed languages: A functional-communicative approach. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3(2): 79–99. Mithun, M. 1988. The grammaticisation of coordination. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, J. Haiman and S. A. Thompson (eds), 331–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mithun, M. 2003. Functional perspectives on syntactic change. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda (eds), 552–572. Oxford: Blackwell. Özbek, N. 2000. Yani, işte, şey, ya: interactional markers of Turkish. Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, A. Göksel and C. Kerslake (eds), 393–401. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Redder, A. 1990. Grammatiktheorie und sprachliches Handeln: denn und da. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rehbein, J. 1980. Sequentielles Erzählen. Erzählstrukturen von Immigranten bei Sozialberatungen in England. Erzählen im Alltag, K. Ehlich (ed.), 64–108. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Rehbein, J. 1995. Aber, also, und, auch – Prozeduren der Diskurskoordinierung. Ms. Deutsche Fassung von: aber, also, und, auch – elements of chaining in German discourse. Paper read at the Workshop on Discourse Markers and the Representation of Text. January 9–11, 1995 in Egmond aan Zee. Rehbein, J. 1999. Konnektivität im Kontrast. Zu Struktur und Funktion türkischer Konverbien und deutscher Konjunktionen, mit Blick auf ihre Verwendung durch monolinguale und bilinguale Kinder. In Türkisch und Deutsch im Vergleich, L. Johanson and J. Rehbein (eds), 189–244. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rehbein, J. 2001. Turkish in European Societies. Lingua e Stile XXXVI-2: 317–334. Rehbein, J. 2006a. Ki – Form and function of a Turkish particle and its contact-induced reinterpretation by bilingual children. Talk presented at the 13th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, August 16–20, 2006, Uppsala, Sweden. To appear in the proceedings. Rehbein, J. 2006b. Matrix constructions. This volume. Rehbein, J., Grießhaber, W., Löning, P., Hartung, M. and Bührig, K. 1993. Manual für das computergestützte Transkribieren mit dem Programm SyncWRITER nach dem Verfahren der Halbinterpretativen Arbeitstranskriptionen (HIAT). Universität Hamburg: Institut für Germanistik I. Rehbein, J. and Kameyama, S. 2004. Pragmatik. Sociolinguistics / Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society (2nd ed.), U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier and P. Trudgill (eds), 556–588. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Rehbein, J. and Karakoç, B. 2004. On contact-induced language change of Turkish aspects: Languaging in bilingual discourse. Languaging and Language Practices [Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism Vol. 36], C. B. Dabelsteen and N. J. Jørgensen (eds), 129–155. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. Rehbein, J., Schmidt, T., Meyer, B., Watzke, F. and Herkenrath, A. 2004. Handbuch für das computergestützte Transkribieren nach HIAT [Arbeitspapiere zur Mehrsprachigkeit / Working

Discourse coordination in Turkish monolingual and Turkish-German bilingual children’s talk  Papers in Multilingualism, Folge B, Nr. 56]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, Sonderforschungsbereich 538 Mehrsprachigkeit. Schegloff, E. A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. Interaction and Grammar [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13], E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff and S. A. Thompson (eds), xxx-xxx. Cambridge: CUP. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Schiffrin, D. 2001. Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton (eds) 54–75. Oxford: Blackwell. Schourup, L. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation: ‘like’, ‘well’, ‘y‘know’. New York NY: Garland. Şimşek, Y. 2003. Biographisches Erzählen. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gliedernder Elemente. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, Institut für Germanistik I, Magisterarbeit. Stolz, T. 1998. UND, MIT und/oder UND/MIT? – Koordination, Instrumental und Komitativ – kymrisch, typologisch und universell. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51 (2): 107–130. Yılmaz, E. 2004. A Pragmatic Analysis of Turkish Discourse Particles: yani, işte, and şey. PhD dissertation, Gaduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical University.

section 5

Adverbials, particles and constructions

Modal adverbs as discourse markers A bilingual approach to the study of indeed* Karin Aijmer Göteborg University Indeed has many meanings and is sometimes regarded as a discourse marker. There are several approaches to analyse the meaning and uses of indeed. One method involves viewing synchronic variation as resulting from semantic and pragmatic change in the framework of grammaticalization theory. The focus in the present article is on how translation corpora can give us a richer picture of the multifunctionality of indeed. Another issue is how we can describe the functions of indeed in argumentative terms.

1. Introduction Modal adverbs of certainty such as certainly, of course, indeed, in fact have many meanings and are sometimes regarded as discourse markers. Indeed illustrates many of the problems we encounter when we try to analyse modal adverbs. Indeed does not mean the same in Is he indeed? and I will indeed do it and it has a different meaning as a discourse marker (Indeed, I have never seen anything like it). In the first example indeed seems to have very little to do with certainty and expresses the speaker’s surprise. The second example illustrates indeed as a truth-emphasizer. As a discourse marker in the third example it signals the relationship between a preceding and upcoming sentence. How are these meanings related? Are the meanings semantic or pragmatic? There are several approaches to analyse the meaning and uses of indeed. We can look at synchronic variation as resulting from semantic and pragmatic change. Indeed expands its meaning from epistemic and subjective and acquires rhetorical functions. This approach also involves considering the role of grammaticalization since the changes result in a shift from adverb to discourse marker status. In this article I will use translations from English into Swedish to describe the polysemy of indeed.The data from translations are interesting because of the rich input they provide to a description of the multifunctionality of indeed both as an adverb and a discourse marker. The basic idea is this. If lexical elements have several meanings in the source language we can expect the richness of the meanings of indeed to be mir-

 Karin Aijmer

rored in the translations into the target language (Dyvik 2004). The target language therefore gives a sharper or more fine-grained picture of multifunctionality than if we look at the source language only. The paper is organised as follows. The indexicality of modal adverbs is discussed in Section 2. Another property of the modal adverbs such as indeed is that they are used with rhetorical, argumentative functions, i.e. to influence the hearer’s assumptions and expectations (Section 3). In Section 4 the focus is on grammaticalization and how it explains the relationship between different functions. Section 5 contains the main part of this paper and discusses the contribution of a contrastive approach to the study of the polysemy of indeed.

2. Modality and indexicality Many linguistic forms can be used indexically to refer to situational dimensions (Ochs 1996: 411). Indexicality is present in deictic systems such as pronouns, tense, certain adverbs, where it accounts for the dependence between the deictic items and features of the context such as time and space. Stance is another situational dimension which is widely indexed in languages of the world and ‘stance-markers’ can index types of (epistemic or affective) attitude and degrees of affective intensity or strength of commitment. Indeed is for example indexically linked to epistemic stance and can be used to take up positions to what is said, to the hearer, to assumptions which are attributed to the hearer or to people in general. Stance markers have epistemic, social and interactional (rhetorical) meanings. They can for instance express stance while indirectly entailing (other) features of the social context such as social identity (Ochs 1996: 410). We will see below how indeed has both the meaning of a high degree of certainty and the social meaning speaker authority. We also need to consider the rhetorical and interactional effects of framing a proposition as certain on the negotiation of what is said. Indeed indexes a high degree of certainty or commitment to the truth of a proposition. It is related to other modal adverbs such as actually or in fact which express certainty as part of their meaning. Because they have a similar meaning they share many functions. However the adverbs differ with regard to what meanings (or implicatures) have become conventionalised. In fact has for instance adversative meaning as a coded meaning while indeed has conventionalised the meanings agreement or confirmation (Traugott and Dasher 2002: 162).



Modal adverbs as discourse markers – a bilingual approach to the study of indeed 

3. Modality and argumentation Modal adverbs meaning certainty can implicate uncertainty. As a result adverbs such as no doubt come to mean probability rather than certainty. Modal adverbs such as indeed on the other hand are ‘arguing words’ reflecting the speaker’s rhetorical engagement in the dialogue. Biber and Finegan (1989: 114), found that indeed and adverbs of similar meaning are characteristic of a style they refer to as ‘oral controversial persuasion’: a style that ‘seems to represent an overtly persuasive stance adopted in oral, informational discourse where there is a certain amount of controversy or disagreement concerning the topic of discussion’ (Biber and Finegan 1989: 115). The larger issue that I deal with in this paper is how we can describe the adverbs and markers in rhetorical terms. Pragmatic theories such as speech act theory are not of much help to explain the rhetorical or persuasive function of pragmatic markers, although Searle’s distinction between illocutionary function (act meaning intended by the speaker) and perlocutionary function (act meaning interpreted by others) recognizes the importance of rhetorical uptake in communication (cf. Ochs 1996: 414). The model I will use to analyse indeed is Peter White’s theory of engagement (2000, 2003). The theory construes meanings in social terms and gives priority to how textual and above all interpersonal meanings are negotiated in the communication situation. Indeed is not only epistemic (expressing a high degree of certainty) but serves as a rhetorical move in ‘a dialogic confrontation’ to take up a variety of attitudinal stances. As a result it can invite an interpretation where the speaker envisages some opposition.

(1) The inept plots against the Soviet regime devised by Western diplomats and intelligence officers in Russia during the summer of 1918 never posed any serious threat to the Bolsheviks. Indeed the Cheka seemed positively anxious to encourage the plotters to enlarge their plots in order to win a propaganda victory by exposing them. (CAOG1)1

Indeed marks a repositioning by the speaker (or writer) for the purpose of clarifying the claim in the preceding text (the plots by Western diplomats never posed any serious threats to the Bolsheviks). When we investigate a marker such as indeed we find that it can have a number of rhetorical functions such as “proclaiming”, mildly disclaiming, concessive, elaboration, strengthening reflecting the flexibility of the notion stance (cf. White 2003). Stance may vary depending on the assumptions and especially counterassumptions which the speaker attributes to the hearer or the reader: these are positions which are in some way alternatives to that being advanced by the text (this alternative position could also be adopted by an imagined opponent or people in general) (cf. White 2003: 261).

 Karin Aijmer

4. Indeed and grammaticalization We are lucky to have an earlier analysis of the developments of indeed by Traugott and Dasher (2002). Their analysis is diachronic and deals with the development of the pragmatic and rhetorical functions of this and related modal adverbials in the history of English. However, the description is also of interest synchronically because it provides a principled account of the polysemy and multifunctionality of indeed. Indeed (= indeed1) starts out as an ‘adverbial of respect’ (answering the question ‘With respect to what’ (cf. ‘in action’/’in practice’). This meaning is no longer represented by indeed in present-day English, where indeed is either an epistemic sentence adverb [I will indeed do it] or a discourse marker. The meaning as a discourse marker (indeed3) can be derived from the epistemic meaning by implicature: ‘if SP/W indicates commitment to the veridicality of q, then he or she is committed to the belief that the expression (verbal form) of q is better, more appropriate, etc. than the form of p’(Traugott and Dasher 2002: 164). For example, when indeed functions as a response move it is epistemic (yes indeed). Initial position is a point on the grammaticalization cline and a change in position (and scope) results in the recruitment of indeed to the class of discourse markers. The discourse marker indeed specifies the type of sequential discourse relationship somewhat like ‘what’s more’ that holds between the current utterance and the preceding discourse. Or to quote Traugott and Dasher (2002: 164): ‘The adverb signals that what follows is not only in agreement with what precedes, but is additional evidence being brought to bear on the argument.’

(2) But though the LSRs had left the government, remarkably they remained in the Cheka. Indeed, according to the LSR version of events, Dzerzhinsky pleaded with them to stay, telling their leader, Maria Spiridonova, that, without their support, he would ‘no longer be able to tame the bloodthirsty impulses in [Cheka] ranks’. (CAOG1)

The process by means of which new meanings arise can be represented as scales for example going from non-subjective to subjective and sometimes to intersubjective or from content (meaning) to procedural meaning. Subjectification takes centre-stage as the mechanism motivating semantic and pragmatic changes and is needed to explain the development of discourse markers and their meanings encoding beliefs and attitudes (Traugott and Dasher 2002: 30) Semantic changes may be triggered by the communicative needs of the participants and result in an enrichment of pragmatic meanings (cf. Schwenter and Traugott 2000). Speakers exploit the conversational implicatures (‘invited inferences’) to arrive at new interpretations. The new meanings which come into existence by inferencing can be more or less conventionalized and may over time appear as semantic and pragmatic polysemies.



Modal adverbs as discourse markers – a bilingual approach to the study of indeed 

5. The contrastive analysis There are several reasons for looking at translations of indeed in a corpus. First, the translations constitute paradigms representing a broad spectrum of meanings. Although the translations are not a paradigm in the traditional sense of representing lexical oppositions this analysis complements the syntagmatic picture of the meaning of indeed. Second, we get more correspondences or meanings than if we consult a dictionary or use introspection. Third, we get information about what meanings of the source item are most frequent or salient. The contrastive analysis of indeed is based on the English-Swedish Parallel Corpus. The corpus contains a large number of English and Swedish original texts making it possible to study translations in two directions. The text extracts range from 10,000 to 15,000 words and consist of translations by different professional translators. The texts represent fiction and non-fiction in roughly equal proportions. The size of the whole corpus is close to 3 million words (Altenberg and Aijmer 2000). The linguist using this kind of data to support a hypothesis or to discover correspondences between two languages is interested in the choices made by the translators as native (target) speaker informants. The translator is a person with a good bilingual knowledge whose role it is to make bilingual judgments in order to find the most appropriate translation. For example, the translator has to make a decision about the meaning of indeed in a large number of contexts. Translations can therefore supplement the picture we get of different meanings of indeed on the basis of grammaticalization and the syntagmatic analysis based on syntactic factors such as position or collocation. Semantics becomes tangible when we can tap bilingual speakers’ semantic intuitions as reflected in the translated product. Compare also Noël (2002: 177): In other words, the translator is used as linguistic informant, for there is no artificial experimental context and the “subjects” are completely unaware of their role (see also Dyvik 1998: 51). The problem of the “observer’s paradox” (how to observe without changing the context of what should be observed) does not arise therefore.

Translations as data for linguistic research must be used with caution since they reflect features of the translation process. There are bad translations; translators have individual ‘styles’ and lexical items and grammatical constructions in the source languge leave traces in the translated product. Moreover there are stylistic differences between orignals and translation, such as the greater explicitness of the target text. By using a large number of translations of high quality and many different translators we can establish correspondences which are representative of the languages compared. The method of using a translation corpus also makes it possible to check the validity of the correspondences by looking at translations in both directions. In this study I have only looked at translations into a single language. The analysis can be extended and more reliable results be achieved by looking at translations into more languages and by using both translations and sources.

 Karin Aijmer

5.1

The mirror image method

Translations show that indeed has many different meanings and that some correspondences between form and meaning are frequent (see Table 1). Table 1.  Swedish translations of ‘indeed’ in fiction and non-fiction texts in the EnglishSwedish Parallel Corpus Swedish translations verkligen (‘really’) faktiskt (‘in fact’) i själva verket (‘as a matter of fact’) rentav (‘practically’) (ja) minsann (‘yes’), jajamänsan mycket riktigt (‘very much the case’) och naturligtvis (‘and of course’) i sanning (‘in truth’ också (‘also’) faktum är/var att (‘the fact is /was’) ja (‘yes’) mycket väl/bra (‘very well’) t.o.m (‘even’) eller ens (‘or even’) ju sannerligen (‘truly as you know’) egentligen (‘actually’) italics och (‘and’) nu faktiskt (‘now in fact’) formligen (‘really’) fastän (‘although’) visst (‘certainly’) för den delen (‘for that matter) väldigt (‘really.. indeed’) jättemycket (‘very much’) jovisst (‘certainly’) i stället … faktiskt (‘instead… actually’) och vilket är viktigt (‘and what is important’) ju faktiskt (‘in fact as you know’) men (‘but’) och till och med (‘and even’) och rent av (‘and practically’)

Fiction

Non-fiction

Total

6 6 1

14 13 9 4 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 2

20 19 10 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1



Modal adverbs as discourse markers – a bilingual approach to the study of indeed 

Swedish translations och även (‘and even’) och i hög grad (‘and to a large extent’) blott och (‘only and’) utmärkt (‘extremely’) tvärtom (‘on the other hand’) om ens (‘if even’) visst.. men (‘certainly… but’) om sanningen ska fram (‘to tell the truth’) förvisso (‘certainly’) ø other

Fiction

Non-fiction

Total

4 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 4

There were 42 different translations not counting omission (28 examples and thus more frequent than other alternatives) or ‘other’ (free) translations. Indeed was more frequent in non-fiction, which can be expected from the fact that it has been shown to be mainly argumentative. In the non-fiction corpus we find for example a number of political public speeches. Some translations seem to have the same meaning although there may be stylistic differences between them. This may explain why there are so many translations and, especially, so many infrequent or singleton translations. On the other hand, verkligen (‘really’) and faktiskt (‘in fact’) cannot be exchanged for each other as translations. We can therefore conclude that they signal different meanings of indeed.

6. The mirror image of indeed 6.1. Translations of ‘indeed’ marking a high degree of commitment The translations show that indeed expresses a high degree of certainty. In (3) the translator has chosen i sanning (’in truth’) indicating that the meaning is epistemic. In a dialogic view of language, however, the function of indeed goes beyond the epistemic meaning. The speaker adopts an attitude (choosing a value of certainty on the epistemic scale) to the proposition or to an implicit or explicit proposal by the hearer, not to indicate something about his or her knowledge but to insist upon his/her point of view when it can be doubted or is in contrast with a preceding proposal or assumption:

(3) […] he treated his men fairly when he was an employer, and when he came to have money he gave generously to charity and to the Liberal Party. Indeed, the Liberal Party was, after Marie-Louise and one other, the great love of his life. (RDA1)

 Karin Aijmer

Som arbetsgivare behandlade han sina män rättvist, och när han blev förmögen gav han generösa bidrag till välgörande ändamål och till det liberala partiet. ������������������������� Det liberala partiet var i sanning näst Marie-Louise och ytterligare en person hans livs stora kärlek. The translation förvisso (‘certainly’) indicates not only certainty but that the speaker/ writer identifies him/herself as the authority. When indeed occurs together with a degree adverb (‘very’) it has narrow scope and expresses intensification (‘a switch which is indeed very big’): (4) That is a very big switch indeed. (EJAC1) Det är förvisso en mycket stor minskning. In the combination yes indeed the adverb expresses agreement, for example if it is implied that that there is some doubt about the truth of what is asserted in the preceding declarative sentence (Swedish ja, jajamän, jaminsann). (5)

Her parents didn’t browbeat her; it was the situation itself that overwhelmed her. It was panic and despair. —Yes, indeed, said the Daimon. (RDA1) Det var inte föräldrarna som kuvade henne, det var själva situationen som blev överväldigande. Paniken och förtvivlan. – Ja, minsann, sa daimon Maimas. In example (6) the translation as ja ‘yes’ suggests that indeed has epistemic meaning (‘agreement’) but the initial position suggests that it is indeterminate between an epistemic interpretation and a discourse-marking function:

(6) It is quite possible that in the temperate zone there may be one or two habitable Earths... Indeed, if [this other part of the world] is inhabited, it is not inhabited by men such as exist in our parts, and we should have to regard it as another inhabited world. (CSA1) Det är fullt möjligt att det inom den tempererade zonen finns en eller två beboeliga jordar... Ja, om (denna ytterligare del av världen) är bebodd, är den inte bebodd av människor sådana som finns i vår del av världen, och vi skulle nödgas att betrakta den såsom en annan bebodd värld. To sum up, in interactional terms the proposition is arguable and leaves the speaker the choice of how to represent him/herself. In the examples I have looked at indeed indexes the authoritative status of the speaker or writer. In no example does the speaker/writer sound uncertain. As underlined by the translations the speaker/writer appears as a hundred per cent certain and uses the adverb persuasively to strengthen an



Modal adverbs as discourse markers – a bilingual approach to the study of indeed 

argument. Indeed is an example of what White (2003: 269) calls ‘pronouncements’ (a subclass of a larger class or proclamations). ‘Under PRONOUNCEMENT, we are concerned with intensifications, authorial emphases or explicit authorial interventions or interpolations. By such, the textual voice conveys [a heightened emotional investment] and thereby confronts a contrary position.’

However in the examples given the contrary position is very weak. The speaker/writer uses indeed to identify him/herself as the authority for argumentative purposes.

6.2. Translations of ‘indeed’ expressing emphasis Indeed also has emphatic use as seen by its translations as verkligen ‘really’. The position of indeed is medial (after the verb) indicating that indeed is an adverb with modal meaning and not a discourse marker:

(7) The innocent use of that slippery concept “adaptation” is another path to damnation. Earth is indeed the best of all worlds for those who are adapted to it. (JL1) Tanklös användning av det hala begreppet “anpassning” är en annan väg till förbannelse. Jorden är verkligen den bästa av alla världar för dem som har anpassat sig till den.

(8) My discussion with local, regional and national companies and organizations representing the textile sector indicates that your action plan is indeed very welcome. (EMCC1) Mina diskussioner med lokala, regionala och nationella företag och organisationer som företräder textilsektorn visar att er handlingsplan verkligen hälsas med glädje. When indeed is translated by verkligen (‘really’) it is concerned with intensification and emphasis (White 2003: 269).There must be some explanation why the speaker uses emphasis. The translation shows that the function of indeed is slightly ‘disclaiming’ rather than ‘proclaiming’ in a dialogic perspective. Verkligen carries the pragmatic meaning that the information provided is surprising or that the speaker is arguing against an imagined or constructed dialogic opponent and therefore adds some emphasis to confirm the claim.

6.3. Translations of ‘indeed’ signalling elaboration In (9), faktiskt has been used to translate the adverbial indeed. Faktiskt is emphatic (i.e. epistemic) but it conveys that something is unexpected, surprising or remarkable (cf the translation verkligen in example 8):

 Karin Aijmer



(9) The thick and heavy door swung inwards to the right under pressure and a light came on automatically, shining in what did indeed seem exactly like a large walk-in cupboard, with rows of white cardboard boxes on several plain white-painted shelves stretching away along the lefthand wall. (DF1) Den tjocka och tunga dörren svängde inåt åt höger när jag tryckte på den. Ett ljus tändes automatiskt och lyste upp vad som faktiskt precis såg ut som en stor garderob med rader av vita papplådor på flera enkla, vitmålade hyllor som sträckte sig efter väggen på vänster hand. In (10), truth is not an issue but indeed is used for clarification or explanation. (10) Even we do not know the entire truth, brother, said the Daimon Maimas. Indeed, I’ve already forgotten much of what I did know when Francis was my entire concern. (RDA1) – Inte ens vi vet hela sanningen, broder, sa daimon Maimas. Jag har faktiskt redan glömt en hel del av det jag visste när jag hade hand om Francis på heltid. The argumentative function is elaboration. Halliday (1994: 225) describes ‘elaboration’ as follows: In ELABORATION, one clause elaborates on the meaning of another by further specifying or describing it. The secondary clause does not introduce a new element into the picture but rather provides a further characterization of one that is already there, restating it, clarifying it, refining it, or adding a descriptive attribute or comment.

In (10) indeed is a discourse marker. It brackets a unit of talk; it is separated from the framed structure and precedes it (cf Schiffrin 1987). Initial position lends itself to procedural rather than conceptual meaning: ‘[a marker having procedural meaning] denotes a specific procedure, in the sense of a way of guiding, or constraining the material which is to be recovered by pragmatic inference’ (Andersen 2000: 61; cf. also Blakemore 1987). In (11), faktiskt introduces an explanation why so-called viroids are very simple organisms; one could hardly imagine simpler organisms which are alive: (11) The smallest living things known, the viroids, are composed of less than 10,000 atoms. They cause several different diseases in cultivated plants and have probably most recently evolved from more complex organisms rather than from simpler ones. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a still simpler organism that is in any sense alive. (CSA1) De minsta levande varelser man känner, viroiderna, består av något mindre än 10 000 atomer. De vållar flera olika sjukdomar hos odlade växter och har



Modal adverbs as discourse markers – a bilingual approach to the study of indeed 

förmodligen helt nyligen utvecklats från mer komplexa organismer snarare än från enklare. Det är faktiskt svårt att tänka sig en ännu enklare organism, som skulle vara i någon bemärkelse levande. Like faktiskt, the translation i själva verket (‘indeed’) conveys the implicature that a refinement or a clarification of an earlier claim is made in the clause it introduces: (12) Our corn, or maize, has been bred for ten thousand generations to be more tasty and nutritious than its scrawny ancestors; indeed, it is so changed that it cannot even reproduce without human intervention. (CSA1) Vår majs har förädlats under tio tusen generationer till att bli mer närande och välsmakande än sina taniga föregångare. I själva verket är den så förändrad, att den inte ens kan fortplanta sig utan mänskligt ingripande. Even correspondences which are not frequent are interesting because they give evidence for the rhetorical functions we derive from epistemic meanings. In (13), it is not only the case that the speaker/writer knows something but indeed invites the inference that the hearer (or everyone) should know it as suggested by the translation ju (faktiskt) ‘as you or everyone should know’. (13) One further aspect where the British presidency conclusions agreed that further work was needed was better consideration of the changing role and functions of urban areas. I welcome the initiatives that were taken at the informal meeting. Indeed, the Presidency document on urban exchange produced a very good exchange of experience on looking at a comprehensive approach to regeneration, to tackle problems faced by disadvantaged people concentrated in particular areas, to look at town centre management and to address urban quality issues. (EMCC1) En ytterligare aspekt där det brittiska ordförandeskapets slutsatser innebar att mer arbete krävdes var större hänsynstagande till stadsområdenas förändrade roll och funktion. Jag välkomnar de initiativ som lades fram vid det informella mötet.Det är ju faktiskt så att ordförandeskapets dokument om förändring av stadsmiljön innebar ett mycket bra utbyte av erfarenheter när det gäller att se på ett heltäckande förhållningssätt till nyskapande, att ta itu med problem som missgynnade personer drabbas av som är koncentrerade till särskilda områden, att granska förvaltning av stadscentrum och att ta itu med frågor som rör en kvalitativ stadsmiljö. The possible rhetorical interpretation of indeed in (16) (see below), may go unnoticed if one has a syntagmatic perspective only on the meaning of indeed.

 Karin Aijmer

In many cases indeed was omitted in the translation. Omission reflects the fact that indeed may be redundant from a semantic perspective. For example in (14) the relationship expressed by the discourse marker can be inferred from the context: (14) Everything in that particular story showed where codes of conduct had begun to be discussed and debated. Indeed the acting President, Mr Santer, had put out a Code of Conduct for Commissioners and officials but it seemed it did not go far enough. (EELL1) Av hela detta speciella skeende har framgått när uppförandekoderna hade börjat diskuteras och debatteras. Den dåvarande ordföranden, herr Santer, hade satt upp en uppförandekod för kommissionärer och tjänstemän, men det verkar som om den inte var tillräckligt långtgående.

6.4

Translations of ‘indeed’ with the meaning concession

A meaning which is characteristic of argumentation but difficult to explain as elaborative is concession. It represents a stronger confrontation with an imagined or explicit opponent. It is rendered in the translation visst … men (‘certainly’ … ‘but’). (15) He had indeed moved from realism to non-representation to the abstract, but this was not the artist, but the pathology, advancing – advancing towards a profound visual agnosia, in which all powers of representation and imagery, all sense of the concrete, all sense of reality, were being destroyed. (OS1) Visst hade han gått från realism till det icke- föreställande till det abstrakta, men det var inte konstnären utan patologin som framskred – framskred mot en djupgående visuell agnosi vari all förmåga att framställa och återge i bild, allt sinne för det konkreta, allt sinne för verkligheten utplånades. The following but indicates that indeed is concessive. In interactional terms the speaker takes up a stance to the preceding discourse for rhetorical purposes in order to later reject the argument. Indeed acts as a challenge or as a rejection of another position adding to the interpersonal cost of rejecting the argument (counter-expectation).

6.5. Translations of ‘indeed’ with the meaning rhetorical addition And indeed is focalizing and has the meaning of adding new stronger evidence. The implication is that there are other alternatives but these are less strong or important than the one which is produced. The translations are for example och till och med (‘and even’), och vilket är viktigt (‘and what is important’).Thus in (16) the argument that the partnership will be with local authorities is strengthened by the argument that it will also be with the social partners:



Modal adverbs as discourse markers – a bilingual approach to the study of indeed 

(16) We simply want evidence that a partnership pact is going to be an operation with local authorities, with NGOs and, indeed, with the social partners. (EMCC1) Vi vill helt enkelt ha bevis för att ett partnerskapsavtal kommer att omfatta lokala myndigheter, med icke-statliga organisationer, och, vilket är viktigt, arbetsmarknadens parter. The speaker/writer imposes a rhetorical scale ranking p as stronger than q (cf Schwenter and Traugott 2000: 21 on rhetorical scales). For example we can deduce from the use of and indeed that social partners are ranked as more important than local authorities. In (17) the speaker strengthens the argument in the first utterance (much criticism was directed against Eisenhower as a soldier and commander) by adding that even his admirers conceded this. (17) Much criticism was thrust upon Eisenhower during the war and after its conclusion for his failings as a soldier, and indeed even his admirers concede that he was no battlefield commander. (MH1) Eisenhower fick utstå mycken kritik både under kriget och efter krigsslutet för sina brister som soldat, och till och med hans beundrare medger faktiskt att han inte var mycket till befälhavare i fält. In (18) the translator has used och naturligtvis (‘of course’) suggesting that the scale invoked is (or should be) accepted by everyone: (19) Mr President, it is right that this Parliament and indeed the Council and the Commission treat this matter with the utmost seriousness (EREA 1) Herr Talman! Det är riktigt att parlamentet och naturligtvis rådet och komissionen behandlar denna fråga med största allvar. Everyone should of course know that not only the Parliament but more important, the Council and the Commision treat the matter seriously (cf. ju above). The rhetorical scale is also illustrated in (20) where structural fund assistance is regarded as stronger than the Community competition policy. The translation with naturligtvis ‘of course’ indicates that the argument should be clear to everyone: (20) We know that concentration is the name of the game now in both the Community competition policy and indeed in structural fund assistance. (EMCC1) Vi vet att det nu är koncentration som är viktigt både för gemenskapens konkurrenspolitik och naturligtvis vad beträffar strukturfondsstöd. To sum up, the multifunctionality of indeed reflects what is characteristic of pragmatic markers (rather than of adverbs) in general. Pragmatic makers are extremely flexible

 Karin Aijmer

and allow the speaker/writer to take up an indefinite number of positionings aligning or disaligning him- or herself with the text or the hearer. As shown by the translations certain meanings are more salient and distinguished by their frequency as translations. This suggests that meanings which are only implicated (‘invited inferences’ in the terminology used by Traugott and Dasher 2002) can be conventionalized although they are not yet semantically coded. According to Levinson (2000), an important ‘step’ from pragmatic implicature to conventionalised or coded meaning is conventionalised implicatures. The extra layer of meaning (generalized conversational implicatures) is defined by Levinson as ‘a level of systematic pragmatic inference based not on direct computations about speaker-intentions but rather on general expectations about how language is normally used’. These expectations ‘give rise to presumptions, default inferences, about both content and force’ (Levinson 2000: 22). Such general expectations about how language works have been discussed by Grice (1975) and more recently by Levinson. Let us consider how such heuristics narrow down the range of possible extensions which can be derived from the meaning of indeed. For example the heuristic manner principle suggested by Levinson (2000: 38) (’what’s said in an abnormal way isn’t normal’) excludes the unmarked interpretation of indeed as certitude and draws attention to enriched interpretations such as that of elaborating a claim or adding new evidence or clarification. Such a theory does not privilege truth-conditional meaning over other types (Schwenter and Traugott 2000: 8) but indeed can have both semantic and pragmatic meanings as part of its polysemy. Moreover we can distinguish temporary and ad hoc meanings (such as unexpectedness and surprise) from those implicatures which ‘are on the way’ to becoming newly coded or ‘pragmaticalized’ meanings such as elaboration and clarification.

7. Conclusion So where do we end up? There are several meanings of indeed which we could call indeed1, indeed2 and indeed3, etc, indicating that both semantic and pragmatic polysemy (determined by implicature) is quite extensive. The existence of polysemy is not in itself surprising. We are finding more and more evidence that adverbs and discourse markers are polysemous and that they do not have a single meaning which can be variably realised in the context. For example, anyway has been shown to be three-ways ambiguous on the basis of prosodic and positional evidence (Ferrara 1997) and there is no reason to assume that the ambiguity stops here. Translations provide a complement to other ways of studying meaning as well as semantic relations such as ambiguity and polysemy. They provide a mirror image of meanings and implicatures and more ad hoc meanings. Salient meanings are indicated by translations which are frequent and chosen by many translators. These are coded or conventionalised meanings although they are implicated rather than ‘conventions of language’.



Modal adverbs as discourse markers – a bilingual approach to the study of indeed 

The translations have also pointed to the importance of analysing the modal adverbs and markers rhetorically in terms of the meanings which are negotiated in the communication situation. White’s theory goes beyond the traditional account of (epistemic) modality in terms of truth and knowledge. Modal elements such as indeed are analysed as a resource for confirming or slightly disclaiming alternative stances in the discourse which can be imagined or explicit. Speakers and writers can challenge, elaborate, confirm or strengthen a proposal or argument.

Notes *

Many thanks to Bengt Altenberg for commenting on an earlier version of the text.

1. For references to the quoted examples, see http://www.englund.lu.se/research/corpus/index.phtml.

References Altenberg, B. and Aijmer, K. 2000. The English-Swedish parallel corpus: A resource for contrastive research and translation studies. In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the 20th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, C. Mair and M. Hundt (eds), 15–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Andersen, G. 2000. Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9(1): 93–124. Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. Dyvik, H. 1998 A translational basis for semantics. In Corpora and Cross-linguistic Research: Theory, method and case studies, S. Johansson and S. Oksefjell (eds), 51–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Dyvik, H. 2004. Translations as semantic mirrors: From parallel corpus to Wordnet. In Working with New Corpora. Papers from the 24th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 24) Göteborg 2002, K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds), 315–330. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Ferrara, K. W. 1997. Form and function of the discourse marker anyway: Implications for discourse analysis. Linguistics 35: 345–78. Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts, P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), 41–58. New York NY: Academic Press. Halliday, M.A.K., 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold. Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Noël, D. 2002. Believe-Type Matrix Verbs and their Complements. Corpus-based investigations of their functions in discourse. A collection of articles. Universiteit Gent. Ochs, E. 1996. Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson, (eds), 407–437. Cambridge: CUP.

 Karin Aijmer Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. Schwenter, S. and Traugott, E. C. 2000. Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1–1: 7–25. Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP. White, P. 2000. Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. In Working with Dialogue, M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill and F. Rock (eds), 67–80. Tübingen: Niemeyer. White, P. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2): 259–284.

„So, given this common theme ...“ Linking constructions in discourse across languages* Kristin Bührig and Juliane House University of Duisburg-Essen, University of Hamburg

In this paper we deal with ‘linking constructions’, a phenomenon in the field of ‘connectivity’1 that has to our knowledge rarely been examined in monolingual texts and discourses, let alone contrastively. We will first relate these devices to the general area of connectivity, then we will look more closely at the forms and functions of a number of linking constructions and attempt to classify them on the basis of an exemplary analysis of an American-English economics text. Finally we will present a contrastive analysis of the use of linking constructions in this text and its German translation and draw some preliminary conclusions from our findings.

1. Connectivity Establishing a connection between linguistic units can be done in many different ways, and for investigating connectivity it is important to find out between exactly which units a connection is to be established, whether it is for instance between units inside only one particular utterance, or whether it is between two units or between entire text- and discourse segments (see e.g. Rehbein 1999a). Further, since many analyses of individual connectivity-inducing expressions have revealed the crucial influence connectivity can have on the ‘action quality’ of texts and discourses, i.e., their effect on, and interaction with receptors (see e.g. Bührig 2003), connectivity is particularly relevant for examining original and translated texts where even minimal differences in connectivity between original and translation can have grave consequences indeed, as our analyses below will reveal.

1.1

Connectivity and interaction

In research to date the relationship between connectivity and interaction has mainly been treated in connection with so-called ‘gambits’, ‘pragmatic’ or ‘discourse markers’.

 Kristin Bührig and Juliane House

According to Edmondson 1981, Edmondson and House 1981, House 1982, Schiffrin 1987, Fraser 1996, 2006; Aijmer 2002; Overstreet 2005; Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen 2006 and many others, the function of these elements can be characterized as signalling the relation between one utterance and the preceding and/or ensuing discourse by instructing the hearer how he/ she is to interpret the utterance containing the discourse marker. Research on the nature of the connections between linguistic units created by discourse markers is however often not limited to two adjacent utterances, and a distinction can be made between ‘local’ and ‘global’ coherence as was made for instance by Lenk (1998): Local coherence are those relations between segments in discourse that appear immediately adjacent to each other, whereas global coherence relations are the relations between segments in discourse that appear further apart, with other stretches of discourse in between. (Lenk 1998: 27).

According to Lenk, the use of discourse markers is, as a rule, motivated interactively: The speaker wants to guide the hearer’s understanding and indicates the connections between discourse segments so that the hearer’s final interpretation will be as close as possible to her intentions. (Lenk 1998: 49).

While in the past researchers have generally assumed that ‘discourse markers’ are morphologically and phonologically non-complex, in the sense that they frequently consist of one word units, Siepmann (2003; 2005) has recently pointed out that there are also other more complex types of expression that can function as discourse markers. In his opinion, however, these so-called ‘second-level discourse markers’ occur less frequently relative to their “simple” exemplars – at least in the newspaper corpus he has investigated. He defines them in the following way: The term ‚second-level discourse marker’ may be defined as follows: typically, second-level discourse markers, hereafter SLDMs, are restricted medium frequency collocations composed of two or more printed words and having a definable pragmatic function. They act as single units establishing local linkage between adjacent elements, sequences or text segments and/ or global linkage between text segments further apart. Succinctly put, SLDMs are restricted collocations that perform common language functions. (Siepmann 2003: 266).

However, Siepmann’s definition and his terminology ‘second-level discourse marker’ seem to beg the question as to whether it is in fact the criterion of frequency which is crucial or whether other form-related criteria need to be taken into account as well. It is considerations such as these, which we will follow up in the subsequent sections of this paper, where we will examine in greater detail the nature and functions of such more complex constructions.



“So, given this common theme...” 

2. Linking constructions In the literature, discourse markers are usually grouped together for functional reasons, with a rather loosely defined general function of providing linkage. As concerns their linguistic forms however, this group of expressions is extremely heterogeneous, i.e., ‘discourse markers’ can be used as adverbials, phrases, interjections, co-ordinating and subordinating conjunctions and so on. Considering this wide variety of linguistic forms, we will use the term ‘linking constructions’2 as a superordinate concept for describing the multiplicity of connective devices which share the characteristics of consisting of more than one unit.3 We define linking constructions as lexico-grammatical patterns whose main function is to indicate the relationship between some portion of prior and/or subsequent discourse. They thus form a functional class consisting of linguistic forms where one meaning component generally resists truth-conditional treatment (Levinson 1983: 87) and does not contribute to the propositional content of the utterance to which they belong. Being inherently relational in nature, linking constructions select a particular meaning relation from those potential meanings provided in the semantic meaning of relevant stretches of discourse and signal or display that relation. (Schiffrin 1987: 318). Linking constructions share with ‘discourse markers’ all the topological positions of the left periphery (cf. Doherty 2003a,b), which earmarks them as connective elements. They are ‘sentence openers’ acting as a sort of ‘utterance launcher’ (Biber et al 1999: 1073). As opposed to Siepmann, who restricts these constructions to phrases, i. e. collocations consisting of two or more printed words, we hold that also non-phrasal syntagmas such as independent clauses can function as linking constructions. While the term ‘construction’ which we have chosen to indicate the type of formal variety and flexibility characteristic of the phenomenon ‘linking construction’ might suggest a closeness of our approach here to the Construction Grammar approach to contrastive linguistic description and explanation (cf. e.g. Fried and Östman 2004), and while the closeness of linking construction to idiomatic expressions, and their ‘Gestalt’ nature – implying it is not individual components but the entire grammatical pattern which serves as a unit of analysis – certainly hint at such a link, we do favour a systemic-functional and functional-pragmatic approach here and elsewhere. Linking constructions are syntactically independent, and they are, as a rule, marked by a caesura, i.e. set off by a comma in written discourse and phonologically highlighted in oral discourse. In terms of Lehmann’s (1988: 217) typology of clause linkage and the parameters along which the two ‘opposing forces’ of ‘elaboration’ and ‘compression’ operate, we suggest linking constructions are in principle neutral. A contrastive-functional analysis of the way linking constructions are used in discourse in two different languages may however reveal where certain linking constructions are to be placed on the six continua underlying elaboration and compression. Thus, in our small English-German case study (see below) we will point to a tendency for certain construction types to be preferred in discourse in one language but not in the other.

 Kristin Bührig and Juliane House

We will in this paper not deal with prosodic features (stress, rhythm, intonation) in our analyses, although we are fully aware of the crucial role they play in determining information processing and in providing textual cohesion and coherence. Like discourse markers, linking constructions also function “interpersonally” to support a text’s audience design or addressee-orientation helping addressees a. to understand the message transmitted by signalling how one idea leads to another, b. to gain and maintain addressees’ attention, and c. to ensure that the speaker’s presuppositions match those of his or her addressees in the ongoing discourse (cf. Smith et al 2005). This inherent interpersonal function, which is important for our approach and our analysis, had already been recognized by Lyons (1977: 672) who spoke of the display of an “intersubjective experience”, common memory or shared knowledge emanating from the type of discourse deictic function of linking constructions. In their connecting function, linking constructions placed at the beginning of sentences resemble bidirectional elements, whose “directing function” is a super-ordinate concept for a host of different co- and context-specific functions which these “directors” can assume: making a new start, changing the subject, listing, adding, reinforcing, summarising, generalising, explaining, reformulating, and so on. In our analyses, we will examine more closely the rich functional spectrum of the linking constructions in our data.

3. Data Base The corpus we have examined in our analysis of linking constructions is part of the economics sub-corpus of the project “Covert translation” conducted since 1999 at the Research Centre 538 on Multilingualism, which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). From this sub-corpus we have selected and analysed a speech which John Pepper, chairman and Chief Executive Officer with the well-known global player “Procter & Gamble” (P & G) gave at a small US American University (Florida A&M University). This speech was later made available to P & G employees (and to us!) in its written version – as a sort of “mission statement”.4 Both the original American-English version and its German translation consist of an introduction and six major text segments. The content of these segments is partially identical with some of the following graphically prominent headings (small capitals and bold face): A Ethical behavior is good business (A.X-XIX) B Values cannot be add-ons (A.XX-XXIV) C Examples (A.XXV-LIV) • Can Consumers trust you?



“So, given this common theme...” 

• Wouldn’t you like to know what your Competitor is doing? • Is it a bribe – or just the cost of doing business? • Is it unkind to be honest? D The ethics of Community Involvement (A.LV-LXIX) E Principles for creating an ethical environment (A.LXX-LXXXIV) F The Boa Principle (A.LXXXV-LXXXIX) Pepper uses various procedures that result in an ‘appellative’ character of the speech, i.e. he instructs his addressees to mentally assume the role of decision-making actors and to use the knowledge he provides for future actions. The communicative structure of the speech can be characterized as reflecting an interaction between past and future situations of linguistic and non-linguistic action, with which Pepper confronts his addressees. Pepper integrates situations from the past (illustrative anecdotes from the history of the company and its products – clearly a PR effect) and projects them onto future situations by means of directives and action-regulating speech acts and maxims. In the examples in section C, he uses for instance so-called ‘rhetorical questions’, which may be interpreted with Edmondson (1981) and Grießhaber (1987) as ‘didactic questions’. There are also direct instructions addressed to the addressees, for instance, when they are asked to refer to material (Statements of Purpose, Values and Principles) made available to them. Apart from the linguistic actions mentioned above, the appellative nature of the entire text derives from the use of linking constructions and the specific connective procedures they imply. These procedures ensure reader participation in the progress of Pepper’s ideas. In the following section we will analyse, and attempt to distinguish different types of connective procedures invoked by such linking mechanisms in greater detail.

4. Analyzing and classifying linking constructions In our analysis of linking constructions in Pepper’s speech, we have isolated and identified the following four different forms:

4.1

Extraposed absolute linking constructions

These non-finite constructions which occur outside, and are not affected by, the clausal process are often referred to (in systemic-functional terms) as ‘peripheral adjuncts’, ‘disjuncts’, or ‘prefacing structures’ (Sinclair 1992 in his Collins Cobuild English Grammar). They appear clause-initially and function as linking signal units in the left periphery of a sentence (the ‘Satzanfangsrahmen’ cf. Rehbein 1992, resp. the ‘Vorvorfeld’ cf. Auer 1997).5 The term “extraposed” goes back to Jespersen (1933: 95) and refers to a type of dislocated structure outside the nuclear clause.

 Kristin Bührig and Juliane House

One type of such extraposed absolute linking constructions is the participial construction as evidenced in the following examples:

(1) “So, given this common theme,” (A.IX.1)



(2) “Simply put, ” (A.XVIII.2)

The participle is here used to express the idea that the knowledge built up over the preceding paragraphs is posited to exist as a basis for further reasoning, as intersubjective, common knowledge shared by speaker and hearer. The participle acts as a ‘structural indicator’ as Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik (1985) and Greenbaum and Quirk (1990) have remarked, or as a sort of ‘hinge’ (‘Scharnier’) joining retro-and prospective views of the text discourse. Concretely, the use of the participle points to a processing procedure on the part of both speaker and addressee which consists of three steps: – the verb stem expresses the processing procedure of what is verbalised in the specific context referred to – this processing procedure is verbalised as a result through the morpheme of the participial construction (Brinkmann 1971; retrospective to what has happened cf. Redder 1995; 2003, p. 277) – the verbalised result serves as a starting point for the ensuing verbalisations. The function of the use of the participle can then be described in the following way: the author lets the addressee participate in the processing of what was said before and integrates his own planning process into what was verbalised thus creating textual coherence. According to Brinkmann (1971), the use of a “personal form” forces speaker/hearer to refer what is said to different speaker roles in a particular situation. Infinite forms on the other hand permit speakers/hearers to liberate themselves from the obligation to use a personal form and produce utterances which are free from referring to specific persons. We thus have a situation where it is exclusively the perfomance of an activity which matters. A functionally comparable type of hinge, which is however clearly not as “absolute” in the sense defined above, is provided in comparative constructions, as in the following examples:

(3) “And more positively,” (A.XVIII.1)



(4) “But here again,” (A.XXXI.3)

Here it is the comparative or temporal adverbial which functions as a “back and forth” joint directing hearers’ attention to previously verbalized and newly upcoming information.



“So, given this common theme...” 

4.2

Extraposed prepositional phrases

A second type of linking construction functions as a specifier to what was verbalized before. We have called this type ‘extraposed prepositional phrase’:

(5) “In doing this,” (A.LXXIII.3)



(6) “On that note,” (A.LXXXII.1)



(7) “in fact,” (A.II.2, A.XLVIII.2)



(8) “in today’s terms,” (A.XXIX.4)



(9) “for example,” (A.XXXIV.1, A.XLVI.2, A.LX.3, A.LXIV.1)

(10) “after all,” (A.XXXVIII.2) (11) “in part,” (A.LXI.2) (12) “in addition to,” (A.LXXIV.1) As opposed to the previous more uniform category of “hinge-linkers”, these linking constructions are a generally much more disparate group, which we have bundled together here because they are all forward directed. Their focus is on what will be verbalized in ensuing segments of the text, where information will be added, concretised, exemplified, restricted, or explained. They thus tend more towards the provision of cohesion rather than coherence in Halliday and Hasan’s terms (1976).6 Inspired by Biber et al (1999: 989), we suggest that these phrases – heterogeneous as they are – all consist of word forms that often co-occur as lexical bundles but are not, unlike idioms, entirely “frozen” in their meaning, i.e. they vary more in their meaning depending on the context of use. Many of these sequences can be regarded as extended collocations.

4.3

Temporal subordinate clause

A third category is the ‘temporal subordinate clause’, a finite construction of time as in, for example (13) “When I was first started to put together…” (A.IV.1) (14) “After I’ve finished…” (A.IX.2) These clauses are finite tense constructions, which function differently from the previous types of linkers in that the finiteness of the construction suggests (in Hallidayan terms) the presence of human participants and indicates events happening in a certain temporal sequence. The interpersonal quality which this construction invokes is due to their “congruent presentation of events” (Halliday 1994). It is stronger than is the case with the two types of non-finite linking constructions.

 Kristin Bührig and Juliane House

4.4

Instructions to addressee inside joint situational context

A fourth and last group of linking constructions consists of instructions to the addressee. Here the writer/speaker uses elements of the situational context enveloping both himself and his addressees in order to refer, for instance, to a handout made available to the addressees, or an overhead transparency, a power-point-graph or any objects and persons in the joint ‘Wahrnehmungsraum’ (perception space). Examples of this type of linking construction are: (15) “As you can see on the cover” (A.XX.3) A speaker’s instruction to his addressees can also take the form of an instruction to draw their own conclusions, as in the following example: (16) “As you can see, ethical issues can be anything.” (A.LIV.1) As opposed to the first type of instruction, the speaker in this type of instruction does not draw the addressee into a “real” joint situation but rather causes him to mentally follow the speaker in his train of thought and/or draw a conclusion on the basis of the speaker’s previous discourse. For example: (17) “Let’s look at a few examples.” (A.XXIV.1) In the sense of Clyne (1987, 1991), this instructional type might be regarded as an ‘advance organizer’ with which the linearity of a text is interrupted, because the author has decided to provide information not immediately but later in the text. According to Graefen and Fandrych (2001) who suggest that ‘advance organizers’ be limited only to procedures with which reference is made to not directly following utterances, Pepper’s utterance is therefore to be classified as belonging to the group of ‘introductory qualifications of speech actions’, which, different from ‘advance organizers’, announce directly following utterances. As opposed to the text-commenting procedures mentioned above, Pepper’s utterance is formulated in the ‘adhorative mode’ (Rehbein 1999b), which draws the audience in its prepositional and illocutionary planning of the speech. The predominantly conative nature of the entire text is also directly noticeable in this utterance in a connective procedure. A third (sub)type of instruction refers to cases where the speaker gives a more oblique, descriptive instruction (see below for our brief analysis of the descriptive character of a matrix construction) alerting his addressees to pay particular attention to certain phenomena which he will then list in what follows. Here is an example of such an indirect instruction: (18) “And it’s important to note …” (A.XXII.1) (19) “Or how about this example?” (A.XL.1)



“So, given this common theme...” 

Given these four types of linguistic instructions, we will now present our contrastive analysis of the use of these different types of linking constructions in an original English text and its translation into German.

5. Linking constructions in an original text and its translation Let us first look how examples of our first category of linking constructions, the ‘extraposed absolute linking constructions’, function in the English original and the German translation in terms of their respective action quality. (20) Extract 1: “So, given this common theme” A.IX.1 So, given this common theme, I D.IX.1 Ich möchte die mir zur Verfüthought I’d use my time here to gung stehende Zeit nutzen, um talk about why ethics are impordarüber zu sprechen, warum tant, to share a few examples of ethisches Verhalten so wichtig ethical issues from our own exist, Ihnen dazu einige Beispiele perience and to challenge each aus unserer eigenen Erfahrung of you to think about what you aufzeigen und Sie alle bitten, would do in the situations I’ll darüber nachzudenken, was Sie describe. in der gleichen Situation getan hätten. The linking phrase “given this common theme” contains a ‘framing deixis’, “this” (cf. Ehlich 1979), which refocusses for the hearer anadeictically the content of the preceding eight paragraphs, summarizing them conceptually in the noun phrase “common theme”. As a further component, this linking phrase features the participle “given”, with which the refocussed knowledge is turned into a starting point for Pepper’s further elaborations. In this manner, the linking phrase functions like a hinge combining the previously verbalised knowledge with the following procedure announced by Pepper. A glance at the German translation shows that the linking phrase is here not equivalently expressed. The corresponding German passage immediately starts with an overview of Pepper’s procedure in his speech: “Ich möchte xxxx” (“I would like to”). The topic “ethisches Verhalten” (“ethical behaviour”), from which the entire ensuing procedure is to start in Pepper’s plan, is only later mentioned in the complex sequence of sentences and is thus given considerably less weight than is the case in the extraposed linking phrase in the English original. In a similar way, the connective potential of our second category, the extraposed prepositional phrase, „in fact“ diverges in the German translation from how Pepper uses it in the original speech. Consider the following example:

 Kristin Bührig and Juliane House

(21) Extract 2: “In fact” A.II.1

We at Procter & Gamble have D.II.1 had a long and very beneficial relationship with this school.

Wir bei Procter & Gamble haben eine sehr lange und sehr fruchtbare Beziehung zu dieser Schule. (We at Procter & Gamble have a very long and very fruitful relationship with this school) A.II.2 In fact, our partnership reaches D.II.2 Tatsächlich reicht unsere Partback almost 30 years now. nerschaft nunmehr fast 30 Jahre zurück. In actual fact, our partnership goes back nearly 30 years) A.II.3 Two of our former chief execu- D.II.3 Zwei unserer früheren Chief Extives – John Smale and Ed Artzt – ecutives – John Smale und Ed participated in this Forum Series. Artzt – haben an diesen Veranstaltungsreihen teilgenommen. (Two of our former Chief Executives – John Smale and Ed Artzthave participated in these series of events ) A.II.4 Dr. Humphries, Dr. Mobley and D.II.4 Dr. Humphries, Dr. Mobley und members of our faculty have visMitglieder Ihrer Fakultät waren ited with us, and have done inbei P & G und haben Praktika ternships at P & G. absolviert. (Dr.Humphries, Dr. Mobley and members of your faculty have been with P & G to do a practical) A.II.5 And, of course, many of our D.II.5 Und natürlich sind im Laufe diegraduates have joined our Comser Jahre viele Absolventen in unpany over the years. ser Unternehmen eingetreten. (And of course many graduates have joined our company over the years) A.III.1 So, it’s easy to see why we contin- D.III.1 Deshalb ist es leicht zu versteue to place such importance on hen, warum wir dieser Bezieour relationship with all of you. hung mit Ihnen allen auch für die Zukunft so viel Bedeutung beimessen.



“So, given this common theme...”  (This is why it is easy to understand, why attribute so much importance to this relationship with you also for the future )

In this segment, Pepper talks about the relationship between Florida A&M University and Procter & Gamble. He starts with an assessment, which is then successively explained in detail. This explanation is introduced by Pepper with the prepositional phrase “in fact”, which classifies the knowledge about the co-operation extrapolized from the previously verbalized and therefore abstract knowledge as something that now needs to be made concrete. In this way the abstract noun “relationship” is specified in a first step as “partnership”. Now, as opposed to the ‘absolute participial linking construction’ of the type “given this common theme”, an extraposed participial phrase such as “in fact” does not function as a hinge or joint (joining together what came before and what will come later), rather it foreshadows a future linear processing of knowledge which will be executed in what follows in the form of a list-like specification. In the German text, the adverb “tatsächlich” (“indeed”) is used, which, unlike the prepositional phrase in the English text, does not have any connective potential. It is only the position of “tatsächlich” in the Vorfeld in front of the finite verb, which makes the hearer expect a resumption of previously verbalized knowledge. The adverb “tatsächlich” – instead of specifying the content of the ensuing segment, which might be achieved by the prepositional phrase “in der Tat” (in the given context equivalent to the English “in fact”) – functions more like a corrective confrontation. In its topological position, the use of “tatsächlich” implies that some sort of contrast is to be expected. The type of explanation given in the English original through the use of the linking phrase “in fact” is thus lost in the German translation, and with this the textual flow is interrupted. To verify this analysis, we have checked concordance lines extracted from the LOB and DWDS corpora respectively, which quite clearly confirmed our interpretation of the differences in the use of “in fact” and “tatsächlich”. Let us now move on to our third type of linking construction, which we identified in Pepper’s introduction, the temporal subordinate clause. Consider extract 3a: (22) Extract 3a: “When I was first started ----” A.IV.1 When I was first started to put D.IV.1 Zur Vorbereitung meines heutitogether my remarks for today, I gen Vortrages bat ich Dr. Amos asked for some input from Dr. Bradford um ein paar VorAmos Bradford, who provided a schläge. broad list of subjects he thought you’d be interested in hearing about:

 Kristin Bührig and Juliane House

(For the preparation of my lecture today I asked Dr. Amos Bradford for a few suggestions) Having thanked the moderator, greeted the audience and elaborated on the relations between A&M University and Procter & Gamble, Pepper now moves onto a new topic: how he will proceed in his lecture. In the first sentence of this paragraph (IV.1), he starts with his preparations for the lecture, which he began, as we learn from the following main clause, by asking a member of the university Dr. Amos Bradford) for support. In the original, Pepper starts his transition with a temporal subordinate clause introduced with the conjunction “when”: “When I was first started to put together my remarks for today…”. The German translation features a prepositional phrase “Zur Vorbereitung meines heutigen Vortrags”. (“For the preparation of my lecture”). The verb phrase “was started to put together my remarks for today” in the original is reproduced in German with a complex nominal object phrase “Vorbereitung meines heutigen Vortrags”. Here again, the German translation features a prepositional phrase rather than a (perfectly possible) reproduction of the temporal subordinate clause: (23) Extract 3b: “After I’ve finished…” A.IX.2 After I’ve finished, I’ll be happy D.X.1 to answer any questions you may have and, hopefully, to engage in a bit of conversation about the issues we’ll raise here this afternoon.

Nach meinem Vortrag werde ich gerne alle Ihre Fragen beantworten und mich mit Ihnen über die Themen dieses Nachmittags unterhalten. (After my lecture I will gladly answer all your questions and converse with you about the topics of this afternoon)

Both cases where temporal subordinate clauses in the original were rendered as prepositional phrases in German function as a cesura setting off what follows from previous textual stretches. At the same time, these temporal subordinate clauses offer a starting point for the knowledge verbalised in the ensuing main clause. And as a “subordinate clause”, they also function as less important parts of the information given in the entire sentence. Their function is to prepare for the main ensuing topic, establishing both an internal connection inside the complex linguistic unit to which they belong and a connection to a previously occurring linguistic unit. In Extract 3a, this unit comprises an antecedent textual stretch, in Extract 3b a linguistic unit which belongs to the same paragraph (X).



“So, given this common theme...” 

Despite their ostensible functional similarity, the English subordinate clause and the German prepositional phrase realise different types of connectivity, which are – together with other linguistic means – responsible for the specific functional character of the linguistic units in question. In using a temporal clause, Pepper achieves a ‘congruent’ presentation of states of affairs and events by means of stringing together sets of verbs phrases featuring mental or material processes and, with them, human participants. By contrast, the translator of the German text substitutes such congruent descriptions with nominalizations or, in Halliday’s terms, ‘grammatical metaphors’, with the effect that the clause lacks the presence of human participants responsible for mental or material action, and thus an effective identificatory potential for the audience as well as, by implication, a forceful means of addressee orientation. Moreover, the prepositional phrase in the German translation results in a conceptual categorisation7 of the relevant knowledge, which covers the entire prepositional content of the main clause. In Extract 3a, the interesting and unusual aspectual form “when I was first stated to put together….” simulates an action both incipient and in progress. Through the use of the preposition “zu” in the German prepositional phrase in E3a “zur Vorbereitung meines Vortrags” (“for the preparation of my lecture”) the object is qualified as a target category with which Pepper asks Dr Bradford for advice. By contrast, the American original features the interaction between Pepper and Bradford as an initial element of a series of action steps around the lecture, which Pepper describes in their chronological sequence. With the phrase “after I’ve finished” in Extract 3b, Pepper also includes the prospective ending of his current linguistic action and thus the end of a line of action as a lecturer and as a person speaking on his own, which then gives way to his interacting with the audience. Through such a cleverly manufactured formulation, the discussion with the audience announced by Pepper appears as a future element of a joint line of action, whose co-operative character is emphasized by the use of the collective speaker deixis. The translation is, qua translation, of course also concerned with the discussion planned by Pepper with the audience following his monologue. However, in the German text this discussion does not appear as an element of a joint future action line. Further, the prepositional phrase does not refer to Pepper’s current action. Rather, the lecture is categorized through the use of the preposition “nach” (“after”) as a discrete state of affairs and only the ensuing finite verb (“werde ich”, “will I”) makes it clear that we are dealing with a categorization of the lecture as a temporally limited event and as a starting point for Pepper’s ensuing actions (answering questions, conversing with the audience). As opposed to the original, where a common action is announced, the translation thus focuses on the lecture as an event followed by further actions on the part of Pepper. As a result, the discussion with the audience appears more like a concession Pepper makes to the audience than a joint activity undertaken by two equal interactants. If we consider for a moment the affinity of the connective devices in question to the production and reception conditions holding for spokenness and writtenness, we might come to the following conclusion: The use of prepositional phrases as a procedure of

 Kristin Bührig and Juliane House

conceptual categorization in the German translation suggests that we are here dealing with an exploitation of the possibility of recursive reception typical of written discourse, whereas the linearised sequence in the English original text cannot necessarily be linked to specific planning- and reception conditions characteristic of written discourse. Rather it seems to be in line with the production and reception conditions holding for oral discourse. This analysis is supported by Ford (1992), who has looked at the connective potential of different types of adverbial clauses involving intonation or punctuation in English conversations and written texts respectively. Ford concluded that [...] temporal specification seems to be the most straightforwardly connected to its associated assertion; [...]. In cognitive terms, this suggests that events and states of affairs are stored and retrieved in close association with their temporal grounding while their conditional and especially causal circumstances are less immediately retrievable. (Ford, 1992: 7).

On this view, then, temporal subordinate clauses might be preferred over other connective procedures in oral discourse because of the role they play in storing and recalling knowledge and in procuring what we have called “addressee orientation”. This analysis is supported by work conducted in the frame-work of the project ‘Covert Translation’ (cf. for instance Böttger and Probst 2001; Baumgarten and Probst 2004; Baumgarten, House and Probst 2004, Böttger 2004; Bührig and House 2004; House 2004a,b; 2006). Of the five ‘instructions to addressee inside joint situational context’ in the American original, four were reproduced in the German text, one in a modified form. Let us first consider this last case (Extract 4a) before we turn to an extract in an instruction in the American original text which is not translated into German (Extract 4b). (24) Extract 4a: “Or how about…?” A.XL.1 Or how about this example?

D.XXXIX.1 Ein anderes Beispiel: (An other example:)

Extract 4a appears in a passage in Pepper’s speech in which he addresses ethical behaviour towards competitors. Under the provocative heading “Wouldn’t you want to know what your competitor is doing?” Pepper requests that his audience/his readers imagine four constellations, in which one happens to come across a competitor’s secret business strategies. Pepper first contrasts the temptation to make use of these secrets for one’s own company with how a former P & G manager had reacted when he was offered such a business secret but resisted this offer on ethical grounds. After this first example Pepper describes three similar scenarios, which regularly occur in the everyday life of a global player and which offer its employees the opportunity to get hold of business secrets incognito and not per se criminally– as was the case in Pepper’s anecdote about a P & G manager – the business secrets of a competitor. These three scenarios present very difficult decision processes (“But sensitive in-



“So, given this common theme...” 

formation about a competitor can fall in your lap in other, far less sinister ways. And judgement about what to do can be more complicated.” AXXXVII, 3–4), but Pepper does not present their solutions to the audience, rather he guides his audience towards a solution by asking questions. Thus Pepper introduces his third scenario in the American original with an “Instruction inside the Joint Situational Context” in the interrogative mood: “Or how about this example?”. Through the use of the ‘interrogative mood’, the listeners/readers are directly addressed, they are being addressed in their role as persons who know a certain state-ofaffairs (cf. Rehbein 1999b). In Pepper’s speech, this state-of-affairs concerns each participant’s actions. Using the interrogative routine “how about”, Pepper asks the audience, to compare their own future actions with the past actions of the Procter & Gamble manager. He thus not only preaches ethical principles, but also „implants“ ethical considerations into his audience’s reception and also – this is his express intention – future action processes through several carefully selected examples, which are closely connected with the professional life of the audience. He supports this procedure using the connector “or”, and with this the following example appears to be part of a series of comparable cases. We notice first of all that a different mood has been employed in the German translation – an “annoncive” instead of the interrogative of the American original, and with this choice the reader is not actively integrated into the ongoing knowledge processing: The control over the readers’ own action processes aimed at in the original is not reproduced in the translation. Furthermore, the formulation “ein anderes Beispiel” (“another example”) announces another part of an (open) list, the systematic choice, which the formulation in the American original suggests, is lost in the translation. The effect and consistently conative character of Pepper’s speech is also noticeable in the following example of an instruction, in which Pepper describes the role of a company document, a so-called “Statement of Purpose”, which explicates central company values and principle. Pepper distributes this document to the audience, and he introduces the first part of his lecture on ethical behaviour in the world of business playing with the material quality of this paper and with its contents, as can be seen in Extract 4b: (25) Extract 4b: “And it’s important to note…” A.XXII.1 And it’s important to note that D.XXII.1 Es handelt sich nicht einfach it is not just a piece of paper um ein Stück Papier, (It’s not just a piece of paper)) With the phrase “And it’s important to note that it is not just a piece of paper.” Pepper starts his elaborations on the high ideals – the ethical principles of a company as building blocks of its foundation – of the company values fixed in writing. The phrase “And it’s important to note”‚ a matrix construction realising “descriptively” (cf. Rehbein 2004) an instruction to the audience, is not equivalently rendered

 Kristin Bührig and Juliane House

in the German translation. While the anaphorical pronoun “es” (“it”) in the German textual excerpt “es handelt sich nicht einfach um ein Stück Papier” (“it’ not simply a piece of paper”) ensures the continuation of a previously established focus (cf. Ehlich 1982, 1983) on the company document, Pepper’s original speech acts much more forcefully on the reception processes of the audience. Through the use of the matrix construction, Pepper interrupts the audience’s continuous reception process by explicitly topicalising this process with the use of the infinite verb “to note” while at the same time decisively influencing the direction of the audience’s reception activities. Viewed from the perspective of the overall strategy and dramatic composition underlying his speech, this move is particularly important, because in what follows Pepper, as mentioned above, increasingly focusses on the role of the audience as future business managers. By using his listener’s perception processes as his starting point, Pepper initiates, as it were, an iconically constructed path towards an action process (cf. Rehbein 1977), whose starting point is marked by perception. Neither the role of P & G’s “statement of purpose” nor the cleverly designed dramatic composition of Pepper’s speech is maintained or refashioned in the German text: The original’s reconstructed invocation of the audience’s almost religious devotion to ethical principles loses its intensity in the German translation through the modification and even the non-realisation of ‘instructions inside the joint situational context’.

6. Conclusion In the English original, all the linking constructions we have examined seem to act not only as local connectors, binding two sentences or utterances together, but also function as more global connecting devices thus permitting insights into the overall plan of the speech. It is therefore no accident that the appellative nature of the text should be affected by modifications and omissions in its translation into German. Over and above their primary linking function, the linking constructions we have analysed thus also have an interpersonal function supporting the overall tenor of a text. In this study we have set out developing our typology of linking constructions on the basis of an English original text comparing linking constructions in the German translation with those constructions used originally in the English text. This direction may of course have biassed our results. It would be interesting, and indeed necessary, to now conduct a comparable study in which the starting point would be a German original text, in which different linking constructions with different interpersonal functions might be used that would have to be compared with their English translations. In terms of the opposing forces of elaboration and compression in clause linkage suggested by Lehmann (1988: 217), we might tentatively say that German linking phrases tend towards compression, stronger embedding in the main clause, and more de-sententialization of subordinate clauses. We cannot follow this up here in any de-



“So, given this common theme...” 

tail. Suffice it to say that over and above examining the different functional weighting in German and English texts, follow-up studies that attempt to relate the use of linking constructions in translations (and comparable texts) systematically to Lehmann’s continua would certainly be insightful and worthwhile. Our small case study featuring a contrastive analysis of linking constructions in an American-English economics text and its German translation has revealed that the selection of such constructions – over and above providing connectivity – can substantially influence what we might call the “communicative quality” of the text/discourse, i.e., its impact on the hearers, the weighting of the interpersonal against the ideational functional components, as well as the interaction of oralness and writtenness. Concretely, we have in this paper made a first attempt to classify linking constructions into four different types: ‘Extraposed absolute linking constructions’, ‘extraposed prepositional phrases’, ‘temporal subordinate clauses’, and ‘instructions to addressee inside joint situational context’. These four types can be differentiated both in terms of the linguistic forms used and the functions conventionally fulfilled by them. Our analysis of these different types of linking construction has thrown up interesting preferences in expressing linking constructions in the English and German texts (supported, incidentally, by much of our previous work, see e.g. Bührig and House 2004): ‘Absolute linking constructions’ are often omitted in German because no “easy” equivalent seems to offer itself; ‘extraposed prepositional phrases’ (e.g. “On that note”), are also often omitted and if translated at all, they do not fulfil an equivalent linking function and do not take up an equivalently prefacing ‘Vor-Vorfeld’- position. Rather, ‘extraposed prepositional phrases’ are often integrated into the clause and expressed for instance as composite deictics (‘zusammengesetzte Verweiswörter’ – a typically German type of linking device); ‘subordinate temporal clauses’ in English are often reproduced as prepositional phrases, a choice which greatly influences the oral or written nature of the new text. ‘Instructions to addressees inside the joint situational context’ are sometimes also omitted in the German texts (e.g. “And it’s important to note…”), a finding which supports much of previous work by House pointing to a tendency in German discourse to disfavour explicitly interpersonal speaker- and hearer-related orientations (cf. e.g. House 1996). Taken together, the use of linking constructions as one form of interactional connectivity appears to differ in the German and English texts we have examined. And this difference appears to have important consequences not only for the production of local connections in the text, it also critically influences the interpersonal function of the whole text.

 Kristin Bührig and Juliane House

Notes * We want to thank two anonymous referees whose constructive criticism has helped us improve this paper. 1. We understand ‘connectivity’, with Rehbein (1999a: 189ff), as a linkage of parts of the discourse presently verbalised with parts that were verbalised before and/or parts that will be verbalised in what follows so as to form a connected whole. The procedures and linguistic forms which serve this purpose can be summarized under the concept ‘connectivity’. 2. In using the concept ‘construction’, we also follow Rehbein (1999a: 191), who favours the neutrality of this concept – important for contrastive analyses of linguistic forms as it does not pre-determine the phenomena to be analysed with language-specific morrphological-syntactic categories. 3. Barden, Elstermann & Fiehler (2001) refer to an ‘Operator-Skopus-Struktur’ to designate combininations of single lexemes or short, formula-like expressions at the beginning of sentences, conjunctions with V2-position, matrix clauses, performative formulae, and ‘discourse markers’ as elements of a structure with comparable formal (syntactic und prosodic characteristics) and functional aspects (it is the operator which tells the addressee how she is to interpret the scopus-unit). There are four types of such comprehension aids: a) the operator informs the addressee about the type of speech act she has to deal with; b) the operator informs the addressees about the mental status which the utterance has in the scopus of the speaker; c) the operator informs the addressee about the communicative status which the speaker ascribes to the utterance; d) the operator signalises to the addressee which relations or connections exist between the utterance in the scopus and previous utterances in the discourse. The latter group of operator-scopus-structures are metacommunicative. It can be subdivided accordingly as aspects of discourse organisation are elucidated or content-functional relationships between utterances are explicated. 4. For an analysis of the interaction of orality and literacy in this text and its German translation see Baumgarten and Probst (2004); Bührig and House (2004), and see House (1997; 2006). This text does not only have official status, it is also designed to present to the public a positive image of the company and its.members. 5. Even though the terminology varies with regard to labelling individual topological fields of a sentence or an utterance in research on the position of words in a sentence/utterance, there is nevertheless agreement about the communicative relevance of certain positions that can be occupied by different expressions. 6. An example would be the text of a “modern” birthday card (sent to the daughter of one of the authors): “Happy birthday to a girl who has bags of personality, amazing looks, incredible intelligence…In fact, you’ve got it all..”. 7. For a description of how prepositions function as ‘categorizers’ cf. Grießhaber (1999) and Bednársky (2002).



“So, given this common theme...” 

References Aijmer, K. 2002. English Discourse Particles [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.(eds). 2006. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Auer, P. 1997. Formen und Funktionen der Vor-Vorfeldbesetzung im gesprochenen Deutsch. In Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch, P. Schlobinski (ed.), 55–91. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Barden, B., Elstermann, M. and Fiehler, R. 2001. Operator-Skopus-Strukturen in gesprochener Sprache. In Pragmatische Syntax, F. Liedtke and F. Hundsnurscher (eds), 197–233. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Baumgarten, N. and Probst, J. 2004. The interaction of spokenness and writtenness in audience design. In Multilingual Communication [Hamburg Studies in Multilingualism 2], J. House and J. Rehbein (eds), 63–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baumgarten, N., House, J. and Probst, J. 2004. English as lingua franca in covert translation processes. The Translator 10(1): 83–110. Bednársky, P. 2002. Deutsche und tschechische Präpositionen kontrastiv. – am Beispiel von an, auf und na. Münster: Waxmann. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Böttger, C. 2004. Genre mixing in business communication. In Multilingual Communication [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 2], J. House and J. Rehbein, (eds), 77–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Böttger, C. and Probst, J. 2001. Adressatenorientierung in englischen und deutschen Texten. Hamburg: Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit. Serie B (23). Brinkmann, H. 1971. Die deutsche Sprache. Gestalt und Leistung. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. Bührig, K. 2003. Zur Funktionalität von ‚auf jeden Fall‘ und ‚jedenfalls‘. Untersuchungen zur Zusammenhangbildung in Text und Diskurs. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Hamburg. Bührig, K. and House, J. 2004. Connectivity in translation: transitions from orality to literacy. In Multilingual Communication [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 2], J. House and J. Rehbein (eds), 87–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Clyne, M. 1987. Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. In Journal of Pragmatics 11: 211–247. Clyne, M. 1991. The sociocultural dimension: The dimension of the German-speaking scholar. In Subject-oriented texts, H. Schröder (ed.), 49–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Doherty, M. 2003a. Discourse relators and the beginning of sentences in English and German. Languages in Contrast 3(2): 223–251. Doherty, M. 2003b. Parametrized beginnings of sentences in English and German. Across Languages and Cultures 4(1): 19–51. Edmondson, W. J. 1981. Spoken Discourse. A model for analysis. London: Longman. Edmondson, W. J. and J. House 1981. Let’s Talk and Talk about it. A Pedagogic interactional grammar of English. München: Urban & Schwarzenberg. Ehlich, K. 1979. Verwendung der Deixis beim sprachlichen Handeln. Linguistisch-philologisch Untersuchungen zum hebräischen deiktischen System. Frankfurt: Lang.

 Kristin Bührig and Juliane House Ehlich, K. 1982. Anaphora and deixis: Same, similar, or different? In Speech, Place and Action. Studies in deixis and related topics, R. J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds.), 315–337. London: Wiley. Ehlich, K. 1983 Deixis und Anapher. In Essays on Deixis, G. Rauh (ed.), 79–97. Tübingen: Narr. Fandrych, C. and Graefen, G. 2001. Text commenting devices in academic articles. Multilingua 21: 17–43. Ford, C. 1992. Variation in the intonation and punctuation of different adverbial clause types in spoken and written English. In The Linguistics of Literacy, P. Downing, S.D. Lima and M. Noonan (eds), 3–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics 6(2): 169–190. Fraser, B. 2006. On the universality of discourse markers. In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, K. Aijmer and A. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 73–92. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Fried, M. and Östman, J.-O. 2004. Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Greenbaum, S. and Quirk, R. 1990. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Grießhaber, W. 1987. Authentisches und zitierendes Handeln. Bd.I. Einstellungsgespräche. Bd.II. Rollenspiele im Sprachunterricht. Tübingen: Narr. Grießhaber, W. 1999. Die relationierende Prozedur. Zur Grammatik und Pragmatik lokaler Präpositionen und ihrer Verwendung durch türkische Deutschlerner. Münster: Waxmann Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. House, J. 1982. Gambits in deutschen und englischen Alltagsdialogen. Versuch einer pragmatisch-kontrastiven Analyse. Grazer Linguistische Studien 17/18: 110–132. House, J. 1996. Contrastive discourse analysis and misunderstanding: The case of German and English In Contrastive Sociolinguistics, M. Hellinger and U. Ammon (eds), 345–361. Berlin: Mouton. House, J. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment. A model revisited. Tübingen: Narr. House, J. 2003. Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters. In Misunderstanding in Social Life. Discourse approaches to problematic talk, J. House, G. Kasper and S. Ross (eds), 22–56. London: Longman. House, J. 2004a. English as a lingua franca and its influence on texts in other European languages. In Lingua, Mediazone Linguistica e Interferenza, G. Garzone and A. Cardinaletti (eds), 21–48. Milano: Franco Angeli. House, J. 2004b. Explicitness in discourse across languages. In Neue Perspektiven in der Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschwissenschaft, J. House, W. Koller and K. Schubert (eds),185- 209. Bochum: AKS Verlag. House, J. 2006. Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics 38(3): 338–358. House, J. and Rehbein, J. (eds) 2004. Multilingual Communication [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jespersen, O. 1933. Essentials of English Grammar. New York: Allen & Unwin. Lehmann, C. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, J. Haiman and S. Thompson (eds), 181–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lenk, U. 1998. Marking Discourse Coherence. Functions of discourse markers in spoken English. Tübingen: Narr. Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.



“So, given this common theme...” 

Overstreet, M. 2005. ‘And stuff ’ ‘und so’: Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11): 1845–1864. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and J. Svartvik 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Redder, A. 1995. Handlungstheoretische Grammatik für DaF am Beispiel des sogenannten ‘Zustandspassivs’. In Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache, N. Dittmar and M. Rost-Roth (eds), 53–74. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Redder, A. 2003. Partizipiale Ketten und autonome Partizipialkonstruktionen: Formen partikularen sprachlichen Handelns. In Funktionale Syntax. Die pragmatische Perspektive, L. Hoffmann (ed.), 155–188. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Rehbein, J. 1977. Komplexes Handeln. Elemente zur Handlungstheorie der Sprache. Stuttgart: Metzler. Rehbein, J. 1992. Zur Wortstellung im komplexen deutschen Satz. In Deutsche Syntax. Ansichten und Aussichten, L. Hoffmann (ed.), 523–574. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Rehbein, J. 1999a. Konnektivität im Kontrast. Zur Struktur und Funktion türkischer Konverbien und deutscher Konjunktionen, mit Blick auf ihre Verwendung durch monolinguale und bilinguale Kinder. In Türkisch und Deutsch im Vergleich, L. Johanson and J. Rehbein (eds), 189–243. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Rehbein, J. 1999b. Zum Modus von Äußerungen. In Grammatik und mentale Prozesse, A. Redder and J. Rehbein (eds), 91–131. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Rehbein, J. 2004. Matrix-Konstruktionen in Diskurs und Text In Übersetzen, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60. Geburtstag, N. Baumgarten, C. Böttger, M. Motz and J. Probst (eds), 251–275. Bochum: AKS Verlag. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Siepmann, D. 2003. Second-Level discourse markers across languages. Languages in Contrast 3(2): 253–287. Siepmann, D. 2005. Discourse Markers across Languages. London: Routledge. Sinclair, J. 1992. Collins Cobuild English Grammar. London: Harper Collins. Smith, S. W., Noda, H. P., Andrews, S. and Jucker, A. H. 2005. Setting the stage: How speakers prepare listeners for the introduction of referents in dialogues and monologues. Journal of Pragmatics 37(11): 1865–1895.

An utterance-transcending connector Particle to in utterance-final position in Japanese business reporting* Yuko Sugita University of Duisburg-Essen

This research project1 is based on the hypothesis that each language has specific linguistic means of realizing interactants’ processes of speaking, listening, reacting and interacting.2 In this paper, I will examine the so-called quotative particle to in utterance-final position in the speech action of “reporting” in a Japanese business-meeting constellation. With the use of utterance-final to, the speaker gives the hearer a cue to process a prior utterance as information relevant to the chaining-final utterance, which is yet to come. It is an utterancetranscending connector operating the hearer’s information processing. Analysing the use of the particle, I will argue that the parallel observed in Japanese discourse and grammar is grounded in automated, high-speed information processing, as elaborated by Givón (2005).

1. Particle to in Japanese The word to is one of the Japanese particles consisting of only one mora.3 Especially in the modern spoken Japanese, mono-moraic words can be understood as standing for grammatical functions rather than symbolic meaning. In the literature on Japanese particles, to is called a ‘quotative particle’ or a ‘complementizer’.4 ‘Quotative’-use marks the elements uttered prior to that particle as third-person speech, when followed by verbum dicendi, especially iu; or, as in example (1), when followed by verba cognoscendi (e.g. omou, shinjiru), it marks a cognitive content in the mind of the speaker. The basic construction in both cases is: ‘p to V’ (V = iu, omou, shinjiru, i.e. ‘say, think, believe (that) p’), where ‘p’ stands for ‘propositional content’.5 Example (1) is found in the corpus from which the data in Section 4 below has been culled, and (2) is a part of the data, which is to be analysed in detail in Section 5. The name of the institution in (2) has been changed.

 Yuko Sugita

(1)

Ano zenbu omote ni dashi-mashi-ta n de Uh all outside DAT give.out-VSUF.FRM-PF NR ESS shimouta.na:: to omoi-masu ne. ‘Oh, I made a mistake’ TO think-VSUF.FRM you.know. ‘Uh, I’m thinking “oh, I made a mistake that I spoke all (of my strategies) out,” you know.’

The expression to iu (i.e. particle to plus iu: verb of saying) is often followed by a noun, thus constructing a syntagmatic expression consisting of to, iu and nouns such as koto ‘fact’, you ‘appearance’, or fuu ‘manner’, meaning ‘a fact that’, ‘(in) a way that’, ‘(in) a manner that’, respectively. Thus, to is often compared to the English complementizer that or German dass (cf. Horie 2000, Suzuki 2000). Example (2) includes the expressions to iu hyouka (‘an evaluation that...’) and to iu koto desu, which can be translated into ‘it means that’ or ‘one says that’. (2)

Honna na:n.ni.mo -san ni well.then nothing -SUF.POL DAT makashit-oite-mo ne, meritto ga zenzen nai ya entrust-leave-CONS you.know merit NOM at.all not.existing ESS nai ka to iu hyouka ni kawattenot.existing INT TO IU evaluation DAT changek-ita to iu koto desu wa. come-PF TO IU KOTO VPRT.FRM FP. ‘Well, then, it means, you know, that the evaluation has changed that (they say) engaging Oka Food to do the job has no merit at all.’

As can be seen in the examples above, the direction in which the construction with the so-called complementizer to iu is processed is not the same as that of English or German. While, in Indo-European languages, a complementizer follows a matrix construction, the Japanese matrix expression to iu follows its complement; thus, in the latter, a complement precedes a matrix construction.6 This is noteworthy, since we understand grammar in interaction as a complex array of mental processes (cf. Redder and Rehbein 1999), and since our interest focuses on how utterances are processed by speakers and hearers. Recent studies on citation and mental/oral representation in Japanese (in’you-bun; hereafter ‘sentence of quotation’),7 for example, Fujita (1988, 2000) and Kamada (1988, 2000), deal with the taxonomic categorization of to and analyse the functions of quoted clauses followed by to in relation to the main clause in which it is embedded. Apart from their studies, Sunakawa’s argument (1988, 1989) is suggestive of cognitive perspectives, as they are considered in the discussion. The author claims that a sentence of quotation using to consists of ‘dual spaces’ (ba no nijuu-sei):8 one is the space and time in the quoted clause, the other is the space and time of a speaker and hearer in the interaction, represented in the quoting clause forming the matrix construction. Let us consider the following hypothetical example provided in her paper:



An utterance-transcending connector 

(3)

Taro wa ryokou ni ik-ou to watashi o sasotteTaro TOP trip to go-HOR TO 1st.SG ACC invitekure-ta. give.me-PF ‘Taro invited me to a trip.’ or ‘Saying “Let’s go to a trip,” Taro invited me (to it).’ (Sunakawa 1988: 16)

Focusing on the space and time of the sentence, propositional content (p) and mood (MOOD),9 Sunakawa illustrates the example sentence in (3) as represented in Figure 1. By ‘dual spaces’, the differentiation of Utterance 1 and 2 is meant. Speaker 1, Hearer 1, Action 1 and Time 1 are uttered from the perspective of Speaker 2 with Hearer 2 acting in Time 2. The embedded structure of Utterance 1 in Utterance 2 and the lack of the verb iu ‘say’ after the particle to are also a point of discussion in Sunakawa’s study (compare the Japanese sentence and its English translation in (3)).10 A shortcoming in Sunakawa’s illustration is that she includes to in Utterance 1. This is not appropriate for the particle as it is used by Speaker 2 in Utterance 2, since that utterance belongs to a space different from Utterance 1. According to this revised concept, the utterance-final to, being different from the utterance-internal use, only hints at another space of interaction. Sunakawa’s concept of to as a connector of dual spaces is also supported in Maynard (1997: 147–150; 2002: 168) and Fujita (1999: 6). Hayashi (1997) investigates the utterance-final to in the spoken data of Japanese, i.e. in discourse.11 The particle used in discourse is less analysed than in fictive sentences or written texts; and to, in this position, has been focused on much less.12 In natural spoken data, however, this particular use is often observed.

[p + MOOD]2 Taro wa ryokou ni ik-ou

Taro TOP trip

[p +

to watashi o

sasotte kure-ta.

to go-HOR TO 1P.SG ACC invite-

MOOD] 1

give. me-PF

Utterance 1 Speaker 1

Hearer 1

Action 1

Time 1*

Utterance 2 Speaker 2, Hearer 2, Action 2, Time 2* *Time 1 is only determined in relation to Time 2; that is to say that PF marks Time 1 of the Action 1 from the perspective of Time 2 where Action 2 of Speaker 2 occurs.

Figure 1.  Dual spaces (Sunakawa 1988: 17; with minor changes)

 Yuko Sugita

It has been explained, for example, as representing an omission of the verb iu ‘say’ so that this use might be categorized as a quotative or complementizer in accordance with its utterance-internal use. Hayashi (1997), however, explains the utterance-final use of the particle to as invoking the notion of ‘footing’ (Goffman 1981). Let us look at his excerpt. M is reporting to H about a movie.

(4) [1] M [v] M[mt] M[en] H [v] H[en]

Roshiajin Russian

no: torakku GEN truck

no untenshu GEN driver

ga:: NOM

koo well well,

A Russian truck driver, Un.

Uh huh.

[2] M [v] M[mt] M[en]

sono: ((0,7s)) uran baatoru yatta uhm Ulan Bator was

uhm,

kke ‿sono FP uhm

mongoru Mongolia

no GEN

who was carrying a load from somewhere to Ulan

[3] M [v] M[mt] M[en]

shuto made dokka capital to somewhere

kara kootto from like.this

nimotsu load

hakonde carry-

Bator – was it Ulan Bator? – anyway, to the capital of Mongolia,

[4] M [v] M[mt] M[en] H [v] H[en]

kuru tochuu. de:: come on.the.way

chotto maa jidoosha ga koshoo just well car NOM out.of.

had truck break down on the way. Un.

Uh.huh.

[5] M [v] M[mt] M[en] H [v] H[en]

shite shimatta order do finished

to. TO

Soko e tamatama there to accidentally Hm hm hm hm.

Uh huh uh huh

There (comes) a guy –



An utterance-transcending connector  [6] M [v] M[mt] M[en]

toorigakatta nanka sono:: ((1,1s)) passed like uhm

yuubokumin de mo nai nomad ESS also not

he may or may not be a nomad -

[7] M [v] M[mt] M[en] H [v] H[en]

kedo:: but M:::m.

soogen ni pao o kamaeteru: grassland in Mongolian.tent.house ACC have who lives in a Mongolian tent house in the grassland,

Uh,huh.

[8] M [v] ((0,6s)) M[mt] M[en] H [v] M::m. H[en] Uh.huh.

tsch! (o)tch.an guy

ga to nanka NOM with like

and (the truck driver) became friends with him. U:n.

Uh.huh

[9] M [v] M[mt] M[en]

((1,7s))

shiriai ni natta to. N.de: ((0,5s)) acqaintance to became TO and

And

soko no there GEN

(the driver)

[10] M [v] ie e manek-are-ta M[mt] house to invite-PASS-PF M[en] was invited to his house.

to. TO

(Hayashi 1997: 575–576. Conventions in the transcript have been changed. See p. 390 ff.) According to Hayashi (1997: 576), M reports the content of the movie casting himself as an ‘animator’, voicing the story on behalf of the movie, and hereby deploying to in utterance-final position at several junctures in the story. It is also pointed out that turn-taking is suspended by the use of utterance-final to in this excerpt. Analysing different transcripts, Hayashi summarizes the use of utterance-final to as follows: a. Some uses of sentence-final to are involved in invoking direct voices of others, or animating them, in one’s utterances.

 Yuko Sugita

b. Other uses are concerned with allocating the source of claims to some party other than the actual speaker, and distancing him/her from authority or the utterance. c. Still, in other uses, the speaker casts him/herself in the role of the ‘reporter’ of some thoughts or situations, thereby evading or diffusing responsibility for the consequences of the utterance (Hayashi 1997: 579). Hayashi’s findings are relevant to this paper in the following points: 1. The utterance-final particle to is frequently used in the action of reporting. 2. Although Sunakawa’s study is not cited in Hayashi (1997), his study also supports the concept of ‘dual spaces’ in Sunakawa (1988), as he defines utterance-final to as serving to invoke ‘double-voiced’ utterances (Hayashi 1997: 569); with ‘double voiced’, he means the actual space of the speaker as an animator and the space where the quoted utterances were produced, or where the reported events were witnessed. Characterized as ‘dual spaces’ or ‘double-voiced’, a complex event is represented linguistically with regard to information processing. 3. The function of the utterance-final particle to as a signal for suspending a turn in sequential discourse suggests the existence of a certain processing operation on behalf of the hearer. Since the grammatical categorization of to as complementizer or quotative particle requires a verb or a syntagmatic expression directly following to, the frequent use of to in utterance-final position in discourse cannot be sufficiently explained. In what follows, we turn to our own data analysis to examine this point.

2. Data The data analysed here was collected by the project team for Japanese and German Experts Discourse (JadEx) in the framework of the Research Center on Multilingualism (SFB 538) at the University of Hamburg.13 The corpus from which the data is selected was audio-recorded with no visual access. The transcription was carried out with the computer software EXMARaLDA14 and the conventions are a modified version of Rehbein at al. (2002).15 The data is part of an oral report given by the regional manager of a food retail company in Kyoto at a meeting with sales staff. The main purposes of the meeting are to report on bad assessments by customer companies and decreasing turnovers as well as taking measures against a further decrease, and boosting sales. The reporting segments take approximately 16 minutes. The data discussed here show the final part of the report in question. This part of the discourse is concatenating, i.e. it is not challenged by the audience; one single speaker has the floor and the utterances have the character of being chained to each other. Only after the regional manager – who is also in charge of the turn allocation – has produced the final utterance is the floor opened for a moment, as seen in Data 2 below. From the perspective of information processing, this situation is different from sequential discourse in



An utterance-transcending connector 

which two or more persons speak alternately, taking and allocating a speaker’s turn (cf. Hohenstein 2005: 288). The difference is mostly grounded in the purpose of the action to be pursued in the interaction. “Reporting” is an action that requires some embedded sub-actions, because of the reported events’ complexities. According to Rehbein (1984: 93), the following characteristics are typical for the discourse of reporting: a. the reporter must summarize the points briefly but precisely; b. the reporter reports on two ‘levels’: 1. s/he reports the event in question; 2. and gives her/his own comments on it to the audience. The event is located within the speech situation in time and space by means of referential and deictic procedures. In the course of reporting, the event in the past is always situated in the reporting situation (Rehbein 1984: 93–95). The last characteristic is comparable to the concept of Sunakawa (1988) and Hayashi (1997) concerning quotative sentences in Japanese introduced above. With respect to the analysis, the following question arises: What is the function of to when it is used repeatedly in an utterance-final position in oral reports, particularly when a concatenation, or chain of utterances is realized?

3. Quantitative cues for qualitative analysis Since utterances in discourse data do not always exhibit the grammatical structure of a ‘sentence’, identifying an utterance may pose problems, especially in discourse data. However, when we take a close look at the natural spoken data of Japanese, it becomes clear that speakers have knowledge about what an utterance is. This knowledge is drawn from prosodic cues, among others. For instance, the utterance-final to, as we define it, is not stressed and the pitch is not measurable,16 while in quotative use, given that it is followed by a verb of saying or thinking, the particle is integrated into the phrasal pitch unit of Japanese and its pitch is thus measurable.17 In this way, speakers make use of different linguistic means in order to signal how a linguistic unit is to be related to information processing by the hearer.18 In what follows, the data will be analysed on a qualitative basis. To provide an image of how the analysis could be relevant for other cases, however, some quantitative cues will be given in Table 1. In Data A – D, of which only circa one minute of Data A can be presented in section 4, quantitative information about the frequency of the use of the particle to used in utterance-final position is given.19

 Yuko Sugita

Table 1.  Frequency of to in utterance-final position Data Length (min.:sec.) a. No. of whole segments b. No. of whole words c. No. of to d. No. of utterance-final to e. = d/a f. = d/b g. = d/c

A*

B*

C*

D*

17:48 336 2,381 69 44 13,1% 1,8% 63,7%

13:38 114 2,220 94 16 14,0% 0,2% 17,0%

9:45 84 1451 44 4 4,7% 0,3% 9,0%

5:58 59 978 36 9 15,2% 0,9% 25,0%

* Data A – D were taken from four different business meetings in which different speakers report on business-related matters.

The row e. in Table 1 shows that approx. 13–15 % of the whole segment-finals are marked with to in three out of four example data.

4. Data presentation For practical reasons, the data is divided into Data 1 and Data 2. In both constellations, a regional manager (RM) reports the bad assessments by the customer companies, comparing them with the former situation. In the background (BG), only some sounds such as a cigarette touching an ashtray made of metal or a lighter being lit are heard. During the whole meeting, only a few of the sales representatives share their comments. The numbers in brackets [ ] indicate the score area number within the complete transcription. The numbers with the letter ‘s’ for ‘segment’ in the same line denote the utterance number (see p. 390 ff. for conventions). Institutional and personal names have been changed.

(5) Data 1 [1]

s01

RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

優れたオペレ/ 今

まで

は

Sugureta opere/ ima made wa

優れた sugureta

excellent opera/ now till TOP excellent We had been excellent in operating the



An utterance-transcending connector  [2] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

s02 PNA

オペレーション

だった

と。• 販売力、

opereeshon

dat-ta

to.

• Hanbai.ryoku,

“operation” machines till now.

VPRT-PF

TO

Sales.achievement • Sales achievement

[3] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

ロケ

の

管理力

も

すばらしかった

roke

no

kanri.ryoku

mo

subarashi-katta

location GEN controlling also excellent-PF and management of the local (customers) were also excellent.

[4] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

s03

と。 to.

TO

[5] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en] [6]

high

PNA

• ロケ

• Roke

の

評価

も

よか った

no

hyouka

mo yo-katta

location GEN evaluation also good-PF • The evaluation of the local customers was also good. s04 high

PNA

と。 • ロケ

と

の

人 間

to

no

ningen kankei

関 係

high

も よ かった

to.

• Roke

QUT

location COM GENpersonal relationship also good-PF • The relationship to the local customers was also good.

mo yo-katta

s05

RM [v] (と)。• で これで なんとか [オカ-フード]さんでーー RM [v] (to). • De kore de nantoka [oka-fuudo]-san de:: RM [mt] TO and this ESS somehow [ ]-SUF LOC RM [en] • And, therefore, it has been agreed in such a way that

[name of the institution]

 Yuko Sugita [7] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

high

オペレーション を してくれ opereeshon o

shite

と kure

to

high • • いう形 • • iu katachi

“operation” ACC do- give.me-IMP ‘as meant’ form [Oka-Food] takes care of the (machine) operation (by themselves)

[8] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

s06 lower

で

あっ た [んや]

けれども。 • • はっきり

de

at-ta

keredomo.

• • Hakkiri

CONS

clear • • To tell

[n ya]

ESS exist-PF NR VPRT somehow but, [Kinki Var for “no da”]*

[9] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

[言うたら]

ね、 • もう

[yuu-tara]

ne,

• mou

say-COND.PF the truth, you know,

AUG

any.more excellent • we have been losing our excellence

優れた sugureta

[Kinki Var for “ittara”] [10] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

オペレーション力

も

opereeshon.ryoku

mo na-ku

なって natte-

ability.for.operation also not.available-SUS becomein operating (machines).

[11] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

なく

s07 PNA

きた

と。 • • • あるいはロケ

で

の

ki-ta

to.

de

no

come-PF TO

• • • Aruiwa

roke

or location LOC GEN • • • And, the (good) evaluation from the



An utterance-transcending connector  [12] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

評価、

対応

の

早さ

と か 的確さ

hyouka, taiou no hayasa to.ka evaluation correspondance GEN speed or

local (customers), speedy and precise reaction is being lost.

[13] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

も

tekikakusa mo precision also

s08 PNA

なく

なって

きた

と。

na-ku

natte-

ki-ta

to.

not.available-SUS become-

come-PF TO

• •• ロケ • • Roke

location • • There is

[14] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

で

の

人間関係

も もう

de

no

ningen kankei

mo mou

LOC GEN interpersonal relationship also any.more no good personal relationship to the local (customers) any more.

[15] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en] BG

s09 PNA?

[あらへん] と。 [arahen]

to.

not.exist

TO [ashtray]

• • • [ほんな] • • • [Honna]

なーんにも

then • • • Well, then,

nothing. engaging

[Kinki Var for “nai”]

na:n . ni.

[Kinki Var for “sore de wa”]

[16] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

mo

[オカ-フード]さん に

[任しといて

[oka-fuudo]-san

makashitoi-te

(+NEG) [ ]-SUF [Oka-Food] to do the job [name of the institution]

ni

DAT entrust-PAR [= makashite oite mo; makasete oite mo]

 Yuko Sugita [17] RM [su] higher RM [v] も] ね • メリットが 全然 ない [や] RM [v] mo ne • meritto ga zenzen nai [ya] RM [mt] also AUG “merit” NOM at.all.(+NEG) not available RM [en] • has no merit at all,

[Kinki Var for “de wa”]

[18] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

PA

stressed

ない か

と

いう

評価

に

変わって

nai ka

to

iu

hyouka

ni

kawatte-

not INT

‘as meant’ evaluation DAT changeso has the evaluation changed.

[19] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

s10 fast and quiet; PNA

きた

と

いうこと です

[わ]。

ki-ta

to

iu

[wa].

koto

desu

come-PF ‘as meant’ thing VPRT.FRM

FP

((3s)) ((3s))

((3s))

[Kinki Var]

*Kinki Var = Kinki-variation

Utterances s01 to s04 show propositional contents (p) with an utterance-final particle to that is prosodically unstressed. In s05, it turns out that the speaker connected all the foregoing utterances, s01 – s04, with de kore de (‘And, therefore...’) as reasons for the positive outcomes from the customers. At the end of this utterance, however, the speaker gives yet another utterance connective keredomo, which indicates a concessive relation, so that the audience can predict further utterances, possibly negative ones. Unlike the foregoing s01 – s04, utterances s06 – s08 are negative assessments. They also employ unstressed instances of the utterance-final particle. In s09, with the deictic connector honna (Kinki-variety of Japanese; literary: ‘if it is so’ which can be translated into ‘well, then’), the foregoing utterances s06 – s08 are positioned as reasons again for the negatively assessed changes in the business situation uttered in s09.



An utterance-transcending connector 

(6) Data 2: immediately subsequent to Data 1. [20]

s11

RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

だから

今

Da.kara ima

まで

は

made wa

[オカ-フード]さん 一流 [oka-fuudo]-san

の

ichiryuu no

therefore now until TOP [ ]-SUF first class Therefore, we had the situation till now that the customers were [name of the institution]

[21] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

オペレーションするから ね、 [なん や かん や] opereeshon-suru

kara ne,

[nan ya kan ya]

“operation”-do CAU AUG this and that saying that [Oka Food] should take the job, because it does a first [idiomatic expression; “ya”:

[22] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

言いながらも ii

[オカ-フード]さんに

nagara mo [oka-fuudo]-san

Kinki Var]

[name of the institution]

[23] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

ni

say even if [ ]-SUF DAT class job; even if they were sometimes moaning about this and that. s12 PA?

[任しとこう]

と。 [こんで]

来た[(んや)]

[makashitokou]

to.

Kon de

ki-ta

entrust.DUB

QUT

this ESS come-PF NML ESS We have had no problem with that,

[(n ya)]

[= makashite okou] [Kinki Var for “kore de”] [Kinki Var for “n da”] [24] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en] BG

s13

けど。• • ま、はっきり[言うたら]

得意先

の

kedo. • •

tokuisaki

no

Ma, hakkiri

[yuu-tara]

CONS now clear say-COND.PF customer GEN but... • • Now, to tell the truth, we are losing the (good) [lighter] [Kinki Var for “ittara”]

 Yuko Sugita [25] RM [su] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en] [26] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

PNA

評価

が

来なく

なって

きた

と。

hyouka

ga

k-ona-ku

natte-

ki-ta

to.

evaluation NOM come-NEG-SUS become- come-PF TO evaluation from the customers. s14

• • ま、こういう • • Ma, kou iu

状況

です

[わ な]。

joukyou

desu

[wa

na].

FP

FP

well so ‘as meant’ situation VPRT.FRM • • Well, we are in such a situation.

[Kinki Var] [27] RM [v] RM [v] RM [mt] RM [en]

s15

• • • ナカムラさん。 ((1s)) ((1s)) • • • [Nakamura]-san. [PN]-SUF • • • Mr. Nakamura, please. [personal name]

(Nakamura mentions his opinion.)

After a pause of approximately 3 seconds (s10 in score area [19] of Data 1), RM further utters the causal connector da kara ‘therefore’. Utterance s11 ends with the particle to indicating the utterance as a direct quotation. This becomes clear from the suffix –san, which is used to address someone in a friendly as well as polite manner. The suffix added to the company name cannot be used to refer to one’s own company (see score areas [20] and [22]).20 In the utterance s12, the speaker mentions that things had been good until that time what parallel to s05. The utterance ends with the concessive particle kedo, again a parallel to s05. Thus, with regard to their structure, utterances s11 – s12 are similar to s01 – s05. Parallel to s06, the utterance s13 begins with the metalinguistic speech formula ‘to tell the truth’ and ends with a non-stressed to. In utterance s14, RM relates the foregoing utterances with kou iu ‘such’ to the conclusion ‘Now, we are in such a situation’. The pause lasting 3 seconds in s10 tells us that utterance s09 could have been a possible end of the discourse concatenation. RM, however, takes a further turn after that pause. Following utterance s14 and a pause lasting ¾ of a second, the next turn is allocated to one of the sales staff, Mr. Nakamura (s15). This means that he probably claims his turn by raising his hand and indicates that the audience understands the utterance s14 as a temporary completion of RM’s report.



An utterance-transcending connector 

5. Data analysis Having seen the content of the data above, we now turn to the analysis of the overall discourse structure in order to elicit the function of to in it. In Data 1, s05, which subsumes s01 – s04, can be contrasted with s09 subsuming s06 – s08 in the same manner as s05. In Data 2, s11 is subsumed into s12 and thus comparable to the relation between s05 and s01 – s04 in Data 1. Utterance s13 is contrasted with s11. RM begins the last utterance, s14, with ma ‘well’, which has the characteristic of summarizing the foregoing utterances.21 Thus, all utterances, s01 – s13, are finally bracketed by s14. What is interesting here is that RM marks both the utterances s09 and s14, which are at the end of the respective data sets with desu, a formal particle verb, which is directed to the hearer. In Japanese, there are two particle verbs, which function as copula: da and desu.22 Parallel to these particle verbs, there exist two forms of verb ending in Japanese: with or without the formal suffix verb –masu. The use of desu and -masu are called desu/-masu ‘mode’ or ‘level’, representing the speaker’s formal relationship to the hearer. In a business meeting, ‘desu/-masu mode’ is used to create formality even if the participants usually speak to each other in standard mode, namely in the so-called ‘dearu mode’.23 This description is, however, too general. The usage is more complex. It has been observed that people change from one mode to another, for instance, in a telephone conversation. Nevertheless, one of the two modes is usually used as a basic speech mode. Usami (2001) calls such a basic speech mode ‘default’. The change from standard mode to formal mode is called ‘up-shift’, the other way around ‘down-shift’ by the author. Returning to the data again, all other utterances are not marked with this formal form, but uttered in standard mode with verb forms ending in -ru or -ta (s06, s07, s13), negative forms -(a)-nai (Kinki-variety: – (a)-hen: s08), hortative form -ou (s11), particle verb da (ya in Kinki-variety: s05) or its past/perfect form datta (s01), and adjectives ending in the past/perfect form katta (s02 – s04). In our whole corpus of the company meetings, however, RM speaks in the formal mode, which is here ‘default’ according to Usami (2001). The default mode (here: desu) and final particles wa and wa na are used only in the utterances s09 and s14.24 Thus, these are finite, setting the utterances situatively in the interactional space (cf. ‘Interaktionsraum’ in Rehbein 1977: 21–22). Signaled in default mode and with final particles, the hearer can process these utterances as a temporary conclusion. Examining yet another device for hearer-orientation ne and connective devices, which RM uses in the discourse, the relation between the whole utterances in the data should be analysed. The particle ne, which is approximately translatable into ‘you know’ or as a tag-question, is used after a temporal clause in s06 (here, only as a metalinguistic means, that is, hakkiri iutara ne ‘if I speak clearly’ or ‘to tell the truth, you know’), after a concessive clause in s09 (oka-fuudo-san ni makashitoite mo ne ‘even if we engage Oka Food (to do the job), you know’), and after a causal clause in s11 (Okafuudo-san ichiryuu no opereeshon-suru kara ne ‘because Oka Food does the first class job, you know’). The particle ne is only used utterance-internally in the data. Analysing

 Yuko Sugita

sequential discourse, Tanaka (1999, 2000) defines ne as a turn-management device and categorizes the use of the particle according to position into four groups: ‘turninitial’, ‘turn-internal’, ‘turn-final’ and ‘occupying an entire turn’. According to the author, ‘turn-internal’ ne is used to claim further floor (Tanaka 2000: 1141), to make the hearer become attentive to what comes next in the main clause. The hearer is appealed to by means of ne after a sub-clause to draw attention to the complex grammatical structure of the utterances (see segments s09 and s11). In the data analysed, there are yet two other connective devices: a concessive connective keredomo, or its short form kedo ‘(al)though’ and a causal connective da kara ‘therefore’. I will not go into detail on the general use or functions of these connectives.25 It should, however, be pointed out that keredomo in s05 and kedo in s12 in utterance final position enables the hearer to predict that more is to come, namely contrastive utterances. Interestingly, parallel structures are found in the utterances between the segments s01 to s 09, and the segments s11 to s13. The first segments show, at first, a discontinuity exemplified by a three-second caesura. Da kara ‘therefore’ then opens the connection of the foregoing utterances to the coming utterances thus marking the latter as a consequence or a résumé of the first. In this sense, this connector is a linguistic means, which the speaker uses to guide the hearer to a certain processing direction of the prior utterances in relation to what is coming.26 By the time kedo is uttered at the end of the utterance s12, the hearers will have found some structural similarities in RM’s discourse patterns and hence expected a further development. With Figure 2, which illustrates the discourse structure analysed here, I will summarize the analysis that has been carried out so far: Utterances s01 – s04, in which RM gives some examples of the previous good business situation of the branch office, are mostly (or all; see * under Figure 2) marked with the utterance-final to. The propositional content in s01 – 04 is integrated into s05 in which RM summarizes the former positive state and, at the same time, indicates a further development of the discourse concatenation with keredomo. In utterances s06 – s08, instances of the current bad business situation are mentioned. They all end with to and are subsumed into s09 with finite elements. The utterance s09 also functions as a summary of s01 – s08 with the syntagmatic expression Vte kita, which entails developmental changing of a certain state and contrasts the current situation with the previous one. After a pause lasting 3 seconds (s10), RM begins s11 with da kara indicating to the audience that the utterances s01 – s09 are relevant to what follows as a consequence or a résumé. However, s11 is neither the consequence nor résumé of those utterances, but it is again marked with to. RM takes up the propositional content of s11 immediately in s12 with the deictic expression kon de ‘in this way’ and mentions the concessive particle kedo, at the end, so that further concatenation is predictable again. In s13, RM mentions the deteriorating business situation, which is in contrast to the situation uttered in s11 – s12, ending with the utterance to. Finally, with the summarizing expression ma ‘well’, the whole utterances s01 – s13 are subsumed into s14



An utterance-transcending connector 

with the deictic expression kou iu joukyou ‘such situation’ as the current problematic business situation.

s01

to

s02

to s05

s03

to

s04

to?*

s06

to

s07

to s09

s08

to

s14 s10

s11

to

s12

s13

to

Figure 2.  Discourse structure

* to in s4 is marked with ‘?’, because it is not clearly audible.

Functioning as an utterance transcending connector, the mono-moraic unstressed particle to in utterance-final position signals to the hearer that the discourse concatenation for the action of reporting is not completed and that the information so far should be held and related to the final utterance of the forthcoming chaining, which establishes a clear deictic orientation toward the hearer by means of the formal mode and the final particles.

 Yuko Sugita

6. Discussion The analysis so far reveals a specific structure of information processing in reporting in concatenative discourses in Japanese. Figure 3 illustrates how propositional content to be reported from p1 to pn is structured and signaled, so as to be transported into the final utterance in the discourse concatenation, i.e. the propositional content px. The final utterance is marked with finite elements, such as a particle verb in default mode (in our case desu) and/or further final particles emanating a subtle illocutionary nuance (in our case wa and wa na), so that the utterance can be specified as the final processing procedure so far.27 According to Sunakawa’s term ‘dual spaces’ introduced above, p1 to pn are located in the space of quoted time and space, yet marked as being transported into the final utterance located in the space of the speaker and the hearer in the interaction and current speech situation. It should be noted that the structure would certainly be different in another setting, especially in sequential discourses. A hearer might then signal understanding by nodding or through other non-verbal means, or might undertake securing her/his understanding. As Tanaka (2000: 1154) shows based on spoken data of Japanese, the particle ne in ‘turn-internal’ position, for instance, also functions as a speaker’s signal, which checks the recipient attention and solicits confirmation of continued attention. In sequential discourse, it is possible that the hearer gives the sign of ‘so far processed’, i.e. un or hai ‘okay’ or ‘yes’, at each respective end of a phrase consisting of a noun and a particle, or a verb with an inflection; this is observed in telephone conversations where no visual access is available. In our case, although no visual data is available, another video-recorded corpus of business meetings in Japan reveals that the hearers have seldom eye contact or non-verbal communication with the speaker in charge of reporting.

p1

to.

p2

to.

pn

to.

px

finite elements

Figure 3.  Utterance-final to in reporting discourse

As Hayashi (1997) argues, to is surely used to indicate that the preceding utterance is a report and not a subjective evaluation of the speaker himself (see Section 1; similar discussion about the utterance-internal to see Maynard 1997: Ch. 7). This is clearly the case in our data as well. Also the floor-claiming function of the utterance-final to in sequential



An utterance-transcending connector 

discourses is not challenged here. However, the frequent use of the particle in utterancefinal position requires that we look at the phenomenon from another perspective. In a complex action, such as reporting in business meetings, as described above, the predictability of the relationship of the utterances is crucial in the course of information processing. In Japanese, where the matrix construction appears in the final position, linguistic means for predictability are inevitable. Hence, it is necessary to analyse particle use from a cognitive perspective. In this respect, Givón’s (2005) study on ‘coherence-cuing devices’ is stimulating: (...) an elaborate system of cues that speakers give hearers about highly-specific mental structures and operations, all directed at the three major cognitive systems in which the current text is represented during on-line communication: workingmemory, attention and early episodic memory. (Givón 2005: 193)

In Givón’s sense, the particle to in utterance-final position may be conceived of as a coherence-cuing device related to our cognitive systems for information processing. This understanding is plausible when we recall to as a mono-moraic particle with a pitch-less pronunciation, and its recurrent use in the discourse form of reporting. According to Givón and traditional linguistics, small physical size, bringing in the smallest phonological weight and lacking independent lexical status, is matched by high-use frequency in natural communication (Zipf 1935 cited in Givón 2005: 139).28 To is ‘cognitively less costly’ than more complex expressions, and this is necessary for ‘automated high-speed information processing’. Furthermore, Givón’s terms of ‘retrospective and anticipatory grounding’ are useful.29 He defines them as follows: “The first grounds incoming information into the already-existing mental text. The second establishes the structural foundations of the newly-arriving text” (Givón 2005: 126). According to his definition, to in utterance-final position can be understood as an anticipatory grounding device. The structure of connectivity of the data analysed above can be illustrated as shown in Figure 4. The analysis so far reveals the following points: 1. The analysis of discourse connectivity (see Figure 4) indicates that the speaker marks each instance of positive (s01 – s03, s04?, s11) and negative (s06 – s08, s13) business situations with to in utterance-final position and the summarized positive outcomes (s05 and s12) with keredomo and kedo, while marking the summarized negative outcomes with finite elements (s09 and s14). In our data, to and kedo or keredomo are anticipatory cues, while deictic and compound connective devices function as retrospective cues. 2. The analysis of the relationship between utterances with utterance-final to and utterances with finite elements (see Figure 3) reveals that the hearer can process the information gained from the propositional contents, p1 – pn, in concatenative utterances, not only from what is reported, but also from the way in which they should be related to the propositional content, px, in the final concatenation of the

 Yuko Sugita

discourse. In this sense, propositional content, p1 – pn, marked by to functions as if they were structural elements of a Japanese sentence consisting of a noun and a particle respectively, while px with finite elements works analogously to a final verbal element. Seg.

s01 s02 s03 s04 s05

anticipatory cue

excellent operation excellent achievement and management good evaluation from the local customers good personal relationship

s06

to tell the truth ne no good operation

s07 s08

no good evaluation no good relationship

s10

((3,0))

Seg.

to to to

s05

THEREFORE de, kore de

s09

WELL, THEN honna

(to ? )

CAUSATIVECLAUSE+ ne trust of the customers

to to to

s12

THEREFORE da kara SO kon de

to

CONSESSIVE CLAUSE+ ne current negatively changing situation + desu wa

former positive situation

kedo

s12 s13

former positive business situation

keredomo

s11 s11

retrospective cue

to tell the truth no good evaluation

to

s14

Figure 4.  Structure of connectivity in Data 1 and 2

SUCH kou iu

current situation + desu wa na



An utterance-transcending connector 

3. The discourse structure (see Figure 2) shows that the direction of information processing is not linear. Rather, information is processed individually in a step-bystep manner and then transported into a larger unit of information. This characteristic is again similar to the grammatical structure of Japanese. As mentioned in points 2 – 3 above, both in the discourse structure and in the grammatical structure of Japanese, it is the final part of a concatenative construction that needs to be attended to. Our findings are thus in line with Maynard’s hypothesis that structures of discourse, discourse chaining and grammar are intertwined (Maynard 1997: 141). Givón’s study on discourse coherence and grammar, from a cognitive and evolutionary perspective, is also compatible with the results in this paper: “[...] at least in one major clause-chaining type (in OV languages), the chain-final clause is the most finite (marked) clause type in connected discourse” (Givón 2005: 181; emphasis added).

7. Conclusions On the basis of the analysis of Japanese data on reporting, to in utterance-final position has been analysed as a language-specific resource fulfilling the purpose of providing signals to the hearer on how to process verbalized information. What is interesting here is the evidence demonstrating that a close relationship exists between the organization of discourse, information processing and linguistic structure as resources for interaction. Further comparative analysis would help us to better understand this relationship.30 For example, the question how linguistic means such as connectives are relevant to the grammar and discourse structure specific to each language or language type should be investigated. This is of interest especially with regard to the notion that connectives have shaped information processing diachronically and continue to shape current-day language use.

Notes * This work was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the framework of the SFB 538 Mehrsprachigkeit (Research Center No. 538 Multilingualism). I would like to express my gratitude to Jochen Rehbein and Christiane Hohenstein as well as two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. For English proof-reading, I am very much indebted to Veronica Trespalacios. 1.

See Section 2 for details.

2. Cf. Hohenstein and Kameyama (2000: 1), Kameyama (2004: 1–2). 3. On the importance of the concepts of syllable and mora in Japanese language, see Kubozono (1999) and Sugita (2004: 120–121).

 Yuko Sugita 4. Other functions such as noun connector (to as ‘and’) and ‘comitative’ (‘with’ as companion of an action) and temporal use (‘when’) are not considered here. 5. For details and comparative analysis of Japanese and German complement constructions with matrix verbs of thinking and believing to omou and ich glaub(e) see Hohenstein (2004). 6. For a detailed analysis of matrix constructions in German and in English from the perspective of the mental processes of interactants see Rehbein (2003, this vol.). 7.

In’you-bun means a sentence consisted of a quoted clause and a main clause.

8. The English translation ‘dual spaces’ from Maynard (2002: 168). 9. In traditional grammar studies in Japan, the concept of ‘mood’ or chinjutsu is often used meaning mood, modality and illocution (cf. e.g. Watanabe 1953). 10. See also the studies of Fujita (1999) and Kamada (2000) where the relationship between Utterances 1 and 2 is discussed in detail and the grammatical categorization of Utterance 1 in the whole sentence is the main point of discussion. 11. The frequent use of utterance-final to in spoken data can be observed not only in Kansai variety of Japanese, but also in Tokyo version (see Hayashi 1997: 566, Table 1 and Note 19 in this paper). One of my colleagues from Japan, Jun Imai, who had once worked at a Japanese bank for several years, pointed at that he observed this utterance-final to frequently at his workplace in Tokyo. He claims that the use of this utterance-final was informally a sign of professional speech manner, which he might have had to learn to be ‘social adult’ (shakaijin) in business settings in Japan. As we will see in Section 6, his claim, if not enough as an evidence, is consistent with my argument. When people use this utterance-final particle in business reporting, the speaker deliberately operates her/his hearer’s way of information processing. 12. See, however, Wenck (1987) for a diachronic analysis of final-use of the particle tte, a variation of to. 13. See Note *. 14. The software used for transcription is Score Editor (Partitur Editor) EXMARaLDA developed within the framework of the SFB 538 at the University of Hamburg. For more information or to download the software see: http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/exmaralda/ (as of Dec. 2006). 15. Cf. abbreviations and symbols for transcript conventions. 16. To analyse pitch and pitch contour, the software for phonetic analysis PRAAT (Ver. 4.0) developed by Boersma and Weenink was used, available at http://www.praat.org (as of Dec. 2006). 17. Certain high-low pitch accentual patterns in Japanese indicate that a grammatical unit (bunsetsu) consists of one symbolic word such as a noun or a verb-stem and usually one functional word such as a particle or verb-inflection (see for details e.g. Haraguchi 1999). 18. The importance of analysing discourse multi-dimensionally is emphasized in several studies in Conversation Analysis (e. g. Ford and Thompson 1996, Selting 1996, Furo 2001) as well as in Functional Pragmatic Discourse Analysis (Rehbein 2001). 19. The data A and B include speakers of Kyoto region (Kinki variety) and the other two include speakers of Tokyo and its suburb. 20. Direct and indirect speech is not clearly distinguished in Japanese, though. Whether Japanese has this differentiation is one of the points of discussion in Fujita (1999) and Kamada (2000).



An utterance-transcending connector 

21. Ma has a characteristic of ‘neutralizing’: a notion maintained by Ehlich (1986: 121) about the characteristics of the interjection na in German which means that the interjection neutralizes the importance of the foregoing elements. 22. For the terminology ‘particle verb’ (or Partikelverb in German), see Rickmeyer (1995). 23. So-called ‘de-aru-mode’ is found in newspaper articles or in non-formal standard speech between families or friends. For further details see Coulmas (1987), Ikuta (1983), Maynard (1991), Janes (2000), Usami (2001) and Sugita (2004: 169–171). 24. Both are Kinki-variety adding an emphatic nuance to an utterance which is hearer orientated. 25. A contrastive analysis of different connectives in German and Japanese was presented by Hohenstein (Plenary Session, 7 October 2004, Collaborative Research Centre on Multilingualism (SFB 358), University of Hamburg, in prep.). A unified treatment of the Japanese particles to and kedo from a perspective of functional pragmatic analysis is under way (Hohenstein, Kameyama and Sugita in prep.). 26. Morphologically, da of da kara is categorized as a ‘particle verb’ (Partikelverb) by Rickmeyer (1995), which functions similar to a copula. Kara is a so-called ablative particle equivalent to ‘from’, functioning also as a post-positional causal clause marker. In its topologically and syntactically different usage, that is, at the beginning of an utterance as a part of ‘compound connective elements’ (Rehbein 2006: personal communication), da marks the previous utterance(s) as assertively stated propositional content. Kara makes the hearer predict that its consequence follows. (Compared with German ‘compound referential words (Zusammengesetzte Verweiswörter)’ such as deswegen or daher in regard to the hearer’s procedural information processing in Rehbein 1995b). 27. See Rehbein (1995a) for a contrastive analysis of the topology of finite elements of German and Turkish. 28. Givón actually mentions here the maximal continuity anaphoric devices such as zero-anaphor unstressed/clitic pronoun. It is, however, relevant to our case, too. 29. Givón (2005) also uses the terms ‘anaphoric and cataphoric grounding’ instead. To avoid terminological confusion, however, I use only the terms ‘retrospective and anticipatory’. 30. For instance, Tirkkonen-Condit and Liefländer-Koistinen (1989) found differences in argumentation structure in overall written discourse of newspaper editorials in German, English and Finnish. According to them, the main argumentation thesis is presented earliest in German editorials followed by English. In Finnish, they found that the main thesis comes later in the discourse or does not appear at all. The Finnish study as well as that of Maynard (1997) suggests that the analysis of overall discourse structure is a possible research subject for comparative studies also with regard to information processing in different language types.

 Yuko Sugita

Abbreviations and Symbols used Symbols • •• ••• ((2 s)) () : [v] [mt] [en] [su] PA PNA /

pause, less than 0,3 seconds pause, approx. 0,5 seconds pause between 0,5–0,9 seconds 2 seconds pause not audible syllable lengthening verbal line morphological transliteration translation in English supra-segmental features pitch available pitch not available repair

Transliteration

Morpheme category

Forms

ABL ACC ADV ATN ATT COM COND.PF CONS DAT DUB ESS EXO GEN FP HOR INT LOC NEG NML NOM PAR PF QUT

ablative accusative adversative particle nominal attribute particle nominal attribute inflection commutative particle perfective conditional concessive particle dative particle dubitative essive exothese genitive particle final particle hortative interrogative particle locative negative nominalizer particle nominative particle participial perfect quotative particle

kara o ga na -ru, -ta, -i, -katta to -tara keredomo, kedo, keredo ni ou, you in desyou, darou de ano, e::to, etc. no na, ne ect. -yoo ka, (k)ke de V-na-i no, n ga Verb-te, Adjective-kute Verb-ta, Adjective-katta to (used utterance-internally)

used only for to used only for to



An utterance-transcending connector  SUF.POL SUS

‘politeness’ suffix suspending form

TO TOP VPRT VPRT.FRM VSUF.FRM

utterance-final to topic particle particle verb formal particle verb formal suffix verb

-san (‘Mr.,’ ‘Mrs.’), etc. Verb stem with –i and –e, Adjective-ku to wa da desu masu

References Coulmas, F. 1987. Keigo: Höflichkeit und soziale Bedeutung im Japanischen. Linguistische Berichte 107: 44–62. Ehlich, K. 1986. Interjektionen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Ford, C. E. and Thompson, S. A. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Interaction and Grammar, E. Ochs, E. Schegloff and S. A. Thompson (eds.), 134–184. Cambridge: CUP. Fujita, Y. 1988. ‘In’you’-ron no shikai. Nihongogaku 9 Vol. 7: 30–45. Fujita, Y. 1999. In’you koubun no kouzou. Kokugogaku 198: 1–15. Fujita, Y. 2000. Kokugo In’you Koubun no Kenkyuu. Osaka: Izumi Shoin. Furo, H. 2001. Turn-taking in English and Japanese: Projectability in grammar, intonation, and semantics. London: Routledge. Givón, T. 2005. Context as Other Minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania. Haraguchi, S. 1999. Accent. In The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, N. Tsujimura (ed.), 1–30. Oxford: Blackwell. Hayashi, M. 1997. An exploration of sentence final uses of the quotative particle in Japanese spoken discourse. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 6, H. Sohn and J. Haig (eds.), 565–581. Stanford CA: CSLI. Hohenstein, C. 2004. A comparative analysis of Japanese and German complement constructions with matrix verbs of thinking and believing: ‘to omou’ and ‘ich glaub(e)’. In Multilingual Communication [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 2], J. House and J. Rehbein (eds.), 303–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hohenstein, C. 2005. Interactional expectations and linguistic knowledge in academic expert discourse (Japanese/German). International Journal of Sociology of Language 175/176: 285–306. Hohenstein, C. and Kameyama, S. 2000. Zur kontrastiven Analyse von sprachlichen Ausdrucks­ mitteln in Expertendiskursen. Am Beispiel japanischer und deutscher Vortrags- und Planungsdiskurse. In Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit (AZM) 11,Text/Diskurs, Oralität/Literali­ tät unter dem Aspekt mehrsprachiger Kommunikation. Beiträge zum Workshop ‘Methodologie und Datenanalyse’, B. Meyer and N. Toufexis (eds.), 26–44. Hamburg: University of Hamburg SFB 538 Multilingualism.

 Yuko Sugita Horie, K. 2000. Complementation in Japanese and Korean: A contrastive and cognitive linguistic approach. In Complementation: Cognitive and functional perspectives, K. Horie (ed.), 11–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ikuta, S. 1983. Speech level shift and conversational strategy in Japanese discourse. Language Sciences 5(1): 37–53. Janes, A. 2000. The interaction of style-shift and particle use in Japanese dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1823–1853. Kamada, O. 1988. Nihon-go no dentatsu hyougen. Nihongogaku 9 Vol. 7: 59–72. Kamada, O. 2000. Nihon-go no In’you. Tokyo: Hitsuji. Kameyama, S. 2004. Verständnissicherndes Handeln: Zur reparativen Bearbeitung von Rezeptionsdefiziten in deutschen und japanischen Diskursen. Münster: Waxmann. Kubozono, H. 1999. Mora and syllable. In The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, N. Tsujimura (ed.), 31–61. Oxford: Blackwell. Maynard, S. K. 1991. Pragmatics of discourse modality: A case of da and desu/masu forms in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 551–582. Maynard, S. K. 1997. Danwa-bunseki no Kanousei. (Discourse Analysis: Theory, method and Japanese expressivity). Tokyo: Kuroshio. Maynard, S. K. 2002. Linguistic Emotivity: Centrality of place, the topic-comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Redder, A. and Rehbein, J. (eds.). 1999. Grammatik und mentale Prozesse. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Rehbein, J. 1977. Komplexes Handeln: Elemente zur Handlungstheorie der Sprache. Stuttgart: Metzler. Rehbein, J. 1984. Beschreiben, Berichten und Erzählen. In Erzählen in der Schule, K. Ehlich (ed.), 67–124. Tübingen: Narr. Rehbein, J. 1995a. Grammatik kontrastiv: Am Beispiel von Problemen mit der Stellung finiter Elemente. Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache 21: 265–292. Rehbein, J. 1995b. Über zusammengesetzte Verweiswörter und ihre Rolle in argumentierender Rede. In Wege der Argumentationsforschung, H. Wohlrapp (ed.), 166–197. Stuttgart-BadCannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog. Rehbein, J. 2001. Das Konzept der Diskursanalyse. In Text- und Gesprächslinguistik, 2. Vols. [HSK], K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, S. F. Sager (eds.), 927–945. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Rehbein, J. 2003. Matrix-Konstruktionen in Diskurs und Text. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 8, 2–3, (Übersetzen, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracher­ werb und Sprachvermittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60. Geburtstag), N. Baumgarten, C. Böttger, M. Motz and J. Probst (eds.), 252– 276. (http://zif.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/jg-08–2-3/beitrag/Rehbein1.htm). Rehbein, J., Schmidt, T., Meyer, B., Watzke, F. and Herkenrath, A. 2002. Handbuch für das computer­ gestützte Transkribieren nach HIAT. Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit (AZM) [Series B, Working Papers in Multilingualism 56]. Hamburg: University of Hamburg SFB 538 Multilingualism. Rickmeyer, J. 1995. Japanische Morphosyntax. Heidelberg: Julius Groos. Selting, M. 1996. On the interplay of syntax and prosody in the construction of turn-constructional units and turns in conversation. Pragmatics 6: 357–388. Sugita, Y. 2004. Gesprächserwartungen: Kontrastive Studie über die Gesprächsführung in deutschen und japanischen Telefonaten. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Sunakawa, Y. 1988. In’you-bun ni okeru ba no nijuu-sei ni tsuite. Nihongogaku 9 Vol. 7: 14–29. Sunakawa, Y. 1989. In’you to wahou. In Kouza: Nihon-go to nihon-go kyouiku Bd. 4, Y. Kitahara (ed.), 355–387. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.



An utterance-transcending connector 

Suzuki, S. 2000. De dicto complementation in Japanese. In Complementation: Cognitive and functional perspectives, K. Horie (ed.), 33–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tanaka, H. 1999. Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tanaka, H. 2000. The particle ne as a turn-management device in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1135–1176. Tirkkonen-Condit, S. and Liefländer-Koistinen, L. 1989. Argumentation in Finnish versus English and German editorials. In Text, Interpretation, Argumentation, M. Kusch and H. Schröder (eds.), 173–181. Hamburg: Buske. Usami, M. 2001. Danwa no poraitonesu: Poraitonesu no danwa riron kousou (Discourse politeness: Discourse theory of politeness. A preliminary framework). In Discourse Politeness,The National Language Research Institute (ed.), Seventh International Symposium Session 4, 9–58. Tokyo. Watanabe, M. 1953. Jojutsu to chinjutsu: jutsugo bunsetsu no kouzou. Kokugogaku 13/14: 20–34. Wenck, G. 1987. Sichert synchronistische Betrachtung eine sinnvolle Beschreibung?: Beobachtungen zum Japanischen Grammem tte. Pratum Japanisticum. Exemplifizierender Entwurf einer Japanistik, 225–244. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Between connectivity and modality Reported speech in interpreter-mediated doctor-patient communication Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer, University of Hamburg

This paper analyzes data from doctor-patient interaction mediated by nonprofessional ad hoc-interpreters with a focus on the performance of ad hocinterpreters and their use of verba dicendi (“to say”, “to tell”, “to mean to say”). Our analysis of the Turkish and Portuguese language data shows that in both languages markers of reported speech are used both to establish ‘interactional coherence’ (Bührig 2002), and to express speaker stance. It seems that verba dicendi serve to especially emphasize the reliability of information provided by the doctor. In line with a general shift towards a more dynamic concept for the role of interpreters, our results also indicate that the different communicative functions of markers of reported speech should be part of interpreter training.

1. Introduction In our project ‘Dolmetschen im Krankenhaus’ (Interpreting in Hospitals) we have been investigating the impact of ad hoc-interpreting on the outcome of communication between German doctors and non-native patients in German hospitals.1 In this paper, we analyze markers of reported speech used by ad hoc-interpreters, i.e. bilingual nursing staff or relatives of the patient. Reported speech appears to have some relevance for the communicative outcome of interpreter-mediated discourse, as it relates a linguistic action with an actor, and also allows ad hoc-interpreters to blend information about an utterance with information about the world or the interpreter’s stance towards that utterance. That is to say, reported speech is not only a linguistic means to establish connections between previously made utterances, actors, and the actual speech situation, but also allows the speaker to bring in evaluations and personal stance. Hence, its communicative function is situated between connectivity and modality. As we will show, this may occur not only in indirect speech (Coulmas 1986), but even in contexts in which direct speech markers have been used by ad hoc-interpreters.

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer

Our paper is based on 17 German–Turkish and 14 German–Portuguese interactions mediated by ad hoc-interpreters (nursing staff or relatives of the patient). The interactions were tape-recorded in German hospitals. The genres investigated are medical interviews, briefings for informed consent and explanations of medical findings. In our analysis we will focus on specific linguistic forms within their respective discursive contexts, taking into account interactional as well as institutional features of medical discourse (cf. Bührig 2005). We will focus especially on the use of the Turkish verbum dicendi demek (to say), which in our data is used much more frequently as a marker of reported speech than its corresponding German or Portuguese forms.2 However, we will also look at Portuguese and German matrix constructions such as dizer que (to say that p) or meinen, dass (to mean that p).

2. Reported speech and interpreting When comparing the participation framework of dialogue interpreting with situations of reported speech, similarities as well as differences are to be found. Carreira (1988: 90–91) characterizes the participant constellation of reported speech as follows: a speaker S1 makes a statement about a certain fact to the interlocutor S2, namely about the utterance act of another interlocutor, S3. S2 was not present when the utterance was made by S3 and S3 in turn is not present when S1 refers to his statement. Although reported speech may also occur among participants co-present in the same speech situation, the gap between the original utterance and the reported one is usually not just a question of time. Very often, reporting what someone else has said before is associated with a new activity or discourse type that bears a new communicative purpose different from that of the original. For example team members might want to joke about a statement made by a colleague in non-formal situations, making use of a corresponding, narrative style. In dialogue interpreting in medical settings, however, the interpreter, the physician, and the patient are present in a face-to-face-situation. Participants can see and hear each other; and usually it is quite clear who any given utterance can be attributed to. However, because of the time lag between source and target language, turns may not always link verbal and non-verbal communicative acts correctly. Moreover, the lack of knowledge about the languages of the other participants makes it difficult, if not impossible, for participants to verify whether and to which degree a target language version corresponds to the original source language contribution.3 At first glance, the division of labor between participants seems to be clear: the interpreter, whether professional or not, renders contributions of the primary interlocutors into the respective language of the addressee. Therefore, markers of reported speech might be considered redundant: utterances of the interpreter are, as a rule, translations of other participants’ contributions. The interpreter is not the author of



Between connectivity and modality 

these utterances. Anticipating that this might be considered a fairly naïve and normative view on interpreting, a Swiss guidebook for physicians working with non-professional interpreters recommends to avoid reported speech: “Speak directly to the patient. A conversation seems more natural if you address the patient using the second person: ‘Do you feel pain?’ instead of ‘Does he feel pain?’ The interpreter should then translate the words of the patient using the first person: ‘I get/have nightmares almost every night’ instead of, ‘He says that he has nightmares.’”(Bischoff/Loutan 2000: 15, our translation). Twenty pages later, however, the same guidebook recommends that the interpreter should distinguish between contributions of the speaker and his or her own contributions or interpretations: “Ask the ad hoc-interpreter to make clear what has been said by the patient and what has been added or changed in the translation.” (ibid.: 37, our translation). Obviously, this instruction contradicts the normative concept of the neutral or invisible interpreter. It reflects the fact that a rendition into the target language always presupposes comprehension and processing by the interpreter. Therefore, a certain need for the clarification of authorship could in fact arise in dialogue interpreting, as well as in more formal, conference-style settings and even in the simultaneous mode. As various authors have pointed out, the normative concept of the invisible interpreter does not necessarily correspond to the reality of interpreting, although interpreting norms still call for this invisibility.4 The following example (excerpt 1)5 illustrates the potential use of different voices in the interpreter-mediated encounter. It is taken from a diet consultation. A German nurse advises a Turkish diabetic about dietary measures to be taken. The patient (PAT) is accompanied by his bilingual son (INT) and his wife (MOM). The son is responsible for rendering the dietary recommendations into Turkish. Knowing about the importance of yogurt in Turkish cooking and about the fact that his father eats a lot of yogurt, the son emphasizes that he, the father, should avoid yogurt. The nurse, however, only told the patient to avoid ‘milk products’. She remains silent while the family members talk to each other in Turkish.

(1)

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer

Although example (1) is probably an extreme case of cultural accommodation, it clearly shows that participants are quite aware of the polyphonic potential of interpretermediated discourse. We found indications of reported speech throughout our data, but the frequency seems to depend on the languages used on the one hand, and on genres and topics on the other. We found incidents of reported speech much more frequently in utterances of native Turks interpreting into Turkish or German. In table 1 we counted indications of reported speech in seven German–Turkish and seven German–Portuguese briefings for informed consent. Table 1.  Frequency of reported speech in 14 interpreted briefings for informed consent. Languages used German – Turkish German – Portuguese

Incidents of reported speech markers in utterances of interpreters per 100 words 3.6 0.6

Table 1 shows that, assuming an average utterance length of 10 words, nearly every third utterance of a Turkish interpreter includes an instance of reported speech. Portuguese interpreters, however, use an indicator of reported speech only once in 16 utterances.



Between connectivity and modality 

As the frequency of reported speech varies not only from talk to talk and according to topic, we presume that the use of reported speech depends not only on the languages used, but also on other factors, like genre or topic. These distributional differences justify the conclusion that interpreters may have specific reasons to use reported speech. However, our corpus is too heterogeneous to allow for a statistic analysis. Therefore, we opt for a qualitative analysis of the forms and functions of reported speech in our data. The aim of our investigation is to identify what communicative consequences reported speech acts have in specific contexts. In research on interpreting reported speech is often mentioned, but its communicative functions have rarely been analyzed in detail. One of the best known papers addressing the topic is that of Knapp/Knapp-Potthoff (1985). Knapp/Knapp-Potthoff distinguish between interpreters as professional translators who are not acting as primary interlocutors (ibid.: 451) and mediators (= non-professional translators), who use their linguistic skills on an ad hoc-basis and therefore might be considered primary participants. In the context of (non-professional) mediation, then, marking reported speech is important for proper identification of authorship. The indication of reported speech, and especially indirect speech, is perceived as an act of perspectivization of utterances (ibid: 455–456), which allows the mediator (M) to indicate whether he speaks as M or in place of another participant. Following these authors, it is necessary to mark reported speech given the length of some source language turns (ibid.: 458).6 Another reason may be the necessity to render expressive utterances from source to target language (ibid.: 456). Knapp-Potthoff (1992: 216) also identifies instances of reported speech as a face-saving strategy when face-threatening acts (FTA) have to be rendered from a source language. Taking excuses as an example, she shows that the illocutive dimension of speech acts may be rendered descriptively in subordinate constructions. Analyzing ad hoc-interpreting in German–Turkish medical advisory talk, Rehbein (1985: 432) found frequent incidents of reported speech, which he calls ‘planning phenomena’ (Planungserscheinungen). He suggests that reported speech is a linguistic technique allowing the speaker to divide complex topics into smaller chunks of knowledge. This technique seems to be part of the repertoire of Turkish speakers as far as oral narratives are concerned. Pöchhacker (2000:212–213) observes that the indication of reported speech depends on whether the primary speaker in the preceding turn explicitly asked the interpreter to interpret. In his data, interpreters do not use reported speech if the source utterance does not contain any request for interpreting. Apfelbaum (2004: 222f) analyses reported speech mainly as a contextualization cue. She notes that reported speech is frequent in interpreter-mediated advisory talk and, furthermore, that novice interpreters use the German epistemic particle wohl (seemingly, presumably). In combination with third person pronouns, this particle implicitly expresses that someone else is the author of that utterance.7 Bot (2005a,b) reports research on dialogue interpreting in psychotherapy. She finds that interpreters use different strategies to indicate authorship. One frequent

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer

strategy is the use of a ‘reporting verb’ (i.e. ‘to say’, he/she says) at the beginning of an interpreted turn, in combination with the use of the first person in the following part of that turn. Her findings suggest that interpreters use this linguistic means as an “explicit space builder” (ibid.: 258), indicating that the rendition is a report of what has been said by the patient or the therapist, rather than a strict literal translation. See table 2 for an overview of some of the findings from the literature. Table 2.  Reported speech and interpreting in the literature Author

Findings

Knapp/Knapp-Potthoff (1987)

Indicating authorship, mediator performatives, triggered by turn length and expressive utterances Face-saving strategy in the case of FTA’s Segmentation of knowledge (in Turkish) After request for interpreting in preceding turn High frequency in advisory talk, triggered by subjective or emotional statements, novice interpreters use third person in connection with epistemic modal particles (‘wohl’) to express uncertainty about the correctness of their rendition Reporting verbs as “explicit space builders”

Knapp-Potthoff (1992) Rehbein (1987c) Pöchhacker (2000) Apfelbaum (2004)

Bot 2005

The overview in table 2 shows that the use of reported speech in dialogue interpreting seems to be regarded as a means to indicate authorship and self-positioning of the interpreter, as well as a means to plan and process knowledge. Furthermore, issues such as certainty, subjectivity, and reliability seem to play a role. Before we analyze the use of reported speech in interpreter-mediated doctor-patient communication in more detail, we will look at the concept of ‘reported speech’ itself in the following sections in order to define our topic more narrowly. In general, reported speech is perceived as a communicative act that refers to some preceding communicative act, thus establishing or evoking a secondary layer of communication (Gülich 1978). The report may refer to another speaker, his or her words, intentions, or even thoughts, and the reference may be de dicto or de re. Whereas a de dicto reading presupposes that the secondary act contains what literally has been said (or thought), a de re reading allows the actual speaker to blend past performance with actual intentions or information. The fact that most languages provide whole repertoires of grammatical means to refer to past communicative events clearly indicates that to report what has been spoken or thought of earlier generally plays an important role in human communication.8 In bilingual constellations in which some mode of interpreting is employed, however, this ‘report’ on previous communicative acts is given mostly, although not exclusively, for the purpose of enabling primary participants to interact with each other. It thus appears to be necessary to focus on certain phenomena and rule out others.



Between connectivity and modality 

For the purpose of this article we will therefore define the use of reported speech as a linguistic device by which an interpreter explicitly indicates that one of the primary speakers, and not the interpreter, is the author of a respective utterance, or some of its parts. In this sense, the ‘report’ given by the interpreter relates to linguistic utterances and indicates the non-authorship of the interpreter. The respective linguistic means may identify a source, which in the case of verba dicendi will be the original speaker (‘He/she says that…’). This type of indication of reported speech is the most frequent in our data. In a broader sense, however, the notion may also relate to descriptive realizations of illocutions or descriptions of mental states that can be attributed to one of the primary speakers. In our corpus this broader type of reported speech is used mainly in renditions into German, or in cases in which an interpreter refers to statements made by the patient without, however, rendering them in the strict sense of their source utterance.9 Especially by using the epistemic verb ‘meinen’ (he/she means), the interpreter seems to aim at integrating defective (i.e. not well-formulated) contributions of the patient into the ongoing discourse.

3. Connecting and evaluating knowledge: the case of Turkish diyor As we already pointed out, the use of verba dicendi is quite frequent in the case of reported speech in our Turkish–German data. The Turkish verba dicendi can be used in different syntactic constructions:10 a) as postponed diyor/ dedi (to say)11 (adjacent) (2)12 “Şimdi sol taraftaki böbreğinizin durumunu • yani zaman gösterecek, diyor.” Well, the state of your left kidney • time will show, she says.

b) as a matrix construction: diyor/ dedi ki (to say that) (finite subordination)

(3)13 “Ehm bak! Ehm ((1s)) ee doktor diyor ki, baba • • • ((inhales audibly)) simdi seni Strahlung’a Sankt Johannes’e gönderirlerse, ya’ bütun vücudun etkilinir.” Uhm, look! Uhm ((1s)) eh the doctor says, that, daddy, • • • ((inhales audibly)) now, if you would be sent to Saint John’s for radiation, your whole body would be affected.

c) as a participle construction: -diği + verbum dicendi (infinite subordination)

(4)14 “Kalbin/ Kalpte bulunan küçük küçük adaleler, • • onların yani tam ((1s)) görev yapmadığını söylüyor.” Of your heart/ little muscles in the heart, • • she says that they are not working well.

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer

The only verba dicendi used in our corpus are demek (to say), söylemek (to say/ speak) and sormak (to ask). Most frequent is demek in its aspectual present form diyor, the past tense dedi is only rarely used. In the following we will therefore focus on diyor. The most frequent construction is postponed diyor (he/she says), following phrases or whole utterances. Diyor is most frequently used with the potentialis (Yeterlik fiili), especially in the so-called geniş zaman (also called aorist, abstract present, or muzari). Four randomly chosen briefings for informed consent showed that diyor is preceded in 79.3% of all cases by -ebilir (can), as in excerpt (5): (5)15

In excerpt (5) the expression of potentiality is doubled by –ebil- (can) and the geniş zaman morpheme –Ir. The expression of potentiality can be traced to the modal kann (can/might) in the original utterance of the German physician. Nevertheless the interpreter explicitly indicates this relationship by diyor. It seems, thus, that at least in contexts dealing with opinions and guesswork about potential events, Turkish speakers are keen to identify the author of those speech acts explicitly. Let us now look at another example for the use of diyor. In this case a Turkish patient (PAT) needs chemotherapy for a second time because of various tumors. Having suffered serious side effects from chemotherapy, the patient hesitates to undergo it again. The physician (DOC), however, tries to calm the patient by saying that this time around the side effects will be less severe. The bilingual daughter of the patient (INT) suggested in her rendition initially that the therapy had no side effects at all. This leads the patient to ask a lot of questions concerning this new therapy proposal. The doctor now feels the necessity to go into more detail about the treatment and possible side effects because of the patient’s questions. Excerpt (6) is taken from this section of the interaction.

(6)16

Between connectivity and modality 

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer

In the following rendition the daughter (excerpt 7) frequently uses diyor. Whereas she uses diyor in the preceding sections at the beginning of her turn only in a global manner by creating a matrix construction (doktor diyor ki – The doctor says that), she now chunks her turn by using postponed diyor which at times follows a single phrase (cf. lines 99–100). (7)16

The way in which diyor is used in examples (6) and (7) is syntactically very common. However, the interpreter taps the full functional potential of diyor in a very specific way. She starts the fragmented, phrase-related indication of reported speech only at that point where the advantages of the second chemotherapy are highlighted and she closes her rendition with an adhortative utterance in score 100: Yapalım yani (So let’s do it). This shows that in her belief her father should consent to the proposed treatment. In our opinion the recurrent incidents of reported speech play an important interactive role in excerpt 7 in the sense that it is supposed to prepare the father for the concluding adhortative utterance of the interpreter. By dividing the turn of the physician into four smaller chunks emphasizing repeatedly that the physician is the author of these treatment details, she wants her father to respond favorably to her. The example thus shows how modality and connectivity are closely intertwined. In her turn the interpreter dissolves the systematic connectivity of the physician’s turn, which consisted of an initial topical frame (‘this chemotherapy is different and has much fewer side effects’), a list of possible side effects, and, finally, a relativization of these side effects via aber (but) and nur (only). In the interpreted turn, knowledge elements are connected insofar as each fragment or chunk within the scope of diyor is explicitly traced to the physician as being the author of this chunk. By doing so the interpreter highlights the reliability of the information given, thus attributing greater significance to it: each detail is reliable be-



Between connectivity and modality 

cause it is ipsissima vox of the physician. Furthermore, this procedure allows the patient to process the fragments individually, thereby putting him in a position to pay more attention to each of them. In sum, the rendition shows that the interpreter does not have a neutral stance regarding her father’s decision. She wants him to respond in a positive way, hoping that this therapy will stop the deadly disease. On a more general level the preceding samples show that the instances of reported speech not only relate knowledge segments to a given source but also, depending on the reliability of the source, allow for an evaluative stance regarding these knowledge elements.

4. Markers of reported speech in German-Portuguese doctor-patient communication Comparing German–Turkish and German–Portuguese interactions in our data with regard to the contexts in which reported speech is more frequently used, it seems that these contexts are comparable. Although the frequency of reported speech altogether is lower in translations into Portuguese, there are in fact certain situations that increase the use of such markers, like sections of discourse in which the patient gets information about risks of treatments, about medical findings or therapies, or similar kinds of “news delivery sequences” (Maynard 2003). As in the German-Turkish data, Portuguese speakers use verba dicendi, mainly dizer que (to say that p), which is also the most frequent indication of reported speech in written texts (cf. Johnen 1996: 222– 226). The verbum dicendi contar que (to tell that p) is used to a much lesser extent. Furthermore, we found evidence that the subjunction que (that) is used as a marker of reported speech without its matrix verb. In these cases, que is used mainly in turn-initial position.17 In our next sample (8)18 we want to focus on the use of contar que (to tell that) because it appears to do more than just indicate authorship. In this example a physician (D) talks to an elderly Portuguese patient (P) about the risks of a bronchoscopy. The ad hoc-interpreter is a bilingual nurse (I).

(8)

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer

We suggest that contar que (to tell that) (score 33) refers to oral narratives involving fictional topics. The physician, however, makes a statement about a very real risk. Hers is not a narrative stance. Rather, she tries to steer the patient’s attention towards the fact that the medical procedure might entail risks. In contrast, the interpreter, by making use of contar que, typical for story-telling, tries to downplay the relevance of risks and steers the patients attention away from this information. The next example (9)19 also shows that reported speech operates on the reliability or mental evaluation of the reported propositional content. The patient (PAT) is a Portuguese worker who has undergone surgery because of possible cancer of the liver. In the following, the physician (DOC) is about to let the patient know that he does not suffer from cancer. Instead, problems were produced by a piece of cloth that has remained in the patient’s body after a previous operation years ago. The interpreter is the



Between connectivity and modality 

same bilingual nurse (INT) as in the previous example (8). In this excerpt however, contrary to other recordings involving her as an interpreter, she employs markers of reported speech quite frequently.20

(9)

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer



Between connectivity and modality 

The information provided by the physician in example (9) is, as one can imagine, of great significance as far as the patient is concerned. The nurse reinforces the factual status of the statements concerning the medical findings by using the verbum dicendi dizer que (to say that) or que (that) in turn-initial position. It seems that especially the subjunction que in matrix constructions, similar to German dass or English that, assigns a factual status to the subordinated proposition (Rehbein 2003: 258, Redder 1990). The fact that the good news is being reinforced should not come as a surprise at this point, given that the patient had expected a very negative diagnosis and the nurse, as a member of the team that is responsible for this patient, is quite aware of that. As in example (8), the function of reported speech in example (9) is again not restricted to the indication of authorship, but rather concerns the status of the knowledge verbalized here. Whereas in example (8) the relevance of the risk information given by the physician is played down by the matrix verb, the factual status of the good news is highlighted in example (9). When comparing the Turkish and the Portuguese excerpts, it becomes apparent that these colorings or effects on the status of the knowledge verbalized by the physicians are a common feature of reported speech. However, the syntactic structures these languages employ to mark reported speech differ. Portuguese speakers usually build matrix constructions with full subordinated propositions, whereas Turkish speakers may indicate reported speech in relation to propositional parts as well, as in the case of diyor in post-position. A common syntactic feature of both Turkish and Portuguese is that speakers use these markers in combination with some kind of progressive aspectual form that links these utterances more explicitly to the actual speech situation (‘he/she is saying’).

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer

5. Markers of reported speech in the target language German: the case of ‘meinen’ (to mean something) Reported speech is also indicated in renditions from the immigrant languages Portuguese and Turkish to German. Interestingly, the most frequent indication of reported speech in these renditions is not ‘saying that P’ but meinen (to mean that p). Although some authors consider meinen (to mean that p) as a verbum dicendi (cf. Marschall 1995: 357), we believe that it constitutes a specific case and that its use is not arbitrary. We found two typical contexts for the use of meinen: (a) if patients or other non-native participants said something in German without, however, being able to express their opinions clearly (i.e. foreigner talk); and (b) if the interpreter highlights explicitly that his or her rendition is the result of a mental process, i.e. of evaluating and interpreting the original statement. Compared to sagen (to say) the usage of meinen appears to be problematic. Whereas sagen refers to the original speaker as the author of an utterance, meinen (to mean) indicates, that the actual speaker (i.e. the interpreter) tries to identify what the original speaker intended to say. The original speaker (the patient, in our case) thus appears to be an actor who is not in a position to clearly state his opinion.21 In the following we will give a brief analysis of a typical case. Example (10)22 refers to an interaction between a Turkish patient (PAT) and a German physician (DOC) who is an expert for palliative medicine. The patient is the same person as in examples (6) and (7). He is suffering from cancer. The interpreter (INT) is the patient’s daughter. The talk is a medical interview in which the physician tries to sort out which measures can be taken to alleviate the pain caused by several tumors. For this purpose he asks the patient questions about the location and the duration of pain. (10)



Between connectivity and modality 

Example (10) shows in our opinion, that meint er (he means), instead of just identifying the author of the utterance, refers also to an evaluation of the original speaker’s utterance by the interpreter. The patient’s answer in German to the question about possible changes in the location of pain (score 52) is quite precise: he says that the location of pain has changed. Then he repeats this statement in Turkish. Although his German answer (Jetzt tauschen – Now change) is syntactically deficient, it is perfectly understandable. The interpreter, however, does not wait for the Turkish self-repetition of the patient. He creates a matrix construction with meinen as the matrix verb: “Jetzt hat sich das gewechselt, meint er” (Now it has changed, he means). With the postponed matrix verb meinen the interpreter wanted to improve upon the original German utterance. But, his reformulation is also lexically incorrect: the interpreter replaces the

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer

German verb tauschen (literally: to exchange) used by the patient in score 52 to wechseln (literally: to change, alternate, vary). Both statements, however, are equally understandable in the given context. The following question of the physician concerns the duration of pain. The patient again starts to answer this question in German, but then switches to Turkish (score 54–55). His Turkish answer is not quite clear: ‘This part one month. Now it is one and a half months. One month.’ Again, the interpreter adds a postponed meinen to the rendition (Ein Monat, meint er so – one month, so he means, score 55–56). In this case, the patient’s uncertainty may have triggered the use of meinen. The epistemic verb would then be used by the interpreter as an indicator of vagueness or uncertainty, which is actually correct in the given case, as the patient is obviously not quite sure about the exact time since the pain has changed its location. The function of meinen plus third person in renditions to German could be therefore summarized as a device by which the interpreter refers to alleged or real deficiencies of content or structure in the source language utterances. Thus, the use of meinen could indeed be problematic because it is not clear for an addressee whether the content or the grammatical form of the patient’s statements is deficient. The false impression that a patient is not able to locate pain or assess its duration could lead a physician to false conclusions about the patient’s physical state and, consequently, to false diagnostic decisions.

6. Conclusions In this paper we discussed the two-fold function of reported speech in interpreter-mediated discourse. Our claim was that indicators of reported speech are used to establish a specific type of ‘interactional coherence’ (Bührig 2002). By linking previous linguistic actions with their respective actors these linguistic elements simultaneously allow listeners to evaluate the propositional content of these linguistic actions. The outcome and the specific process of evaluation may vary according to contexts, but the function of reported speech as a trigger for some kind of evaluation is not context-dependent, but rather inherent in reported speech acts; that is to say: a bare assertion of wellknown, common-sense facts like ‘Water is wet’ gets a different, questionable status if it is explicitly assigned to someone as the author of this assertion: ‘Water is wet, he says.’ Furthermore, we were able to show that different verba dicendi have different functions in our data: whereas Turkish diyor and Portuguese dizer que (to say) are mainly used to trace propositional parts to their source, thus indicating reliability, the German meinen with third person (he/she means) is used mainly to refer to some kind of deficiency in the source language discourse. Turkish and Portuguese versions of ‘to say’, in other words, are used to underline that someone (usually a physician) said something de facto, thus emphasizing the official, reliable status of the propositional content within their scope. This might be especially useful to convince or to calm a



Between connectivity and modality 

patient down. Meinen with third person (he/she means), however, emphasizes that an additional interpretative procedure needs to be carried out by the interpreter because of some sort of deficiency in the source language utterance. The contexts in which reported speech is frequently used may vary: risk information, delivery of diagnostic findings, or the patient’s self-perception of his/her physical state in medical interviews. The reliability of information seems to be of more importance in cases in which a physician provides information for the patient (i.e. risk information or diagnosis). Emphasis on the need to interpret or reformulate the patient’s utterance (he/she means), however, seem to be triggered by those sections of discourse in which the patient speaks about his or her physical state. These findings may be coincidental, but they fit with previous analyses of the use of verba dicendi, reported speech and matrix constructions in monolingual settings. We therefore suggest further research along the lines outlined in this article. Our findings, however, might also be useful for the training of consecutive or dialogue interpreters. As has been stated initially, the view on interpreting as a mainly monologic linguistic activity and the concept of the ‘invisible’ interpreter are nowadays increasingly being abandoned in favor of a more flexible and dynamic concept of the interpreter’s role. This includes that normative restrictions, such as strictly forbidding the use of the third person, are increasingly brought into question. Our findings suggest that interpreters, i.e. professionals and ad hoc interpreters, should be made aware of the enormous functional potential of indicators of reported speech in different languages, and in regards to specific types of discourse, rather than being drilled to avoid these elements.23 By doing so they might acquire the ability to consciously use (or avoid) these elements, thus enhancing communication between the primary interlocutors.

Notes 1. We wish to thank Kristin Bührig and Demet Öczetin for discussions on earlier versions of this paper. Remaining errors are ours. The project has been part of the Research Center on Multilingualism (Sonderforschungsbereich 538) financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Senior researcher: PD Dr. Kristin Bührig. For an overview see Bührig & Meyer 2004. 2. For an analysis of the verbal morphem mIs as a reported speech marker in our Turkish data see Johnen (2006: 18–25). 3. In many cases, however, immigrant patients have at least a passive competence in the institutional language (German, in our case). This receptive competence enables them to check renditions and to sometimes even respond directly to the original utterances. Relatives present might comment on perceived translation errors or questionable renditions. 4. Cf. Bührig and Rehbein 2000, Davidson 2002, Diriker 2004, Harris 1990, Meyer 2004, Pöchhacker (2004: 150–151), Wadensjö 1998. 5.

Transcript ID 1.

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer 6. Reported speech as a feature of ad hoc-interpreting is also discussed in a study of Valero Garcés (2005). 7. Interpreter: „Es gibt wohl einige Fächer, die ihren Fächern in Granada sehr ähnlich sind.“ (There are some subjects here that seem to be similar to her subjects in Granada). 8. There is a vast body of literature on the topic, cf. Güldemann and von Roncador 2002, Janssen and van der Wurf 1996, Coulmas 1986, von Roncador 1988. 9. Some examples from our data are analyzed in Johnen (2006: 35–40). 10. Cf. on verba dicendi in Turkish Cankay 1998, 1999; on ‘demek’ (to say), ‘söylemek’ (to say, to speak) and ‘konuşmak’ (to speak) cf. Klockow 1988; a comprehensive overview is also given in Herkenrath and Karakoç (2004: 9–18). 11. In Turkish grammars this construction is usually called direct speech. However, van Schaaik (2004: 247) points out that only the verb demek (to say) can immediately follow a reported utterance. Other verba dicendi need diye as a citation marker: „Seni gördüğüme sevindim“ dedi. (He/she says: „I am happy to see you.“) vs. „Seni gördüğüme sevindim“, diye söyledi. (He/she says: „I am happy to see you.“) 12. Transcript ID 32a. 13. Transcript ID 7. 14. Transcript ID 32b. 15. Transcript ID 14. 16. Transcript ID 7. 17. Recurrent ‘que’ has been described up to now only in turn-internal position, as an element that separates utterances internally (cf. Brauer-Figueiredo 1999: 280–281). 18. Transcript ID 27, see also Meyer 2003a for a detailed analysis. 19. Transcript ID 21. 20. She uses reported speech 17.3 times per 1000 words. The average for her in all six recordings that we have is 10,1. 21. The choice of the verbum dicendi evaluates the reported proposition (cf. Marcuschi 1995, Yos 1997). Whereas Günthner and Imo 2003 analyze ‘ich mein’-constructions (I mean) as a discourse marker which is –among others – used to initiate explanations or elucidations of previous turns, Hohenstein (2004: 318) states that ‘meinen’ “names a mental process or state of ’being opionated’ or ’holding or supporting an opinion’, which often is based on perception or impression”. Similarly, Fiehler et al. 2004 define constructions with ‘Ich mein(e)‘ as an operator that refers to the mental status of the utterances in its scope. See also Rehbein 2003 on the function of ‘Ich meine/I mean‘ in discourse. As far as we know, however, the combination of ‘meinen’ plus third person has not yet been discussed in the literature on discourse markers. 22. Transcript ID 6. 23. A training course for ad hoc-interpreters in hospitals is described in Meyer 2003b.



Between connectivity and modality 

References Apfelbaum, B. 2004. Gesprächsdynamik in Dolmetsch-Interaktionen: Eine empirische Untersuchung von Situationen internationaler Fachkommunikation unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Arbeitssprachen Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch und Spanisch. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung. Bischoff, A. and Loutan, L. 2000. Mit anderen Worten: Dolmetschen, Beratung und Pflege. Bern: Bundesamt für Gesundheit; Genf: HUG. Bot, H. 2005a. Dialogue Interpreting in Mental Health. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Bot, H. 2005b. Dialogue interpreting as a specific case of reported speech. Interpreting 7 (2): 237–261. Brauer-Figueiredo, M. 1999. Gesprochenes Portugiesisch. Frankfurt: TFM. Bührig, K. 2005. ‘Speech action patterns’ and ‘discourse types’. In Approaches to ‘Genre’, H. Gruber and P. Muntigl (eds). Folia Linguistica 39/1–2: 143–171. Bührig, K. 2002. Interactional coherence in discussions and everyday story telling: On considering the role of ‘auf jeden Fall’ and ‘jedenfalls’. In Rethinking Sequentiality, A. Fetzer and C. Meierkord (eds), 273–290. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bührig, K. and Meyer, B. 2004. Ad hoc-interpreting and the achievement of communicative purposes in specific kinds of doctor-patient discourse. In Multilingual Communication [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 2], J. House and J. Rehbein (eds), 43–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bührig, K. and Rehbein, J. 2000. Reproduzierendes Handeln: Übersetzen, simultanes und konsekutives Dolmetschen im diskursanalytischen Vergleich [Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B, No. 6]. Hamburg: University of Hamurg, Sonderforschungsbereich 538. Cankay, S. 1998. Untersuchungen zu den redeeinleitenden Verben im Deutschen und Türkischen: Eine kontrastive Sprachanalyse. Oberhausen: Athena. Cankay, S. 1999. Verba dicendi und sentiendi im Deutschen und Türkischen. Zielsprache Deutsch 30(1): 75–80. Carreira, M. H. A. 1988. Subjectividade enunciativa e discurso relatado: Contribuição para o desenvolvimento de um metódo de análise. In Actas do 3º Encontro da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, Lisboa, 1987, Associação Portuguesa de Linguística (ed.), 87–104. Lisboa: APL. Coulmas, F. 1986. (ed.) Direct and Indirect Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Davidson, B. 2002. A model for the construction of conversational common ground in interpreted discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 34(9): 1273–1300. Diriker, E. 2002. De-/re-contextualizing conference interpreting: Interpreters in the ivory tower? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fiehler, R. et al. (eds). 2004. Eigenschaften gesprochener Sprache. Tübingen: Narr. Güldemann, T. and von Roncador, M. (eds) 2002. Reported Discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gülich, E. 1978. Redewiedergabe im Französischen. In Sprechen – Handeln – Interaktion: Ergebnisse aus Bielefelder Forschungsprojekten zu Texttheorie, Sprechakttheorie und Konversationsanalyse, R. Meyer-Hermann (ed.), 49–101. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Günthner, S. and Imo, W. 2003. Die Reanalyse von Matrixsätzen als Diskursmarker: Ich meinKonstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. In Jahrbuch der Ungarischen Germanistik 2003, M. Orosz and A. Herzog (eds), 181–216. Budapest/Bonn: DAAD.

 Thomas Johnen and Bernd Meyer Harris, B. 1990. Norms in Interpretation. Target 2(1): 115–119. Herkenrath, A. and Karakoç, B. 2004. Zur Morphosyntax äußerungsinterner Konnektivität bei mono- und bilingualen türkischen Kindern [Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B; 55]. Hamburg: University of Hamburg, Sonderforschungsbereich 538. Hohenstein, C. 2004. A comparative analysis of Japanese and German complement constructions with matrix verbs of thinking and believing: to omou and ich glaub(e). In Multilingual communication [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 2], J. House and J. Rehbein (eds), 303–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. House, J. and Rehbein, J. (eds). 2004). Multilingual Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Janssen, A. M. and van der Wurff, W. 1996. Reported speech: Forms and functions of the verb. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Johnen, T. 1996. Formen und Funktionen der Redewiedergabeindices in brasilianischen und portugiesischen Zeitungsnachrichten. In Untersuchungen zur portugiesischen Sprache, A. Endruschat and E. Gärtner (eds.), 213–228. Frankfurt: TFM. Johnen, T. 2006. Redewiedergabe zwischen Konnektivität und Modalität: Zur Markierung von Redewiedergabe in Dolmetscheräußerungen in gedolmetschten Arzt-Patientengesprächen [Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B, No. 71]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, Sonderforschungsbereich Mehrsprachigkeit 538. Kantarcı, İrfan. 1967. diye kelimesi üzerine. Türk Dili 16: 661–662. Klockow, R. 1988. Valenzvergleich deutscher und türkischer Verben: Sagen. In Ege Batı Dilleri ve Edebiyati Dergisi 5: 297–324. Knapp, K. and Knapp-Potthoff, A. 1985. Sprachmittlertätigkeit in interkultureller Kommunikation. In Interkulturelle Kommunikation, J. Rehbein (ed.), 450–463. Tübingen: Narr. Knapp-Potthoff, A. 1992. Secondhand politeness. In Politeness in Language: Studies in ist history, theory and practice, R. J. Watts, S. Ide, and K. Ehlich (eds.) 203–218. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Marcuschi, L. A. 1995. A ação dos verbos introdutores de opinião. Revista brasileira de lingüística 8: 91–118. Maynard, D. W. 2003. Good News, Bad News: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. Marschall, G. G. 1995. Sagen und seine Brüder: Überlegungen zur ‚Redetransitivität’. In Signans und Signatum: Auf dem Weg zu einer semantischen Grammatik; Festschrift für Paul Valentin zum 60. Geburtstag, E. Faucher, R. Métrich and M. Vuillaume (eds), 353–365. Tübingen: Narr. Meyer, B. 2003a. Bilingual risk communication. In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, J. Cohen, K. McAlister, K. Rolstad, and J. MacSwan (eds), 1602–1613. Somerville MA: Cascadilla. Meyer, B. 2003b. Dolmetschertraining aus diskursanalytischer Sicht: Überlegungen zu einer Fortbildung für zweisprachige Pflegekräfte. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 4: 160–181. Meyer, B. 2004. Dolmetschen im medizinischen Aufklärungsgespräch: Eine diskursanalytische Untersuchung zur Wissensvermittlung im mehrsprachigen Krankenhaus. Münster: Waxmann. Pöchhacker, F. 2000. Dolmetschen: Konzeptuelle Grundlagen und deskriptive Untersuchungen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Pöchhacker, F. 2004. Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routledge. Redder, A. 1990. Sprachtheorie und sprachliches Handeln: ‚denn’ und ‚da’. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rehbein, J. 1985. Medizinische Beratung türkischer Eltern. In Interkulturelle Kommunikation, J. Rehbein (ed.), 319–349. Tübingen: Narr.



Between connectivity and modality 

Rehbein, J. 2003. Matrix-Konstruktionen in Diskurs und Text. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [Online] 8(2/3): 252–276. Roncador, M. v. 1988. Zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede: Nichtwörtliche direkte Rede, erlebte Rede, logophorische Konstruktionen und Verwandtes. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Schaaik, G. v. 2004. Standaardgrammatica Turks. Bussum: Coutinho. Valero Garcés, C. 2005. Doctor-patient consultations in dyadic and triadic exchanges. In Interpreting 7(2): 193–210. Wadensjö, C. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London: Longman. Yos, G. 1997. Benennungen für Einstellungen bei der Redewiedergabe. In Nominationsforschung im Deutschen: Festschrift für Wolfgang Fleischer zum 75. Geburtstag. I. Barz and M. Schröder (eds.), 425–439. Frankfur: Peter Lang.

Matrix constructions Jochen Rehbein University of Hamburg and Middle East Technical University, Ankara

The paper is an essay in composition and functionality of a specific complex construction in German discourse and in English-German translations (German and English taken as examples of Western European languages).1 In linguistics, this topic is anything but new. As early as 1892, Frege differentiated between the meaning [Bedeutung] of a sentence and its oblique sense [Sinn]; the sense being expressed when the sentence is posed in an ‘indirect context’ and framed by a propositional attitude. In the following, the complex constructions which have been universally termed ‘matrix constructions’ and/or ‘complement constructions’ will be investigated by analysing their grammatical elements and the function(s) of their composition.2 In the Hallidayan tradition, we speak of ‘stance’ when we mean the ‘perspective’ or ‘emotion’ of the framework of a proposition in the sense of a ‘propositional attitude’ (cf. Halliday 1994; Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan 1999). Thus, the concept of ‘stance’ seems to be bound to that of a single sentence, that is, expressions for an ‘attitude’ are added to an isolated core sentence as its ‘oblique reading’. Against this background, the question will be asked what kinds of illocutions are realized through such constructions. An empirical analysis of linguistic realizations of illocutionary forms must first isolate the propositional content of an utterance so that the realization of the illocutionary act can be understood. In the process, the presentative realization of the illocution is juxtaposed with its descriptive use (§ 1, § 2). Some preliminary remarks on the functional pragmatic framework of the study will be given (§ 3) in order to clarify the concrete grammatical means with which matrix constructions integrate the reproduction of mental and interactional processes into the speech situation and to discover the linguistic-procedural architectonic of such constructions (§ 4). The discourse and text function of matrix constructions, i.e. their purpose, emerges from the ensemble of linguistic procedures (§ 5). Verbalized reference through symbol field expressions is, in many cases, language-specific rather than universal; this is why the translation of the matrices of these constructions is often difficult. For this reason, a detailed analysis will consist of the comparison of matrix constructions in an American text with those of its German translation (§ 6). Matrix constructions have the tendency to consolidate into speech formulae

 Jochen Rehbein

when a specific relation is bound to its constellation and when the complex expression changes to another linguistic field: this process of linguistic change is a case of de-grammaticalization (§ 7).

1. Presentative vs. descriptive realizations Utterance acts in spoken language consist of different types of realizations of linguistic action. So far, little attention has been given to the fact that the ‘constellation’ is an important modifying component in the realization of linguistic action.3 In the realization of the illocutionary act, ‘utterance modi’ (cf. Rehbein, 1999)4 are realized in the speech situation in a straightforward usage, that is, a usage using linguistic means which require the co-presence of speaker and hearer; this usage I call ‘presentative’. If the illocutionary act of an utterance is realized through a modus in combination with the finite and, as the case may be, with deictic expressions, one can speak of a ‘presentative’ realization of a speech action in the presence of the hearer. Should speech actions or, more precisely, the dimensions of the action space and the constellation be clarified through ‘depictions’, the realization is ‘descriptive’ (the subset is ‘performative’; cf. Austin 1962). In a ‘descriptive’ realization, verba/nomina dicendi and other lexical elements are applied in order to allude to an illocutionary act. Such realizations are often located in a matrix construction on which the dependent clause containing the propositional act depends. Formulations such as ‘I wanted to ask whether p’ show that the speaker is not straightforwardly using the interrogative in a face-to-face situation, rather s/he is describing his/her own knowledge deficit. The question is whether the utterance is being used in the declarative or whether the action of questioning is being executed through the means of another form of non-presentative realization. Generally speaking, in the transfer to a descriptive realization, a transposition from a direct mental processing of the propositional content to a propositional processing of the propositional content takes place. Eisenberg (1988: 88–94) discusses factive verbs (verba sentiendi) and their dependent ‘dass’-sentences. In his analysis, a speaker makes clear through the use of such verbs that s/he is reflecting assumed knowledge – a situation which does not occur in the straightforward realization of an assertation. In the following, this reflective usage, as a descriptive usage, is confronted with the non-reflective straightforward presentative usage in that the modus of the respective utterance is realized. A transposition to a descriptive usage occurs, for example, when utterance modi are ‘depicted’ within other ones; e.g. >paß auf!< [>Look out!es ist erforderlich, aufzupassen< [>it is necessary that you pay attentiondu mußt/sollst aufpassen< [>you must/should pay attention (s101) Jetzt ist nur die Frage, wann wir das machen. Now the only question is when we’re going to do that.

In the matrix construction “Jetzt ist nur die Frage, wann wir das machen.” [Now the only question is when we’re going to do that.] (segment (s 101)), the expression “Frage” [question] names an illocutionary act in general terms, but does not realize the illocutionary act of a question. Rather, the expression “Frage” (“question”) connects the concrete constellation of the discourse conceptually to the propositional content, which is to be realized in the pattern position of demanding a suggestion (within the pattern of making an appointment; cf. Rehbein, Kameyama and Maleck 1994). By means of the matrix construction in (s101), ING brings the hearer LÜD to a mutual state of knowledge with respect to the upcoming position of demanding a suggestion in that she formulates the architerm “Frage” [question], under which demanding a suggestion may descriptively be classified as an illocution. Obviously, in the case of matrix constructions, different levels of realization of illocutions and propositions exist. Assuming that the propositional act >wir machen das< [we are going to do that] is realized on the first – straightforward – level with the illocution of questioning by “Wann machen wir das?” [When are we going to do that?], then, with the description of the illocution in (s101): “Jetzt ist nur die Frage, wann wir das machen” [Now the only question is when we’re going to do that], the speaker, to a certain extent, exposes the illocution to the speech situation and then reflects it on a second level. The characterization of the illocutionary act is thus oriented towards Hor S, and not oriented towards the propositional content p. Such a H-/S-orientation is typical for the reflection stage. 6 The reflection stage transports the hearer from an action space to an observation, perception or knowledge space. By way of hearing a description, the listener is transferred from the role of a performing interactant to that of a thinking or conceptualizing interactant. With this, a first step toward textualization is taken (see also Bührig and Rehbein 1996). The constellation elements of the relevant utterance undergo a transposition, since, in the matrix, the relevant domains, under which the expressed subject matter

 Jochen Rehbein

with the embedded p-construction should be subordinated, are characterized. As regards characterization, modus can hardly be spoken of in the strict sense. In example (1), “die Frage, wann” [the question when] thus problematizes the illocutionary act as that which – regarding the propositional act p (here: >this will be done (s16) Nun wollte ich mal fragen, ob ich da auch mit hingehen kann und die Wohnung besichtigen oder nicht. Now I wanted to ask whether I could also come along and take a look at the apartment or not. Matrix constructions, in contrast to modi of utterances, represent verbalized forms of the processing of propositional contents. As pointed out above, with matrix construc-



Matrix constructions 

tions, the orientation of the processing of the embedded propositional act is directed toward the speaker and/or hearer, the actants of the discourse. Speaker-sided verbalizations often mark the processing of subordinated propositional content by the hearer. In doing so, the illocution is not executed; rather it is assigned to the superordinate matrix.7 Matrix constructions are thus complex linguistic processes with which specific content is brought into a specific constellation through discourse and text – and especially against the background of basic speech action patterns. To generalize, when utterances contain modal expressions, expressions of thinking, perceiving, speaking etc., the category of ‘utterance modus’ appears to be of marginal value as means of realization of illocutions, since the speaker, through lexical means, specifies how the propositional content is to be processed by the hearer. Rather, S releases the utterance, at least partly, from its connexion to the speech situation. Utterances containing matrix constructions – which, as will be shown, verbalize hearer activities of all kinds – can connect the discourse to the traversal of a speech pattern and, in doing so, provide a partial metadiscourse. Speaker and hearer thus reflect, through the lexical means of expressions of saying, thinking, knowing etc., the immediate binding of their utterance to the constellation. The realization of the speech action, then, is transported from the immediate constellation bind to its periphery; the speech action becomes something about which is spoken, thought, questioned etc.

3. Functional concepts of analysis In the following, linguistic units such as parts of speech, word classes, syntactic constructions etc. will be reconstructed from their role in speech actions. For this purpose, the theory of Functional Pragmatics provides among others some basic categories: speaker (S) and hearer (H), the knowledge domains of speaker (: ∏S) and hearer (: ∏H) with elements of knowledge and lack of knowledge (: π, ¬π) as well as the knowledge verbalized in the propositional act (: p). In addition, the well-known concepts of illocutionary act and utterance act (the latter including syntax, morphology, phonology, prosody) must be mentioned. In Functional Pragmatic theory, it is assumed that there are linguistic elements which are “smaller” than acts, and which mediate the formal linguistic surface and the communicative deep structure in detail; they have been termed ‘linguistic procedures’. As the smallest units of action, linguistic procedures unfold a specific action dynamic between speaker and hearer: they have a formal, an interactional and a mental side. The category of ‘linguistic procedure’ itself, is based on the theory of ‘linguistic fields’,8 which Ehlich (1979; 1991; 1997) formulated, borrowing from Bühler’s differentiation between ‘deictic field’ and ‘symbol field’ (Bühler 1934). Linguistic fields of a language (operative, incitement, deictic, symbol and tinge field) are systematically structured and comprise linguistic procedures of a certain functional homogeneity which are

 Jochen Rehbein

used in similar characteristic constellations of speaking and acting. In particular, a linguistic field is to be characterized by the specific mental domain which is activated on the side of the hearer when a linguistic procedure with specific formal linguistic characteristics is applied by a speaker. According to this theoretical framework, different formal linguistic units are supplied with different linguistic procedures according to their linguistic field: – ‘deictics’ which focus H on external linguistic objects, including speaker and hearer, belong to the ‘deictic field’; – ‘prepositions’ that represent ontological relationships as well as ‘auxiliaries’ that in Indoeuropean languages represent abstract processes, belong to the ‘symbol field’. In general, the ‘symbol field’ with its appellative procedures covers the lexical components of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adpositions as used in discourse and text.9 – ‘expressive’ procedures of the ‘tinge field’ are performed by imitations, secretive (e.g. fairy tale prosody), expressive intonations etc. which verbally create an atmosphere. – ‘incitive’ procedures of the ‘incitement field’ such as interjections, the imperativemorpheme and the vocative directly encroach upon the different mental dimensions of H without building on propositional structures; incitive procedures are, for instance, processed by hearer signals like /uh/ in English. – the ‘operative field’ wherein language processes language is the domain of morpho-syntactic phenomena and, because of the different functional sectors, it is structured varyingly: third-person (subject-/object-)pronouns establish ‘phoric’ reference to nominals; the word order operates on the topology of phrasal positions (constituents); particles containing ‘operative’ procedures take in single constituents into their scope and relate it to a discourse context; definite articles and conjunctions (complementizers) arise out of the change from the ‘deictic field’ to the ‘operative field’ (‘para-operative field transposition’). That is, a great deal of linguistic units responsible for carrying out utterance internal connectivity can be assigned to the ‘operative’ or to the ‘deictic’ field. The functional-pragmatic grammatical analysis requires access to those linguistic units that form the basis of linguistic procedures. Therefore, functional pragmatic terms will be applied to morphological and syntactic components of the matrix construction. In this way, the traditional grammatical description of the formal linguistic elements will be expanded to a pragmatic analysis of their functions. For an extension of the analysis to functional aspects, the category of ‘linguistic procedure’ especially is very helpful.



Matrix constructions 

4. Components of matrix constructions In the following, the typical components of matrix constructions will be briefly characterised in traditional morpho-syntactic terms and procedurally re-analysed. Diverse syntactic variables of the constituents, however, cannot be investigated here: thus we will below limit the analysis to the basic structure of the construction and to the summarized schematic illustration of its components. Since matrix components, in general, deal with the relationship between the illocutionary and propositional act, the verbalization of elements of the constellation, in the sense of descriptive realizations, play an important role in this relationship.

4.1

Components of the speech situation

The speech situation is an action situation which is determined by the discourse or the text; the corresponding space is determined by the variables of these two different constellations. Against this background, one of the first components which varies systematically is the role of the actant in the speech situation which is to be described linguistically by way of speaker/hearer deixis, phoric or noun phrase, depending on whether a personal or a non-personal construction is present. The nominal markedness itself can be characterized through the different forms of articles.The subject actant is thus positioned in the respective focusing-space of the origo of the speaker/author. Clearly, through the use of speaker and/or hearer deictics, the author and reader are more deeply involved in the speech action of the utterance than in the non-personal use thereof.10 Grammatically speaking, there is a close link between the components of the (subject) actants and the finite form (characterized by agreement). The personal deictic and the finite form11 anchor the matrix construction in the speech situation; phoric elements (engl. he, she, it; germ. er, sie, es) refer to nouns in the discourse or text. Nouns represent a specific discourse or text knowledge in a constellation and play a specific role in the introduction or further mention of topics in text and discourse.

4.2

Meaning components

In addition to the components responsible for the linguistic anchoring of the speech situation, symbol field expressions should be given the most attention. Symbol field expressions can belong to different parts of speech: a) verbal parts (under certain circumstances with modal verbs, and alike); b) nouns; c) adjectives (mostly used in the predicative); d) adverbials; or e) prepositional phrases. In the structure of the entire matrix, it is the symbol field which, through its inherent government, ‘carries’ a ‘slot’ for the subordinate utterance (accusative etc.). The symbol field can still have further governments (e.g. dative). Strictly speaking, a sub-

 Jochen Rehbein

ordinate syntagm yields a wide array of possible dependencies, depending on whether the symbol field contained therein is transitive or intransitive, or whether it has an instrumental, causal, factive, or non-factive character.12 A speaker/author S thus characterizes, in the symbol field of the matrix, the ‘superordinate’ activity with regard to the ‘dimension’ in which the dependent propositional content p is to be processed. The symbol field expressions represent basic dimensions for what the hearer is to do with the propositional content. As will be shown, they also act as the architerm in different overspecified expressions, i.e. their interactional role in mutual understanding grows out of their general usage. There is a certain affinity between the symbol field components and the respective text and discourse type.13 The symbol field contains a conceptual structure for the representations of the hearer’s ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ reality. The hypothesis here is that since the propositional content p is governed by the matrix, S places the propositional content in an action dimension for H. At the same time, the dimensions of the action space, which are configured in the basic pragmatic knowledge structure, are symbolically named and in this way mutual discourse knowledge, in particular the hearer’s knowledge, is made accessible.

4.3

Connectivity complex

The connectives (also: complementizers) are part of the subordinate construction which the propositional act p verbalizes (hereafter abbreviated as ‘p-construction’). In other words, with the matrix constructions, the p-construction is embedded in the specified slot14 of the entire matrix and is thereby subordinated in such a way that the construction of the propositional content becomes attached (as the post- or pre-field of the actual matrix). The intricate structure of the connectivity complex consists of three or four procedures. (a) Complementizers The supplementary complementizers dass [that] and ob [if], the wh-operator15 as well as the absence of a complementizer [ø] with a dependent main construction (e.g. in indirect speech or in the repetition of speech) are operative procedures through which the dependent p-construction is ‘coupled’16 with the phrasal position of the superordinate matrix. According to Redder 1990, complementizers are para-operative procedures as they play a double role. First of all, they transport the dependency of the propositional act, i.e. they organize the propositional content with the argument-predicate structure under the special symbol field characteristic of the matrix. Secondly, they transport the illocution from the superordinate matrix and stop the production of an illocution proper17 of the subordinate p-construction. In particular, para-operative dass [that] lends the subordinate propositional act (argument-predicate structure), and the knowledge verbalized in it, strengthening validity as facticity, fact and factual subject matter, insofar as dass [that] – as an introduc-



Matrix constructions 

tory element of the subordinate clause – has a specific role in the structuring of the reader’s/hearer’s knowledge. (b) Phrasal filling in the framework of the superordinate matrix Through the function of coupling of complementizers, the p-construction, as a partial phrase/constituent, is inserted into the slot which is created by the government of the symbol field in the superordinate matrix. This process can be described as the ‘procedural integration’ of a sentence (cf. Ehlich 1999) and as an operative procedure. The propositional content with the argument-predicate predication is operatively integrated into the superordinate matrix. (c) Caesura A clear caesura separates the partial p-containing construction from the rest of the matrix construction. The caesura is marked diacritically with a comma, and signals a pause in discourse, which is characterized by a non-conclusive utterance and a progressive flow in intonation. When a larger segmented caesura arises between the matrix and the pconstruction, a full stop can be inserted. The caesura is to be viewed as an independent operative procedure. (d) Correlates If a symbol field does not have a corresponding governor at its disposal or if it is expanded with a prepositional element, the deictic expressions fuse with the prepositions and other elements to create ‘composite deictics (zusammengesetzte Verweiswörter)’17 in the syntactic role of a ‘correlate’. The composite deictics within the superordinate matrix open a slot for the p-construction, which is to be integrated. Variant constructions with “so+Symbolfeld+daß” [so+symbol field+that] fall under this category. Composite deictics with a correlate function – transposed from the deictic field – are para-operative. Correlates produce, above all, a topicalization of the subordinate p-construction. (e) Control constructions The subordinate construction can also be tied as an infinitive construction and, under certain circumstances, introduced with “zu” [to] (cf. Beneš 1979). This option is referred to as ‘control construction’. This kind of construction appears to depend on a non-factive action type of symbol field, e.g. verbs of intention, deciding, judging, agreeing, etc.

4.4

The propositional act p [= ‘p-construction] and its status change

The main characteristic of the propositional act in matrix constructions is the ‘medial raising of the p-construction’: Embedded in the matrix construction, the propositional act obtains the character of information – which must first be anchored in the discourse or text. In this way, the basic argument-predicate structure of the proposition can be seen

 Jochen Rehbein

as a ‘verbalized’ one; as the verbalization of facts or events, or of a knowledge structure type (e.g. assessment, maxim etc.), of the product of decisions, of that which is imagined or of events, of that which is to be said, of results/effects of a cause etc. In general, this kind of embedding can be understood as a ‘medial raising’ of the propositional content. Whereas stance theory claims that the status of the propositional act remains untouched (however, with a covert logical status), in the theory sketched here, the verbal status of the propositional act is modified in that p is viewed as being mediated in the discourse or text through the means of ‘medialization’. The mediation type is reflected in the connectivity complex (dass [that], ob [if], wh-, ø-signal, control construction).19

4.5

Summarized scheme matrix components (word order not considered)

nominal

Expression of expanded knowledge model (symbol field with goverment) veradadbaljecvertive bial

prepositional

modalized (sym bol f.) or negated

further complementation

Finite tem. poral, personal-dei.; vs. operative; operative (agr. ment)

correlate (so ... that; dadurch ... dass etc.)

p

cesura

verbalization of (subject-) actants dei phosymctic ric bolic

connectivity complex

propositional act in preor postfield

alternative linguistic fields

symbol field procedures (with poss. Parts of speech)

(operative)

(symbol.+ operative)

procedural combina.

paraoperat.

paraoper.

p-construct.

Ia

IIa

II b

IIc

Ib

II Ib

II Ia

IV

Figure 1.  Components of the matrix construction in Indo-European languages

Matrix constructions consist of different morphological structures which work together as an ‘ensemble of procedures’ and syntactically form a ‘procedural integration’. On the one hand, a characteristic is their potential to broadly expand integrated phrasal structures; and, on the other hand, its great productivity as regards its ability to include different symbol field domains.20

5. On the connectivity of matrix constructions in discourse and text Matrix constructions can be used by a speaker to represent (anticipatorily and/or “retrospectively”) the hearer’s knowledge and to connect it to his/her knowledge of the ongoing speech action. In the following transcript taken from a doctor patient communication, a speaker (doctor) acknowledges a hearer’s (patient’s) assumed knowledge, verbalizes it and interprets it into his professional knowledge.



Matrix constructions 



(3) ((Constellation: A patient P expresses her doubt to the doctor D about whether an operation which has already taken place was necessary at all)) (s1) D: Und wann war diese Nachoperation? And when did this second operation take place? (s2) P: Am neunzehnten Januar. On January nineteenth (s3) D: Am neunzehnten Januar. On January nineteenth (s4) Danke schön! Thank you! (s5) P: Und nun weiß ich nicht, was jetzt richtiger war. And now I don’t know what was the right thing to do (s6) Aber vielleicht ist/ But maybe (it) is/ (s7) D: Hm (s8) P: Man is ja doch/ One is indeed/ (s9) D: Man ist dann schon vorsichtig. One is then careful (s10) P: Vorsichtig! Careful! -> (s11) D: Man macht ja das, wovor Sie Angst hatten, eben nicht, daß man gleich riesig operiert und dann hinterher feststellt, das sei alles unnötig gewesen, sondern man ist eben vorsichtig und operiert erst, was unbedingt nötig ist. One does precisely not that which you feared, that one immediately operates and then discovers after the fact that it wasn’t necessary, rather one is cautious and operates only what is absolutely necessary. (s12) Und wenn man dann weiß, was das Problem ist, dann geht man wieder dem nach. And if one then knows, what the problem is, then one follows it up again. (APK-050988, 87ff) Let us take a closer look at segment (s11). In order to find out in which elements the propositional content of the underlined matrix is located, the most important content can be paraphrased: >man operiert nicht sofort und stellt erst hinterher fest, daß die Operation unnötig gewesen ist, sondern man operiert erst, wenn es/was unbedingt nötig istone does not operate immediately and then determine after the fact that the operation was not necessary, rather one operates only when it is absolutely necessaryman operiert nur, was nötig istone only operates, what is necessary verb [with obj.] trick or deceive (someone); dupe; she had been fooling herself in thinking she could remain indifferent | he fooled nightclub managers into believing he was a successful businessman.’ (Pearsall 1998: 714). 23. A casuist style directs the reader to concrete cases, lets the author subjectively have his/her word, in his/her own mental processes, is suggestive-rhetorical and gives the reader little room for interpretation (‘narrow train of thought’). 24. Cf. Rehbein (1979). 25. Cf. on this concept Rehbein (2002b).

References Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: OUP. Beneš, E. 1979. Zur Konkurrenz von Infinitivfügungen und daß-Sätzen. Wirkendes Wort 29: 374–384. Biber, D. 1999. A register perspective on grammar and discourse: Variability in the form and use of English complement clauses. Discourse Studies 1: 131–150. Biber, D. and Reppen, R. 1998. Comparing native and learner perspectives on English grammar: A study of complement clauses. Learner English on Computer, Granger, S. (ed.), 145–158. London: Longman. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E., 1999. The grammatical marking of stance. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, 966–986. London: Longman. Brauße, U. 1988. Wissenssätze und Wissensfragen mit eingebetteten daß- und ob-Nebensätzen. Studien zum Satzmodus I. Linguistische Studien, Reihe A, E. Lang (ed.), 176–215. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Breindl, E. 1989. Präpositionalobjekte und Präpositionalobjektsätze im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Brinkmann, H. 1962. Die deutsche Sprache. Gestalt und Leistung. Düsseldorf: Schwann. Bühler, K. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer (1978 Frankfurt: Ullstein). Bührig, K. 1992. Zur Generalisierung qualitativer Forschungsergebnisse. Universität Hamburg: Germanisches Seminar (mimeo).



Matrix constructions 

Bührig, K. 2002. Interactional coherence in discussions and everyday story telling: On considering the role of ‘auf jeden Fall’ and ‘jedenfalls’. In Rethinking Sequentiality, A. Fetzer and C. Meierkord (eds), 273–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bührig, K. and Rehbein, J. 1996. Reproduzierendes Handeln. Übersetzen, simultanes und konsekutives Dolmetschen im diskursanalytischen Vergleich [Working Papers on Multilingualism. Series B, Nr. 20]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, Sonderforschungsbereich 538 Mehrsprachigkeit. Bührig, K. and Meyer, B. 2003. Die dritte Person: Der Gebrauch von Pronomina in gedolmetschten Aufklärungsgesprächen. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 38: 5–35. Bußmann, H. 19902. Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Kröner. Corbett, G. G. 1998. Morphology and agreement. The Handbook of Morphology, A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky, (eds), 191–202. Oxford: Blackwell. Coulmas, F. 1981. Routine im Gespräch. Zur pragmatischen Fundierung der Idiomatik. Wiesbaden: Athenaion. Coulmas, F. (ed.). 1981. Conversational Routine. Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton. Croft, W. 1993. Case marking and the semantics of mental verbs. Semantics and the Lexicon, J. Pustejovsky (ed.), 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ehlich, K. 1979. Verwendungen der Deixis beim sprachlichen Handeln. Linguistisch-philologische Untersuchungen zum hebräischen deiktischen System. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Ehlich, K. 1984. Zum Textbegriff. Text – Textsorten – Semantik. Linguistische Modelle und maschinelle Verfahren, A. Rothkegel and B. Sandig (eds), 9–26. Hamburg: Buske. Ehlich, K. 1987. so – Überlegungen zum Verhältnis sprachlicher Formen und sprachlichen Handelns, allgemein und an einem widerspenstigen Beispiel. Sprache und Pragmatik, I. Rosengren (ed.), 279–298. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell. Ehlich, K. 1991. Funktional-pragmatische Kommunikationsanalyse. Ziele und Verfahren. Verbale Interaktion, D. Flader (ed.), 127–143. Stuttgart: Metzler. Ehlich, K. 1992. Scientific texts and deictic structures. Cooperating with written texts, D. Stein (ed.), 201–229. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ehlich, K. 1994. Funktionale Etymologie. Texte und Diskurse. Methoden und Forschungsergebnisse der Funktionalen Pragmatik, G. Brünner and G. Graefen (eds), 68–82. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Ehlich, K. 1997. Linguistisches Feld und poetischer Fall – Eichendorffs Lockung. Eichendorffs Inkognito, K. Ehlich (ed.), 163–194. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ehlich, K. 1999. Der Satz. Beiträge zu einer pragmatischen Rekonstruktion. Grammatik und mentale Prozesse, A. Redder and J. Rehbein (eds), 51–68. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Ehlich, K. and J. Rehbein. 1972. Einige Interrelationen von Modalverben. Linguistische Pragmatik, D. Wunderlich (ed.), 318–340. Frankfurt: Athenaion. Ehlich, K. and J. Rehbein. 1979. Sprach­li­che Hand­lungs­mu­ster. In In­ter­pre­ta­ti­ve Ver­fah­ren in den Text- und So­zi­al­wis­sen­schaf­ten, H.-G. So­eff­ner (ed.), 243–274. Stutt­gart: Metz­ler. Eisenberg, P. 1999. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. Stuttgart: Metzler. Eissenhauer, S. 1998. Relativsätze im Vergleich: Deutsch – Arabisch. Münster: Waxmann. Engelen, B. 1975. Untersuchungen zu Satzbauplan und Wortfeld in der geschriebenen deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Teilbände I und II (Verblisten). München: Hueber. Fant, L. 1995. Negotiation discourse and interaction in cross-cultural perspective: The case of Sweden and Spain. The Discourse of Business Negotiation, K. Ehlich and J. Wagner (eds), 177–201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

 Jochen Rehbein Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383–395. Frege, G. 1892, 19662. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung. Fünf logische Studien, G. Frege, 40–65. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Fuchs, H. P. and Schank, G. (eds). 1975. Alltagsgespräche. Texte gesprochener deutscher Standardsprache III. Vol. 3. München: Hueber. Graefen, G. 1995. Ein Wort daß es in sich hat. Zielsprache Deutsch 26(2): 82–93. Graefen, G. 1997. Der Wissenschaftliche Artikel – Textart und Textorganisation. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Günthner, S. and Imo, W. 2003. Die Reanalyse von Matrixsätzen als Diskursmarker: ich meinKonstruktionen im gesprochenen Deutsch. InLiSt 37 (http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/inlist). Halliday, M. A. K. 19942. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Herkenrath, A. and Karakoç, B. 2002. Zum Erwerb von Verfahren der Subordination bei türkisch - deutsch bilingualen Kindern - Transkripte und quantitative Aspekte [Working Papers in Multilingualism, Series B, Nr.. Series B, Nr. 37]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, Sonderforschungs­bereich 538 Mehrsprachigkeit. Herkenrath, A., Karakoç, B. and Rehbein, J. 2003. Interrogative elements as subordinators in Turkish – aspects of Turkish-German bilingual children’s language use. In (In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism, N. Müller (ed.), 219–267. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Herkenrath, A. and Karakoç, B. 2004. Zur Morphosyntax äußerungsinterner Konnektivität bei mono- und bilingualen türkischen Kindern. Einheit und Vielfalt in der türkischen Welt. Materialien der 5. Deutschen Turkologenkonferenz, H. Boeschoten and H. Stein, (eds), 131– 160.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hohenstein, C. 2004. A comparative analysis of Japanese and German complement constructions with matrix verbs of thinking and believing – to omou and ich glaub(e). In Multilingual Communication, J. House and J. Rehbein (eds), 303–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Johnen, T. and Meyer, B. 2006. Between connectivity and modality: Reported speech in interpreter-mediated doctor-patient communication. (This volume). Johnson, S. 1997. Interface Culture. How new technology transforms the way we create and communicate. San Francisco CA: Harper Collins. Johnson, S. 1999. Interface Culture. Wie neue Technologien Kreativität und Kommunikation verändern (Hans-Joachim Maass, Transl.). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Lees, R. B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington In: Indiana University Press. Markkanen, R. and Schröder, H. (eds). 1997. Hedging and Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pearsall, J. (ed.). 1998. The new Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Redder, A. 1987. wenn... so. Zur Korrelatfunktion von so. Sprache und Pragmatik, I. Rosengren (ed.), 315–326. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell. Redder, A. 1990. Grammatiktheorie und sprachliches Handeln: ‘denn’ und ‘da’. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Redder, A. 1992. Funktional-grammatischer Aufbau des deutschen Verbs. Deutsche Syntax. Ansichten und Aussichten, L. Hoffmann (ed.), 128–154. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Redder, A. 2000. Textdeixis. Text- und Gesprächslinguistik, Vol. 1, K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann and S. F. Sager (eds), 283–294. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Redder, A. 2004. Von der Grammatik zum sprachlichen Handeln – Weil: Das interessiert halt viele. Der Deutschunterricht LVI.5: 50–58. Rehbein, J. 1977. Komplexes Handeln. Elemente zur Handlungstheorie der Sprache. Stuttgart: Metzler. Rehbein, J. 1979. Sprechhandlungsaugmente. Zur Organisation der Hörersteuerung. Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache, H. Weydt (ed.), 58–79. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.



Matrix constructions 

Rehbein, J. 1995. Über zusammengesetzte Verweiswörter und ihre Rolle in argumentierender Rede. Wege der Argumentationsforschung, H. Wohlrapp (ed.), 166–197. Stuttgart-BadCannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog. Rehbein, J. 1995. International sales talk. The Discourse of Business Negotiation, K. Ehlich and J. Wagner (eds), 67–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rehbein, J. 1999. Zum Modus von Äußerungen. Grammatik und mentale Prozesse, A. Redder and J. Rehbein (eds), 91–137. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Rehbein, J. 2001. Konzepte der Diskursanalyse. Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. 2. Vol. K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann and S. Sager (eds.), 927–945. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Rehbein, J. 2002a. Sie – ‘Personalpronomina’ und Höflichkeitsform im Deutschen [Series Language of Politeness Nr. 2]. Hamburg: Institut für Germanistik I, Universität Hamburg. Rehbein, J. 2002b. De-Grammatikalisierung – Zum prozeduralen Wandel sprachlicher Ausdrücke am Beispiel von ‘danke!’, ‘bitte!’ und ‘Entschuldigung!’ [Series Language of Politeness Nr. 3]. Hamburg: Institut für Germanistik I, Universität Hamburg. Rehbein, J. 2004. Matrix-Konstruktionen in Diskurs und Text. Übersetzen, Interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprachvermittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60. Geburtstag, N. Baumgarten, C. Böttger, M. Motz and J. Probst (eds), 251–275. Bochum: AKS-Verlag. Rehbein, J., Kameyama, S. and I. Maleck. 1994. Das reziproke Muster der Terminabsprache. Zur Modularität von Diskursen und Dialogen. Verbundvorhaben Verbmobil, Memo 23: 1–40. Rehbein, J. and Kameyama, S. 2003. Pragmatik. Sociolinguistics / Soziolinguistik. An international handbook of the science of language and Society (2nd completely revised and extended edition), U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier and P. Trudgill (eds), 556–588. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Thompson, S. A. and Mulac, A. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237–251. Thompson, S. A. 2002. Object complements and conversation – towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1): 125–165. Tsui, A. B. M. 1991. Sequencing rules and coherence in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 111–129. Wegener, Ph. 1885. Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens. Halle a. S.: Niemeyer (Reprint 1991, ed. by E. F. K. Koerner and with an introduction by Clemens Knobloch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins). Wunderlich, D. 1971. Pragmatik, Sprechsituation, Deixis. Zeitschrift für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft 1: 153–190. Zifonun, G. 1997. Komplementsätze. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, G. Zifonun, L. Hoffmann and B. Strecker,1448–1473. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Zinth-Dyhr, I. 1981. Ergänzungssätze im Deutschen. Untersuchungen zum komplexen Satz. Tübingen: Narr.

Language index A Albanian  6, 66, 79, 83–93 Arbëresh dialect  79 Altaic  21 Amerindian  77–80, 99 Arabic  59, 65f., 68, 244 Aramaic  157 Neo-Aramaic  65, 68 Arbëresh, see Albanian Atayal  46, 48 Austronesian  78, 99 B Basque  78 Berber  78 C Catalan  104 Cimbrian, see German D Domari  6, 65f., 68 Danish, old  273 E English  2, 5, 7f., 10, 35, 44., 53–59, 63, 72, 79f., 102, 112, 115, 119, 157, 161, 165–184 passim, 189, 192, 245f., 249, 251, 253, 259–267, 283ff., 294f., 319ff., 329–343 passim, 345–361 passim, 368f., 389, 409, 419, 424, 432–439, 442ff. Early Modern English  170ff. Hiberno-English, see Irish English Irish English  8, 165–184 passim Middle English  170, 172, 184 Old English  171 F Formosan  46, 49 French  7f., 101–136 passim, 177, 197, 256, 294, 442 Ful  66

G German  2f., 5f., 7–11, 13–17, 53–66, 72ff., 79, 101–136 passim, 157, 201, 209, 222, 225f., 259–269 passim, 272, 277f., 283–288, 291–325 passim, 345–365 passim, 368–372, 388f., 395–418 passim, 419, 432–446 Bavarian dialect  79 Cimbrian dialect  6, 79, 83–93, 97 Low German dialect  62f., 272 Germanic  9, 79, 87f., 253, 287 Greek  6–8, 14f., 66, 79, 139–164 passim Ancient Greek  139, 157, 161 Early Modern Greek  8, 139–164 passim Cappadocian dialect  159, 162 Cypriot dialect  140f., 157–163 Griko (Italo-Greek) dialect  79 Hellenistic Greek  151, 157 Medieval Greek  139–163 passim H Hausa  66 Hebrew  2, 53–59, 157, 295, 324 Hiligaynon  77f., 99 I Icelandic  273f. Indo-European  9, 79f., 82, 87ff., 253, 258, 277, 368, 424, 428 Irish  8, 165–184 passim Italian  6, 75–98 passim, 101–135 passim, 140, 256 Milanese dialect  97 J Japanese  2, 5ff., 11, 21–49 passim, 367–393 passim, 446

K Korean  16, 43, 48f., 392 Kurmanji  65, 68 L Lezgian  66 M Macedonian  67f., 74 Maltese  6, 78–97 passim Mandarin  48 Mesoamerican  66 Molise Slavic  6, 79, 83–93 Mosetén  63, 74 N Noghay  222, 226 Norwegian  273f., 287 Norse (Old West, Old East)  272ff., 283 see also: Swedish P Persian  9, 66, 232, 244, 256, 293 Philippinian  77f. Polish  58, 61f., 188 Polynesian  77f. Portuguese  11, 17, 73, 76, 79, 158, 395–412 passim, 440 Punjabi  66 R Rifeño  78 Romance  7f. 79f., 82, 85f., 91, 93, 101–109, 119–135, 158 Romani  6, 61, 63, 66 Ajia Varvara dialect  66 Bugurdži dialect  66 Romanian  61 Russian  15, 64, 188, 197 S Sardinian  85, 97 Scots  172, 176 Scottish Gaelic  169, 172 Semitic  7, 68, 87ff., 90, 94

 Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse Slavic  9, 66f., 253 see also: Molise Slavic Somali  66 Spanish  2, 63, 67, 75–80, 95–97, 102, 158, 162f., 444 Swedish  10, 66, 134, 259f., 272ff., 286, 329–343 passim, 444 Early Modern Swedish  260, 273 Old Swedish  10, 259f., 269, 272–278, 283f. see also: Norse

T Tagalog  80 Tariana  73, 76, 96 Thai  5, 46, 48 Tibetan  22, 48 Totonac-Tepehuan  77f., 98 Tupi-Guaranian  77f. Turkic  2, 9, 12, 16, 21, 187–198 passim, 222, 225f., 253, 256, 258, 297, 320, 323f.

Turkish  2, 9, 12, 16, 21, 187–198passim, 199–227 passim, 231–258 passim, 259f., 269, 277ff., 283–288, 291–325 passim, 389, 395–414 passim, 439f., 443, 446 Macedonian Turkish dialect  67f. Ottoman Turkish  8, 194–197, 256, 297 U Urdu  66 Uyghur  193

Name index A Aarssen, J.  7, 12, 209, 211–213, 214, 221, 225 Aijmer, K.  10, 12, 329–344, 346, 363f. Aikhenvald, A. Y.  73, 76, 79, 94–97 Akgün, G.  319 Aksoy, R.  319 Aksu-Koç, A.  208, 209, 211, 213, 221, 223, 225 Alexiou, S.  145, 161 Altenberg, B.  333, 343 Anders, K.  63, 73 Andersen, G.  338, 343 Andrews, S.  365 Apfelbaum, B.  399, 400, 415 Aquilina, J.  93, 97 Aquilina, T.  84, 97 Armstrong, J.  177, 178, 182 Arslan, A.  319 Auer, P.  52, 73, 349, 363 Austin, J. L.  420, 444 Avrutin, S.  132 Avvatios, I.  144 B Babur, E.  303, 308, 319, 321 Backus, A.  292, 323 Bainbridge, M.  257 Bakker, P.  6, 12, 16, 17, 99 Barden, B.  362, 363 Barlow, M.  285, 286 Baumgarten, N.  10, 223, 225, 259–290, 358, 362, 363, 365, 392, 447 Bednársky, P.  362, 363 Behrens, B.  3, 12 Belinello, P. F.  Bellotto, A.  83, 87, 88, 92, 93, 97 Beneš, E.  427, 444 Benveniste, É.  7, 12 Berman R. A.  2, 3, 12, 144, 161, 225 Bernardini Röst, P.  106, 132

Biber, D.  262, 287, 331, 343, 347, 351, 363, 419, 443, 444 Bidese, E.  96, 99 Bilir, Ü.  319 Bird, S.  271, 287 Bisang, W.  3, 5, 8, 12, 47, 48, 198 Bischoff, A.  397, 415 Blakemore, D.  70, 73, 262, 287, 338, 343 Bobalijk, J. D.  179, 182 Boeschoten, H. E.  218, 225, 257, 292, 323, 446 Bortolini, U.  82, 83, 98 Bošković, Z.  132, 133 Bot, H.  399, 400, 415 Böttger, C.  358, 363, 365, 392, 447 Bozkurt, F.  297 Brauße, U.  286, 288, 443, 444 Breindl, E.  286, 288, 443, 444 Brendemoen, B.  15, 256f. Breu, W.  83, 87f. 92f. 96, 98 Brincat, J.  96, 98 Brinkmann, H.  350, 363, 443f. Brinton, L. J.  21, 40, 48 Bühler, K.  199–201, 225, 320, 323, 423, 440, 442, 444 Bührig, K.  3, 5, 10–13, 286, 288, 321–324, 345–366, 395f., 413, 415, 421, 430, 441, 442,444f. Bultinck, B.  3, 17 Bußmann, H.  440, 445 Bybee, J.  8, 21, 40ff., 46, 48 Byrnes, H.  261, 287 C Cambourian, A.  2, 13 Cantone, K.  107ff., 129, 131, 133f. Caracausi, G.  83f., 88–92, 98 Cardenes Melián, J.  10, 13 Cardinaletti, A.  80f., 98, 364 Carnie, A.  169, 179, 182f. Carr, P.  74 Carston, R.  262, 287

Çelebi, E.  194, 197 Chafe, W.  4, 13 Chila-Markopoulou, D.  142, 156, 160f. Chomsky, N.  7, 13, 102, 125, 133, 179 Christoffersen, M.  272, 273, 285, 287 Chung, S. Y.  22, 25, 43, 48f. Clahsen, H.  108, 133 Claudi, E.  21, 42, 48 Clauson, G.  313 Clyne, M.  5, 10, 13, 60, 73, 261, 287, 352, 363 Collin, D. H. S.  286f. Comrie, B.  197 Condoravdi, C.  140f., 143, 148, 156f., 160f. Conrad, S.  287, 363, 419, 444 Conte, M.  2, 13 Corbett, G. G.  442, 445 Cordes, J.  109, 133 Corrigan, K.  171, 173, 183 Coulmas, F.  14, 389, 391, 395, 414f., 439, 445 Croft, W.  9, 13, 52, 68, 73, 445 Csató, É. Á.  223, 225, 256f. Cusatelli, G.  82, 84, 98 D Dankoff, R.  196f. Darıcalı, N.  319 Dasher, R. B.  330, 332, 342, 344 Davidson, B.  413, 415 de Beaugrande, R.  2, 13 DeLancey, S.  22, 25, 48 Delsing, L.-O.  286 Deny, J.  257 DeRose, S.  271, 287 Diderichsen, P.  285, 287 Digenis Akritis  140–152, 159f., 163 Dik, H.  157, 161 Diriker, E.  413, 415 Disterheft, N.  177f., 183

 Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse Doherty, M.  261, 287, 347, 363 Döpke, S.  106, 133 Dow, J. R.  96, 99 Duffield, N.  179, 183 Durand, D.  74, 287 Dyvik, H.  330, 333, 343 E Eden, C.  74 Edmondson, W. J.  3, 13, 346, 349, 363 Ehlich, K.  5, 13, 69, 73, 201, 222, 225f., 262, 287, 297, 320, 323f., 353, 360, 363f., 389, 391f. 416, 420, 423, 427, 441–447 Eideneier, H.  139, 144, 159–163 Eisenberg, P.  420, 445 Eleimon, I.  145 Eliot, G.  172 Elstermann, M.  362f. Engberg-Pedersen, L.  161 Engelen, B.  443, 445 Epstein, S.  125, 133 Erdal, M.  256f., 321, 323 Ergin, M.  297, 323 Ergin, Y.  319 Erguvanlı Taylan, E.  221, 223, 225, 245, 256, 257, 258 Erkman-Akerson, F.  256f. Evliya Çelebi  see Çelebi Eyuboğlu, İ. Z.  297, 323 F Fabricius-Hansen, C.  2f., 9, 12f., 262, 287 Fandrych, C.  5, 13, 352, 364 Fanego, T.  170, 183 Fant, L.  444f. Faulstich, L.  286, 288 Ferrara, K. W.  342f. Fiehler, R.  362f., 414f. Fienemann, J.  313, 320, 323 Filppula, M.  165, 171–174, 183 Finegan, E.  13, 287, 331, 343, 363, 419, 444 Fischer, K.  3, 10, 13 Fischer, S. R.  96 Fisseni, B.  289 Fitzpatrick, D.  181, 183 Foley, W. A.  2, 13, 22, 48 Fontana, J.  158, 162 Foolen, A.  10, 17 Ford, C. E.  358, 364, 388, 391 Fraser, B.  3, 10, 13, 144, 162, 346,

364, 441, 446 Frege, G.  419, 446 Fried, M.  347, 364 Friederici, A.  71, 73f. Fuchs, H. P.  422, 446 Fujita, Y.  368f., 388, 391 Furo, H.  388, 391 G Gabrielopoulos, N.  144, 153 Gagnepain, J.  179, 183 Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I.  106, 131, 133 Gencan, T. N.  295, 323 Genee, I.  167, 177ff., 183 Genesee, F.  7, 13, 101, 107, 133 Georgakopoulou, A.  144, 162 Givón, T.  4f., 13f., 40ff., 48, 139f., 154–157, 161f., 285, 287, 367, 385, 387, 389, 391, Glaser, E.  96 Göksel, A.  9, 13, 16, 226, 248, 250, 256ff., 324 Goldberg, A. E.  68, 73 Gradilone, G.  83, 87–93, 98 Graefen, G.  5, 13, 352, 364, 437, 442–446 Greenbaum, S.  184, 258, 288, 350, 364f. Gregores, E.  78, 98 Grein, M.  2f., 14, 22f., 48 Grice, H. P.  342f. Grießhaber, W.  199, 209, 226, 288, 324, 349, 362, 364 Groat, E.  125, 133 Grosjean, F.  72, 73 Gülich, E.  10, 14, 400, 415 Gunn, M.  182 Günthner, S.  414f., 443f., 446 H Haberland, H.  7, 14, 161f. Hacıeminoğlu, N.  297, 323 Häcker, M.  171ff., 183 Haegeman, L.  7, 14, 17, 134 Haid, G.  255–258 Haid, J.  391 Haiman, J.  9, 13–16, 162, 288, 293, 323f., 364 Halldór Á. Sigurðson  273, 287 Halliday, M. A. K.  2, 14, 262, 287, 338, 343, 351, 357, 364, 419, 446 Hansen-Jaax, D.  73

Harris, B.  413, 416 Hartmann, H.  182f. Hartung, M.  288, 324 Hasan, R.  2, 14, 262, 265, 287, 351, 364 Hasegawa, Y.  2f., 14, 21, 27, 30, 34, 38, 47f. Haspelmath, M.  3, 9, 12, 14f., 48, 197, 293f., 322f. Hawkins, J. A.  254, 258 Hayashi, M.  369–373, 384, 388, 391 Heine, B.  5, 13f., 21, 42f., 46–49, 292, 294f., 322f. Henry, P. L.  173f., 182f. Herkenrath, A.  6, 9, 10, 14, 102, 133, 218, 221–225, 259–326, 392, 414, 416, 440, 443, 446 Heydrich, W.  2, 14 Hibiya, J.  2, 16 Hickey, R.  165, 183 Hoffmann, L.  7, 13, 14, 16, 226, 289, 322f., 365, 446f. Hohenstein, C.  1, 3, 11, 14, 373, 387–391, 414, 416, 440, 446 Hopper, P.  12, 15, 22, 46, 48, 227 Horie, K.  3, 14, 368, 392f. Horrocks, G. C.  140, 157, 160, 162 House, J.  1, 3, 5, 10, 13f., 261, 262, 287f., 345–366, 391, 392, 415, 416, 446, 447 Huang, L.  46, 47, 49 Hulk, A.  102, 105f., 127, 133, 134 Hünnemeyer, F.  21, 42, 48 I Ikuta, S.  389, 392 Imo, W.  414f., 443ff. Jaeggli, O.  7, 15 J Jakobson, R.  3, 15, 190, 197 Janes, A.  389, 392 Janse, M.  8, 15, 156ff., 160ff. Jastrow, O.  65, 73 Jeffreys, E.  163 Jespersen, O.  170, 183, 349, 364 Jiménez, C.  159 Johanson, L.  2–5, 8, 12, 15f., 187–198, 200f., 209, 222–226, 232, 244, 253, 255, 256, 258, 293, 323f., 365 Johansson, S.  12, 287, 343, 363,

419, 444 Johnen, T.  6, 11, 395–418, 440, 446 Johnson, S.  432–436, 446 Jucker, A. H.  16, 365 K Kallioupolitis, M.  144ff. Kamada, O.  368, 388, 392 Kameyama, S.  3, 17, 286, 297, 320f., 324, 387, 389, 391f., 421, 441, 447 Karakoç, B.  7–10, 14, 17, 102, 133, 199–228, 298, 318–324, 414, 416, 440, 443, 446 Kartanos, I.  145 Kasdaglis, E. C.  144, 163 Kasper, G.  3, 14, 287, 364 Kawashima, R.  125, 133 Kayne, R.  119, 120–122, 126, 128, 133, 184 Kehayoglou, G.  144, 163 Kerslake, C.  2, 4, 9, 13–16, 226, 231–258, 293, 295, 319, 324 Khizanishvili, T.  96 Kiparsky, P.  140–143, 148, 156f., 160ff. Kissling, H. J.  246, 257, 258 Kitahara, H.  125, 133 Kitahara, Y.  392 Knapp, K.  399f., 416 Knapp-Potthoff, A.  399f., 416 Knight, B.  191, 198 König, E.  1, 10, 12, 14f., 48, 197 Kontzi, R.  93f., 98 Kornfilt, J.  255–258 Kortmann, B.  3, 15 Kotthoff, H.  261, 288 Kubozono, H.  387, 392 Kügelgen, R. von  286 Kupisch, T.  107ff., 131, 133f. Kural, M.  256, 258 Kuteva, T.  5, 14, 292, 294f., 322f. L Landos, A.  145 Lanza, E  15, 52, 73 LaPolla, R. J.  2, 17 Lasnik, H.  132, 133 Leech, G.  184, 258, 268, 287f., 350, 363, 365, 419, 444 Lees, R. B.  440, 446 Lehmann, C.  347, 360f., 364 Lenk, U.  346, 364

Name index  Leuschner, T.  10, 15 Levinson, S. C.  296, 324, 342f., 347, 364 Levy, P.  78, 98 Lewis, G.  257, 258 Li, C. N.  7, 15 Liberman, M.  271, 287 Liedke, M.  10, 15 Liefländer-Kostinen, L.  389, 393 Lindholm, J. J.  106, 133 Löning, P.  288, 324 López, L.  7, 15, 104, 125f., 133 Lord, C.  22, 48 Lüdeling, A.  286, 288 Lyons, J.  348, 364 M Ma, J.  191, 198 Maass, H.-J.  432–436, 446 Mackenzie, L.  1, 9, 15, 323 Mackridge, P.  140–145, 150ff., 157, 159–162 Makihara, M.  78, 96, 98 Malara, G.  86, 98 Maľčukov, A. L.  191, 198 Maleck, I.  421, 447 Markkanen, R.  446 Martins, A. M.  158, 162 Maschler, Y  52, 60, 73, 292, 295, 324 Matras, Y.  4–6, 9, 12, 15ff., 51–74, 76–79, 91, 94–99, 165, 292, 295, 318, 324 Matsumoto, Y.  47, 49 Matthiessen, C.  1, 16 Maynard, D. W.  405, 416 Maynard, S. K.  369, 384, 387ff., 392 McMahon, A.  71f., 74 Meisel, J. M.  6, 16, 72, 74, 101, 134 Menn, L.  71, 74 Meyer, B.  6, 11, 289, 324, 391, 392, 395–418, 440, 442, 445, 446 Meyer-Herman, R.  415 Mifsud, I. S.  94, 99 Miller, K.  181, 183 Mithun, M.  277, 288, 292ff., 319, 322, 324 Moennig, U.  160f. Mori, J.  3, 16 Mulac, A.  443, 447 Müller, N.  6f., 9, 14, 16, 101–138,

226, 323, 446 Murakami, H.  22, 24, 40 Muysken, P.  5f., 16 Myers-Scotton, C.  75, 98 Myhill J.  2, 16 Mylonas, E.  287 Nedjalkov, V.  191, 198 Nekula, M.  10, 16 Neubauer, F.  14 Newton, B.  141, 160, 162 Nicoladis, E.  7, 13, 101, 107, 133 Noda, H. P.  365 Noël, D.  333, 343 Noonan, Maire  179, 183 Noonan, Michael  177ff., 183, 364 O Ó Siadhail, M.  171f., 176–179, 182f. O’Donnell, M.  267, 288 O’Farrell, P.  181, 183 Obler, L. K.  16, 71, 74, 134 Ochs, E.  52, 74, 270, 288, 325, 330f., 343, 391 Odorico, P.  145, 163 Olsen, M.  22, 48 Onodera, N.  3, 16 Orlandi, T.  286, 288 Östman, J.-O.  347, 364 Otaina, G. A.  191, 198 Overstreet, M.  346, 365 Özbek, N.  10, 16, 295, 324 Özcan, T.  319 Özdil, E.  277, 287, 300 Ozil, Ş  256f. Özsoy, A. S.  256, 258 P Padilla, A. M.  106, 133 Pagliuca, W.  21, 40f., 43, 48 Pangalos, I.  144, 152 Panzavecchia, F.  93, 94, 98 Papalavrentios  144 Papasynadinos  145–150, 152, 163 Papathomopoulos, M.  163 Pappas, P.  140–144, 147, 151–154, 156, 158–162 Paradis, J.  7, 13, 101, 107, 133 Park, Y. Y.  3, 16 Pasch, R.  286, 288 Pearsall, J.  444, 446 Pedersen, H.  169, 184

 Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse Perkins, R.  21, 40f., 43, 48 Petersen, J.  106, 134 Petöfi, J. S.  13f. Pfaff, C. W.  218, 226 Philippaki-Warburton, I.  140, 161ff. Piccoli, G.  83, 87f., 92f., 98 Pietsch, L.  1, 8, 165, 181, 184 Pillunat, A.  103, 134 Pirris, D.  144, 158 Platzack, C.  273, 288 Pöchhacker, F.  399, 400, 413, 416 Poplack, S.  60, 74 Poschenrieder, T.  286, 288 Probst, J.  358, 362–365, 392, 447 Q Quilis, A.  96, 98 Quirk, R.  172, 184, 251, 258, 262, 288, 350, 364f. R Redder, A.  9, 16, 69, 74, 201, 226, 298, 314f., 320, 324, 350, 365, 368, 392, 409, 416, 426, 442–447 Redeker, G.  262, 288 Rehbein, J.  1–17, 69, 74, 102, 124, 133f., 199ff., 209, 215, 221–227, 270, 277, 280, 286–293, 297–300, 313–324, 345f., 367f., 359ff., 399, 409, 413–447 Renear, A.  287 Rentzsch, R.  193, 198 Renzi, L.  80, 81, 98 Reppen, R.  285, 289, 443f. Revithiadou, A.  161, 163 Rickmeyer, J.  389, 392 Rivero, M.  158, 163 Rizzi, L.  7, 17, 132, 134 Rohlfs, G.  85f,, 92, 95, 98 Rollo, A.  140, 160, 163 Ronjat, J.  109, 134 Rossi Taibbi, G.  83f., 88–92, 98 Rudolph, E.  3, 17, 69, 74 S Safir, K. J.  7, 15 Saint-Exupéry, A. de  80 Sakel, J.  63, 74 Salmons, J.  73f. Salvi, G.  80f., 98 Schaaik, G. van  257, 258, 414, 417 Schank, G.  422, 446

Schegloff, E. A.  296, 325, 391 Schiffrin, D.  3, 10, 17, 69, 74, 262, 289, 293f., 319, 325, 338, 344, 346f., 365 Schirmer, A.  71, 74 Schlyter, D. C. J.  286, 287 Schlyter, S.  106, 134 Schmidt, C.  23f., 49 Schmidt, T.  10, 225, 259–289, 324, 392 Schmitz, H.  289 Schmitz, K.  103, 107ff., 130–134, 289 Schourup, L.  3, 17, 319, 325 Schröder, B.  289 Schröder, H.  363, 393, 446 Schröder, M.  417 Schroeder, C.  243ff., 255–258 Schwenter, S.  332, 341f., 344 Scott, M.  286 Selçuk, T.  319 Selting, M.  388, 392 Şentürk, E.  319 Shibatani, M.  2, 5f., 21–50 Siepmann, D.  346, 347, 365 Sigurðson  see Halldór Á. Sigurðson Simon-Vandenbergen, A.  10, 12, 346, 363, 364 Şimşek, Y.  295f., 302, 325 Sinclair, J.  285, 289, 349, 365 Slobin, D. I.  2, 12, 17, 209, 221, 223, 225, 227, 253, 258 Smith, S. W.  348, 365 Song, J. J.  244, 258 Sorace, A.  133 Sözer, E.  13, 14 Sperber, D.  70, 74 Stern, C.  128, 134 Stern, W.  128, 134 Stolz, C.  5f., 17, 67, 74, 77, 79, 90, 95, 98 Stolz, T.  5f., 17, 67, 74, 75–99, 294, 325 Strecker, B.  14, 289, 447 Suárez, J. A.  78, 98 Sugita, Y.  4, 11, 367–394 Sunakawa, Y.  368, 369, 372, 373, 384, 392 Suzuki, S.  368, 393 Svartvik, J.  184, 258, 288, 350, 365

T Taeschner, T.  54, 74, 101, 134 Tagliavini, C.  82ff., 98 Tajima, M.  170, 184 Tallerman, M.  71, 74, 179, 184 Tanaka, H.  382, 384, 393 Taşdemir, F.  303, 308, 319 Taylan, E. E  221, 223, 225, 245, 256, 257, 258 ten Thije, J. D.  323 Teramura, H.  21, 27–34, 38, 49 Theodosis, K.  145 Thielmann, W.  323 Thoma, C.  4, 7f., 139–164 Thomason, S. G.  75, 99 Thompson, S. A.  2, 7, 9, 13–16, 288, 293, 323ff., 364, 388, 391, 443, 447 Tirkkonen-Condit, S.  389, 393 Tomasello, M.  72, 74 Toufexis, N.  139, 151, 159, 160f., 163, 391 Tracy, R.  106, 133, 134 Traugott, E. C.  13, 21f., 40, 42f., 46, 48f., 157, 163, 330, 332, 341–344 Tsui, A. B. M.  431, 447 Tyroller, H.  84f., 99 Tzartzanos, A. A.  161, 163 U Unger, C.  3, 17 Urdze, A.  96 Uriagereka, J.  125, 133, 135 Usami, M.  381, 389, 393 V Van de Craen, P.  10, 17 Van der Auwera, J.  1, 3, 7, 10, 14–17, 161, 162 Van der Wouden, T.  10, 17 Van Dijk, T.  2, 17 Van Valin, R. D.  2, 13, 17 Verhagen, A.  3, 9, 17 Vlassios (Hieromartyr)  145 Volterra, V.  54, 74 W Wadensjö, C.  413, 417 Wagner, J.  445, 447 Wagner, P.  289 Wagner, W.  160 Waßner, E.  286, 288 Watanabe, M.  388, 393 Watzke, F.  289, 324, 392

Wegener, P.  440, 447 Weinrich, H.  262, 289 Wenck, G.  388, 393 Wessén, E.  273, 289 Weydt, H.  3, 10, 17, 74, 446 White, P.  10, 18, 331, 337, 343, 344 Wigger, A.  182, 184 Wilson, D.  70, 74 Wolfenden, E. P.  78, 99 Wörner, K.  10, 225, 259–289 Wray, A.  71, 74 Wunderlich, D.  441, 445, 447

Name index  Y Yaman, E.  303, 319 Yıldırım, H.  319 Yılmaz, E.  10, 18, 294, 296, 302, 319, 320, 325 Yusun, S.  319 Z Zammit Ciantar, J.  94, 99 Zampolli, A.  82, 83, 84, 98 Zeevaert, L.  10, 159, 225, 259–298

Zifonun, G.  14, 262, 289, 440, 447 Zimmermann, K.  77, 99 Zinth-Dyhr, I.  447 Zipf, G. K.  385

Subject index A accusative  8, 165–174, 179–182, 256, 425, 430, 438 action quality  345, 353 action space  4, 201, 279f, 320, 420f., 426, 430, 432, 437, 441 actional apparatus  297, 314f. actionality  187f., 191 adstrate  75, 79, 97 adterminal  188, 194 advance organizer  10, 352 adverb  80, 82, 142, 149, 153, 160, 276, 295, 329, 332, 336f., 355 adverbial  10, 12, 14f., 17, 23, 155, 159, 174, 193, 197, 231, 233f., 242, 244–252, 254f., 257, 319, 332, 337, 358, 428, 432, 440, 443 adverbial clause  234, 244, 246–250, 252, 254, 257, 358, 364 adverssative, adversativity  17, 55, 74, 75ff., 80ff., 91–95, 330 Agr see Agreement Agreement  6, 16, 67, 132, 179, 330, 332, 336, 362, 425, 428, 432, 440, 442, 444f. alignment  266 allora (Italian)  6, 75, 80–83, 85–91, 93, 96f. anadeictic  277, 296, 353 and (English)  58, 62f., 76f., 144, 166f., 169, 171–176, 181, 183, 260–268, 283f., 287, 350, 352f., 359 annoncive  359 antecedent  103, 132, 243–246, 257, 356 anteriority  189–192, 200, 202, 205, 207f., 215, 222 anticipatory, anticipatory  69f., 251, 385f., 389, 422, 428, 430f., 439, 444 apodosis  80 APP see Avoid Pronoun Principle

appellative  349, 360, 424, 442 argument  4, 8, 34f., 39, 44, 46f., 73, 121, 177f., 183, 332, 426f. argumentation  321, 331, 335–341, 343, 392, 393 article system  103, 107 aspect  6, 15, 45f., 48, 187–191, 193, 197f., 225ff., 235 aspectotemporal, aspecto-temporal  7, 187–190, 193, 199, 201, 207, 209, 211–215, 221f. aspectual  5, 8, 29, 40–46, 188–193, 198, 200ff., 205, 208, 210, 212ff., 219, 221, 357, 402, 409 aspectual discourse type  201, 213, 219 assessment  296, 355, 428, 435ff. attrition  9, 253 authorship  397, 399ff., 405, 409, 436 automatic search  260, 281 auxiliarization  22f. Avoid Pronoun Principle (APP)  102f. B background  155, 202, 208, 215, 241, 254, 298, 307, 312, 315, 433, 435 because (English)  54, 58, 65, 124, 129, 143, 249, 255, 379, 381 bilingual, bilingualism  7, 16f., 52, 54, 59ff., 64, 71, 73f., 79, 83, 98, 101f., 133f., 292, 295, 299, 302, 314, 316f., 322, 324, 329, 333, 400 bilingual discourse / communication  17, 51f., 70f., 73f., 199–223, 225ff., 292, 300, 323f., 402, 405, 416

bilingual language acquisition  6, 8f., 13f., 16, 56, 74, 101f., 105–135, 199–223, 225ff., 277–287, 316f., 318f., 321, 324, 446 bilingual speaker/s  51–54, 58, 60, 63, 70, 72, 301, 333, 395, 397, 402, 405 biprocedural  291, 314 bleaching  41, 44, 443 borrowability  75, 77f., 97 borrowing  6, 16, 64–74, 75–78, 83, 85, 90f., 93, 95–98, 165 business communication  11, 263, 266, 285, 358ff., 363, 367, 374, 378, 381–386, 388, 432, 444f., 447 business reporting  11, 367, 388 C caesura  347, 382, 427, 433 case  7f., 11f., 130f., 165–174, 177–184, 247, 255, 274, 294, 297, 442, 445 case-marking  8, 166f., 170f., 179f. catadeictic, cata-deictic  296, 430 categorization, categorisation  141, 222, 279, 282, 292, 295, 299, 314f., 357f., 368, 372, 388, 443 causal  69, 80ff., 85, 87–91, 95, 128, 169f., 173, 249, 358, 380ff., 389, 426, 435 causal connective/connectivity  69, 81f., 85, 87–95, 128, 169f., 173, 249, 380ff., 382, 389, 426, 435 cause  44, 237, 249, 252, 428, 438 chain sentence  8, 187, 194–197 chaining  58, 70, 288, 324, 373, 383, 387 chaining-final  367

 Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse che (Romance/Italian)  81, 102, 120, 122, 129, 131f., 256 classification  9, 11, 22, 30, 90, 188, 275, 286, 443 clausal  25f., 35, 154, 165f., 172f., 179, 246, 254, 349 clause  2, 5, 15, 22, 25f., 48, 66–69, 71, 73, 104f., 108, 115, 120, 122ff., 126f., 129, 131, 141, 143, 145f., 148, 150f., 154–159, 161, 165, 169ff., 174–178, 180f., 191ff., 197, 231, 233–257, 267, 275f., 288, 294, 323f., 338f., 347, 356f., 360f., 364, 368, 381f., 386–389, 420, 430, 440, 443 dependent ~  171, 190–193, 420 subordinate ~  9, 102, 123f., 127, 129, 231f., 238, 251, 253, 255, 351, 355ff., 427, 443 clause chaining, clause-chaining  2, 16f., 22, 24f., 387 clause combining  1, 12–16, 66ff., 165, 197, 288, 294, 323f., 364 clause-initial conjunction, coordination  67, 71, 124, 126, 247, 275f., 349 clause-initial verb  124, 126, 141, 143, 145f., 148, 151, 157ff. clause-linkage  14, 22f., 30, 48, 347, 360, 364 clitic  7f., 102–105, 135, 139–163, 234, 255, 389 Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD)  104 clitisation  159 co-construction  214, 218 code quantity principle  155 codeswitching, code switching, code-switching  52, 73ff., 97f., 129f., 133f., 287, 323 cognition  16, 74, 133f., 237ff., 241, 324, 391 coherence  2, 11f., 14, 60f., 154, 162, 278, 346, 348, 350f., 364, 384f., 387, 395, 412, 415, 430–438, 444–447 cohesion  2, 14, 139, 154f., 157, 225, 262, 265, 283, 287, 348, 351, 364

communicative convention  51, 261 COMP  16, 26, 28, 47, 61, 65, 119, 125, 131f., 134, 258 complementation, complement, ~construction  6, 9, 14, 17, 48, 68, 84, 140, 142f., 165, 167, 169f., 174, 183, 232f., 235, 240f., 244, 255ff., 258, 333, 342f., 388, 391ff., 416, 419, 428, 430, 432, 434, 440, 444ff. complementizer  7, 9, 11, 23, 101–133, 141, 180, 297, 367f., 370, 372, 424, 426f., 443, 446f. complex predicate  21f., 25, 30, 32, 35, 47, 49 composite adverbial  10 compound  26f., 200, 385, 389 computational system  126 computer-readable  225, 259–289 concatenation  10f., 199, 201, 209f., 212ff., 218, 220, 222, 302, 307, 312f., 318, 372f., 380, 382–385, 387 concatenative see concatenation  conceptual meaning  338 concessive  15, 17, 74, 142, 173, 247, 331, 340, 357, 378, 380ff., 437f. concordance  260, 267, 271, 281f., 286, 289, 355 conditional  15, 80ff., 97, 124, 126, 128, 132, 234f., 247f., 252, 275, 342, 347, 358 conditional clause see conditional conjunct  2, 9, 168f. conjunction  6, 9, 15, 21f., 25, 35, 54ff., 59, 62, 65ff., 73, 75f., 91, 94, 97, 127f., 132, 148, 151, 171, 173, 196, 250, 253, 257, 260, 262, 265, 268, 272–277, 283, 285ff., 291, 293f., 299, 318, 347, 356, 362, 424, 432, 443 conjunctive see conjunction connective  1–17, 21, 48, 65, 68, 190, 194, 196f., 199, 209, 221, 277, 291ff., 295f., 298, 302, 314, 318, 321, 324, 347, 349, 352f., 355, 357f., 378, 381f., 385, 387, 389, 426

connectivity  1–13, 51, 53f., 56, 58ff., 64–72, 165, 187, 189f., 193, 199, 201, 209, 214, 219–222, 225, 255, 259, 261, 272, 277f., 285, 293, 314, 318f., 321f., 345, 357, 361ff., 385f., 395, 404, 424, 426, 428, 432, 435, 437, 439, 444, 446 connector  55, 58, 60, 62–67, 173, 286, 359f., 367–393 connexion  2, 423 consecutive  80ff., 85, 87–91, 94f., 413 construction  1–17, 19–49, 51ff., 67–71, 73, 90, 99, 101f., 104, 106, 108, 121f., 124, 126, 129ff., 132, 159, 161, 165ff., 169ff., 173–181, 183, 187, 189, 191, 193, 196, 214, 218, 238, 240, 248, 252, 256ff., 277, 313, 323f., 345–364, 367f., 385, 387f., 391f., 396, 399, 401f., 404, 409, 411, 413–416, 419–446 control ~  174, 427f., 433f., 438, 442 converb ~  5, 6, 21f., 24f., 27–33, 35–40, 44 correlate ~  427f., 430, 432f., 435, 438, 440 devrik cümle ~  313 grammaticalized ~  24ff. linking ~  10, 345, 347–353, 355, 360f. absolute linking ~  349f, 353, 355, 361 matrix ~  6, 7, 11, 178f., 324, 352, 359f., 368, 385, 388, 396, 401, 404, 409, 411, 413, 419–428, 430ff., 436–444 contact language  5, 62, 66f., 166, 274, 295 contact situation  15, 65, 68f., 70, 75–97, 165, 173, 278, 318 contact variety  8, 318 contact-induced language change  6, 17, 52f., 165, 227, 324 continuity (topic)  7, 12, 144, 148, 155, 157, 162, 201, 205, 210, 217, 220, 266, 320, 389 contraction  37, 40

contrastive analysis/perspective/ research  2f., 8, 10, 166, 259, 261, 278, 288, 330, 333–343, 345, 347, 353, 361f., 364, 389, 392 contrastive conjunction  16, 56, 59, 62f., 66f, 73, 382 contrastive pronoun  168 contrastive stress  102 contrastive topic  141, 152, 156f., 159 control (~field, speaker‘s ~)  4, 53, 58f., 64, 69–72, 359, 431, 441f. control construction see construction conventionalised implicature  330, 342 converb  2, 5f., 12, 14f., 21–49, 67, 190f., 193–197, 251 converbial  2, 187, 193, 195, 197, 232, 234, 247, 250, 252, 257 convergence  15, 51, 66–69, 72ff., 107, 162, 165, 295 cooperation  4f., 296, 306 coordinating  9f., 14, 15, 65f., 71, 73, 76, 91f., 144, 148, 151, 275, 277, 292, 307, 313f., 316 ~conjunction  15, 65f., 71, 73, 76, 148, 151, 260, 262, 265, 268, 275, 277, 318f. ~connectives/elements  10, 91f., 144, 259f., 278, 283f., 291–300, 315, 318 ~connectivity  9f. ~construction  14, 323 coordination  1, 4, 6, 9f., 30f., 95, 229, 259–262, 265, 277f., 284, 288, 291–294, 298f., 307, 312–319, 321f., 324, 432 coordinative  2, 6, 10, 283, 291, 294, 298, 315, 316, 321 copula/copulative  168, 174, 190, 200f., 202, 224, 226, 234f., 237, 247, 249, 322, 381, 389 copying framework  4, 5, 15, 293 coreferring  4

Subject index  corpus  9, 10, 21, 61, 64, 82–85, 90f., 109, 139f., 142, 144f., 151f., 155, 158, 160, 166, 174ff., 181f., 184, 245, 259ff., 263f., 266–278, 280f., 283–286, 288f., 292, 300ff., 317, 321, 333ff., 343, 346, 348, 363, 367, 372, 381, 384, 399, 401f. corpus linguistics  259–289, 343, 363 correlate see construction counterfactual  80, 235 coupling  427, 443 covert translation  261, 285, 348, 358, 363 cross-linguistic/crosslinguistic/ across languages  2, 7, 10–12, 14, 15, 21, 48, 71, 74, 96, 101f., 105–108, 112, 125, 128, 130f., 133, 134, 177, 183, 197, 225, 227, 243, 259, 277, 321, 322, 343, 363–365 ~ influence  101, 106, 112 cursus  188 D da kara (Japanese)  379f., 382, 386, 389 dass (German)  7, 115, 119, 122ff., 126ff., 368, 396, 409, 420, 426, 428, 430–436, 438, 440, 443 data model  270ff. de (Hungarian)  66 de (Japanese)  21–49, 368, 370f., 375–379, 382, 386, 389f., see also -te (Japanese) de (Romance)  102, 104f., 119f., 131 de (Turkish)  195, 217, 232f., 235, 237, 243, 255, 300, 305, 308f., 312f. de aru (Japanese)  381, 389 decategorialization  21f., 30, 39, 41 declarative  140f., 143, 157f., 241, 272, 287, 336, 420f., 441 default  73, 141, 167ff., 342, 381, 384 de-grammaticalization  420, 439

deictic  5ff., 9, 24, 29f., 34, 39f., 47, 189f., 201, 208, 221, 223, 251, 277–280, 283, 291f., 294– 299, 306f., 313–318, 320ff., 330, 348, 353, 361, 373, 378, 382f., 385, 420, 423ff., 427, 430, 434, 436, 438, 442, 445 composite ~  5f., 361, 427, 436 personal ~  425, 434, 436, 438, 442 temporal ~  6, 9, 208f., 221, 277, 280, 283, 299, 318 deictic connector  378 deictic marker  29, 40 deictic operator  30, 47 deictic procedure  5, 201, 277, 279f., 297f., 321, 373 deixis  6, 209, 224, 238, 320, 322, 323, 353, 357, 363, 364, 425, 432, 445–447 composite deictic  6, 361, 427, 436 demarcation (boundaries)  51ff., 55–63, 65–72, 156, 159 demonstration space  279f., 286 derivation  7, 13, 26, 101, 119–127, 130, 133, 297 descriptive  237, 338, 352, 359, 399, 401, 419ff., 425, 437, 441 desu (Japanese)  45, 368, 378, 380f., 384, 386, 391, 392 di (Romance/Italian)  80f., 119f. DI (Turkish/Turkic)  190, 201, 205, 207ff., 212–219, 221, 223, 233 DIK (Turkish)  234, 238ff., 242–245, 249ff., 254f. diachronic  3, 16, 52, 66, 86, 93, 96, 139f., 154, 156, 159, 162, 169, 172, 179, 259f., 263ff., 272, 274, 278, 292, 332, 387, 388, 439 diachronic perspective  139f., 156, 263 dialect  25, 61, 66f., 74, 79, 84ff., 91, 96, 140ff., 157ff., 160, 165f., 169, 172f., 174, 176, 179, 182, 183, 257 dialogue interpreting  396f., 399f., 413, 415 didactic question  349 Digenis Akritis  140ff., 145–152, 159, 160, 163 diglossia  160

 Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse direct/indirect speech  90, 223, 238, 388, 395, 399, 414, 415 directive/indirective  190, 226, 238, 306, 348, 441 discontinuity elements/marker  149f., 154f., 159, 220, 223, 382 discourse chaining  387 discourse competence  291f. discourse constellation  281, 295, 302 discourse coordination  10, 259, 277f., 283f., 291f., 298f., 312, 315, 322 discourse coordinator  293, 307 discourse function  1, 16, 292 discourse knowledge  293f., 296, 298, 303, 315, 320, 426, 433, 439 discourse marker  3, 10, 13, 16, 17, 59f., 72,–75f., 78, 91, 97, 143f., 148, 153, 162, 288f., 289, 291–295, 299, 319, 324, 325, 329, 332, 337f., 340, 342f., 345–348, 362, 364, 365, 414, 441, 444, 446 discourse organisation  17, 71, 77, 202, 209, 292f., 316, 361, 362 discourse particle  3, 13, 17f., 61, 64ff., 71, 75, 77, 80ff., 291–294, 296f., 318, 325, 363 discourse structure  2, 210–215, 217f., 288, 292, 381ff., 387, 389 discourse type  2, 8f., 187, 189f., 194f., 201f., 205, 207–213, 215, 219, 221ff., 396, 415, 426, 440 discourse unit  295, 320 discourse-organizing see discourse organisation discourse-pragmatic  8, 70, 103, 156f., 161 discourse-regulating  76, 83f., 91, 95 disjunct pronoun  168f., 178, 180f. disjunctive  66, 70, 76, 91f., 95, 296, 349 diye (Turkish)  232, 235–240, 247ff., 254ff., 414, 416 doctor patient communication  11, 395, 400, 405, 415, 417, 428f., 432, 446

dominant language  56, 58, 60, 63f., 68, 71, 106–109, 130f., 133, 245, 295 doubling pronoun/object  7, 141, 147f., 152, 160f. DP position  120 dual spaces  368f., 372, 384, 388 E e (Italian)  91–94 e (Portuguese)  76 é (Irish)  168 ECM see exceptional case marking ein anderes Beispiel (German)  359 elaboration  12, 303, 320, 331, 337f., 342, 347, 353, 359f., 360 elle (French)  7 elle (Romani)  66 emphasis  82, 90, 156, 168, 297, 337, 413, 430, 438, 443 emphatic  80ff., 88ff., 94f., 168, 173, 251, 306, 337, 389 enclitic  157, 161, 241, 244, 247 entonces (Spanish)  77f., 80, 95 episodic memory  154, 157, 385 EPP see extended projection principle er (German)  7, 64, 102, 411f., 422, 425 es (German)  7, 64, 102, 108, 354, 359f., 414, 420, 425, 429ff., 433, 436f., 446 Europeanization  187, 197 evaluation, evaluative  4, 10f., 234, 237, 294, 296, 368, 375, 380, 384, 386, 395, 401, 405f., 410ff., 414, 434, 436ff., 441 evidential  9, 190, 200, 218, 223, 225ff., 249, 343 Exceptional Case Marking (ECM)  8, 170f., 174, 180, 255 EXMARaLDA  271, 281, 285f., 289, 372, 388 expectation (hearer’s~/interactional~)  4, 14, 51, 59f., 63, 70, 159, 250, 298, 330, 337, 340, 342, 355, 352, 391, 409 expletive subject  102 Extended Projection Principle (EPP)  126f., 132

extraposition  10, 341ff., 349–355, 361, 438 F facticity  426, 434–438 factive, factivity  237–241, 248ff., 409, 412, 426ff. factual status  238, 241, 250, 409 faktiskt (Swedish)  334f., 337ff., 341 field  1, 4ff., 11, 25, 199ff., 221, 223, 272, 278, 285, 297f., 320, 362, 419–427, 430, 433, 439–443 field transposition  298, 424, 439, 443, 445 finite element  8f., 199–223, 382–386, 389, 437, 442 finite predicate/predication  199, 217, 234, 254 F (=finite) strategy  236–254 finite verb  22, 30, 36, 46, 101f., 108, 112, 115, 119, 121–129, 131f., 146–150, 160, 168f., 171, 193f. 199ff., 218, 222, 233ff., 272–277, 285, 313, 355, 357, 430 finite verb placement  101–131 finiteness  1, 8f., 22, 128, 185, 274, 351 floor  294, 296, 319, 372, 382, 384 focalised  141ff., 147, 156–159 focus  15, 54, 65, 70, 126, 140–143, 152, 154, 160f., 167, 178, 201, 215, 255, 277, 279f., 283, 285f., 296f., 302, 306, 314f., 318, 320, 353, 360, 424f., 430 foreground  155, 433 förvisso (Swedish)  335f. frequency  21, 24, 42f., 46, 48, 64, 82–86, 96f., 154, 181, 264f., 267, 273f., 283, 295, 301, 316, 342, 346, 373f., 385, 398f., 405 fronted element/adverb  8, 131f., 141–144, 146–149, 154f., 157f., 161–178 function word  71, 75ff., 91, 96 functional category  3, 126, 232, 302 functional distribution  139, 272 functional diversification  10, 265f., 283f. functional domain  29, 77, 82, 162, 296 functional etymology  298

functional expansion  11, 221, 277f., 294, 318 functional explanation  140, 152 functional head  129, 179 functional potential  291, 307, 314, 318, 404, 413, 444 functional pragmatic  6, 200f., 222, 291f., 296–299, 315, 319–323, 347, 388f., 419, 423f., 441 functional profile  262, 277f., 292, 318 functional scope  298, 313ff., 317 functional shift  6, 29, 40, 280 für (German)  121–126, 131, 354, 435 fusion  6, 15, 55ff., 66, 68f., 72, 165, 292, 295, 299, 324 fuu (Japanese)  368 G gender (system)  103, 107f., 133, 442 generative grammar  101–136, 142, 179ff. generative rule  140 generative syntax  119, 134 genitive  8, 97, 147, 165, 167, 169f., 176f., 179–182, 224, 235, 242, 253f., 257, 322 gerund  2, 8, 165ff., 169ff., 174, 176f., 180f., 183f. gibi (Turkish)  232, 247–250, 252, 257f. given this common theme (English)  345, 350, 353, 355 global coherence  346 goal (argument)  25, 34f., 39, 44, 46 government  133, 180, 332, 425, 427, 442f. gradual  5, 10f., 21, 23, 31, 39ff., 46, 48, 52, 63f., 170 gradual grammaticalization  10, 23, 41, 46 gradual patterns of change  31 gradualness of grammaticalization  39 grammatical category  4f., 182, 442 grammatical predominance  106 grammatical structure  373, 382, 387 grammatical word  157

Subject index  grammaticalization  5f., 10–13, 15, 21ff., 25, 27, 29, 31, 34, 37–44, 46–49, 144, 158f., 163, 183, 277, 288, 292–295, 298f., 323f., 329f., 332f., 439 grammaticalization pattern  25, 49 grammaticalization phenomena  39 grammaticalization process  21f., 31, 39, 42, 46 grammaticalized  21, 23–29, 32, 34, 36, 38ff., 42, 188, 439 grammaticisation/grammaticization see grammaticalization  H he (English)  7, 167ff. 171–173, 175, 181f., 425 head  87f., 119, 125, 132, 153, 178f., 183, 245f., 257 head-initial  178 hearer  4f., 7, 11, 54, 57, 59f., 62, 69f., 72, 102, 104, 200, 222, 246, 250, 253, 297f., 302, 306f., 314, 320ff., 330f., 335, 339, 342, 346, 350, 353, 355, 361, 367ff., 372f., 381–385, 387ff., 420f., 423–428, 430ff., 439ff., 443f. hierarchy of borrowing  66, 73 hinge  350f., 353, 355 Hispanicisation  77, 95, 98f. Hispanism see Hispanicisation historical change  39, 48, 139 historical narrative  190 historical texts  260f. honna (Japanese)  368, 377f., 386 honorific expression  27, 32ff., 41, 47 honorification see honorific expression how about (English)  352, 358f. hozyo-doosi (auxiliary verb, Jap.)  22f. hypercorrection  158 I i sanning (Swedish)  335f. i själva verket (Swedish)  339 iconicity  154f. if (English)  81, 249, 253, 428

iku (Japanese)  22f., 27f., 30–37, 39, 41–45, 47f. il (French, Italian)  7, 81, 119f., 127 illocution  11, 293, 298, 388, 419, 421, 423, 426, 434, 437, 439, 441, 443f. illocution stopper  443 illocutionary force  2, 437 imagination space  202, 205, 210, 215, 314, 320, 442 imiş (Turkish) see -mIş imperative  48, 81f., 89f., 97, 157f., 236, 238, 241, 420, 424 in addition (English)  10, 351 in fact (Engl.) 10, 329f., 335, 351, 354f., 435 incitive  291, 297f., 306f., 313–316, 322, 424, 444 incitive procedure  291, 298, 322, 424, 444 indeed (English)  10, 329–343 independent clause  191f., 193f., 346f. indexicality  330 inference  338f., 342 infinitival see infinitive  infinitive  67, 97, 101, 119–123, 131, 167, 180, 234, 427 influence (linguistic ~)  7f., 63, 66, 68, 72, 76ff., 101f., 105–108, 119, 125, 128, 130f., 133f., 145, 165, 167, 173, 197, 261, 291f., 294f., 330, 345, 361, 364, 435, 441, 444 informal register  53, 103, 235, 239f., 243, 248, 339 information flow  156 information organization  267, 283f. information processing  7, 11, 348, 367, 372f., 384f., 387ff. Inhaltssatz (object/content sentence)  443 innovative pattern/use  165, 170, 174, 280, 283 instantaneous fusion  56 instantaneous grammaticalization  5, 11, 23, 31, 39–42, 46 instruction  238, 352, 358f., 397

 Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse integration  5, 15, 60, 63, 97, 223, 277, 307, 314f., 317, 427f., 439 interaction  1, 3f., 6, 11, 57, 60, 69, 71, 73, 101ff., 105, 129f., 187f., 222, 278, 293, 296, 325, 345, 349, 357, 361ff., 368f., 373, 384, 387, 391ff., 395, 402, 410, 417, 430ff., 437, 440, 445 interaction coherence  11, 430ff., 437, 440 interaction management  4, 6 interactional space  4, 381 interface property  102, 105, 128 intermediate type  31 interpreter training  395 interrogative  11, 14, 67, 133, 141f., 225, 239, 247, 323, 359, 420, 441, 446 interrogative mood  359 intra terminos see intraterminal intraterminal  188, 190f., 200ff., 205, 207 intraterminality see intraterminal invited inference  332, 342 IP see finite verb see finite predicate/predication -ir (Turkish)  73, 183f., 237, 246 irassyaru (Japanese)  33f., 41, 47 işte (Turkish)  6, 10, 16, 18, 291f., 294–297, 299, 301ff., 306f., 312–322, 324f. it (English)  7, 38, 173, 425 J ja (German)  54, 64, 66, 105, 421, 429f. ja (Swedish)  334, 336 jajamän (Swedish)  336 jaminsann (Swedish)  336 K keredomo (Japanese)  376, 378, 382, 385f., 390 ki (Turkish)  9, 54, 63, 232f., 235, 241–248, 250–257, 293, 324, 401, 404

knowledge  3f., 10f., 14, 80, 93, 107, 132f., 160, 174, 200, 202, 211, 223, 238, 271, 277, 280, 292–299, 302f., 306f., 312–315, 317f., 320f., 333, 335, 343, 345, 349f., 353, 355–359, 373, 391, 396, 399ff., 404f., 409, 420f., 423, 425–428, 430ff., 434, 436f., 439–444 processing of ~  200, 355 knowledge domain  315, 423, 444 knowledge space  4, 320, 421, 434 koto (Japanese)  26, 28, 368, 378 kou iu (Japanese) 380, 383, 386 kuru (Japanese)  22f., 27f., 30–39, 41–45, 47f. L language acquisition  1, 5–7, 11f., 51–54, 101–136 passim, 199, 208–223 passim language contact  1, 11–15, 51ff., 65, 68f., 73ff., 77f., 83, 86, 97, 99, 157, 165, 173, 183, 225, 253, 260, 272, 283f., 291f., 294f., 302, 323 language evolution  51, 71 language influence  106, 131 language shift  165 layer  22, 74, 188, 342, 400 le (French)  103f. le (Italian)  104 left dislocation  161 left-branching  9, 232, 242f., 253f. lenition  177 lexical integrity  26, 32 lexical word  157 lexicalized  44 linguistic device  2–5, 7, 10, 222, 401 linguistic dimension  5 linguistic field  6, 201, 297, 320, 420, 423f., 439, 444 linguistic means  1ff., 357, 367, 373, 381f., 385, 387, 395, 400f., 420, 441 linguistic procedure  5, 71, 201, 419, 423f. linking  2, 9f., 13f., 22, 48, 71, 183, 286, 294, 307, 319, 345–364, 412, 444 literary style  160

litotes  433f., 436f. location change  31, 44 low-pitched  25 M ma (Italian)  91–95, 381f. ma (Japanese)  381f., 389 -mA (Turkish)  234, 236f., 256f. macrosyntactic conjunction  283 macrosyntactic coordination  259, 262 major topic  154 man (German)  433ff., 438, 442 manner  29, 247ff., 342 manner of motion  31, 35, 43–48 markedness  169, 180, 425 masu (Japanese)  381 matrix clause  17, 169ff., 178, 193, 362, 440 matrix construction  6f., 11, 178f., 352, 359f., 368, 385, 388, 396, 401, 404, 409, 411, 413, 419–444 passim meaning shift  41 medial raising  427f., 437 Menota standard  275 mental process  4, 69–71, 162, 297f., 319, 368, 388, 401, 410, 414, 420, 430f., 435, 441, 444 Merge (minimalist syntax)  125 metadiscourse  423 metaphorical extension  42ff., 46 metaphorical transfer  41 mieru (Japanese)  28, 32, 38f., 41 minority language  60f., 64f., 78ff., 91 -mIş (Turkish)  190, 201f., 205, 207–221, 223, 234, 249f., 257 -mIştI (Turkish)  207, 250 mixed language  6, 12, 16f., 99 MLU (mean length of utterance)  106f., 109–112, 130 modal  8, 67, 194, 224, 322, 329–332, 337, 343, 402, 420, 423, 425 modal adverb  329–344 passim modality  200, 235f., 265f., 283, 329–344 passim, 388, 395, 404 modelling  270, 286 monitoring-and-directing  69–72

monolingual speakers  8f., 54–58, 101–136 passim, 199–228 passim, 260, 277–283, 291–322 passim monolingual text  345 monolingual setting  413 mora  11, 25, 367, 383, 385, 387, 392 morphological word  26f. motion verb  5, 21ff., 27–49 Move (minimalist syntax)  125 multifunctionality  293, 295, 329f., 332, 341 multi-interactant event  281 multilingualism  1, 65, 295 N nach (German)  357 narration space  201f., 280 narrative  8, 10, 12, 58, 74, 90, 139–162 passim, 187–197 passim., 199–225 passim, 251, 272, 278–291, 307, 312f., 318, 396, 406 narrative inversion  272, 283f. natural spoken data  369, 373 negation  37f., 141, 430 news delivery sequence  405 nexus  2, 285, 439, 441 nominative  8, 165–182, 442 non-adterminal  188 non-factive  240, 248, 426f. non-finite  8f., 22, 108, 165–180 passim, 231–256 passim., 349, 351 non-linear  11, 281 non-null-subject language  7, 103 non-restrictive  242f., 251, 256 nontransformative  189 non-translational action  31 nonverbalization  306 noun clause  232–241, 248ff., 255ff. nuclear coordination  30 nuclear layer  22 nuclear subordination  30 null subject  6f., 15, 102f., 129 O o zaman (Turkish)  221, 223, 260, 277–286, 299, 318 ob (German)  128, 426, 428

Subject index  object  6ff., 103ff., 139–162, 167–170, 174–180, 182, 234, 245, 356, 424 object pronoun  103, 133, 139ff., 143–159, 161f. obwohl (German)  124 och (Swedish)  260, 273–276, 283f., 286, 340 OHCO (Ordered Hierarchy of Content Objects)  271f. operational scope  318 operative procedure  5, 291, 297f., 313–321, 357, 423–427., 434, 439, 442ff. oral discourse  262, 331, 347, 357f., 361, 373, 430 oral language  60f., 65 oral narrative  143, 278, 399, 406 origo  201f., 214f., 218, 425, 442 OV (object-verb word order)  140–150, 158, 254, 387 overt subject  129, 147, 149, 167, 174 P para-deictic  314f., 317 para-incitive  314, 317, 439f. parallel text corpus  263 para-operative  298f., 322, 424, 426f., 433, 443 paratactic  73, 233, 243f., 435 participle  158, 173, 181, 234, 350, 401 particle 11, 22, 26, 65, 131, 176f., 179, 182, 247, 299, 367–399 passim; see also: discourse particle, copula parts of speech  269, 274f. p-construction  422–444 passim. per (Italian)  120–124, 127 perception  223, 314f., 320, 352, 360, 421, 441f. perché (Italian)  120 perfect  73, 192, 250, 381 perfective  249f. performative  362, 420, 441 però (Italian)  91, 93f. phonology  4, 25ff., 43, 125, 167, 346f. phoric  4, 7f., 155, 297, 320, 424f., 430, 437, 442 phrasal movement  119 pitch  25

planning  4, 277, 293–296, 298, 319, 350, 352, 358, 399 plot  3, 190, 194, 208, 217, 221, 312, poetic text  140 politeness  33f., 380, 422, 432, 441 polysemy  329f., 332, 342 popular register  139, 144, 194 popular scientific journal  261– 266, 285, 432 POS see: parts of speech postpredicative subordination  9 postterminal  188–192, 200, 207, 224, 322 pour (French)  120–124, 127 PRAAT  388 pragmatic  1–12 passim, 33, 58, 73, 101–133 passim, 155ff., 161, 231–254 passim, 319, 329–332, 337–342, 426, 431 see also: Functional Pragmatics pragmatic change  329–342 passim pragmatic dominance  56–60, 71, 76f., 95 predicate  4, 8, 30, 168, 171, 183, 200ff., 215, 231, 234f., 239- 257 passim, 294, 426f., 432–440 see also: complex predicate prediction  46, 128, 131, 385 pre-grammaticalization  44 preposition  76, 82, 131, 169f., 174–179, 351, 357 see also: extraposed prepositional phrase prepositional complementizer  101, 119–123 presentational sentence  160 presentative  419f. prestige  59f., 68, 75–79, 261, pre-stressing  244 presupposition  4, 7, 69f., 104f., 126, 253, 320, 348 pro  102 pro-drop  7 pro-elements  7 procedural composition  297, 320

 Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse procedure  2–8, 69ff., 201, 214, 277–280, 286, 291f., 297ff., 307, 312–318, 320ff., 332, 338, 349–359, 373, 384, 389, 405f., 413, 419–443 passim combination of ~s  201, 278 ensemble of ~s  5f., 419, 428, 439 pronoun  4, 7f., 54, 102–105, 139–163 passim, 165–181 passim, 244f., 296, 330, 360, 389, 442; personal ~  167, 440, 442 strong ~  169, 171 pronoun retention  245 pronouncement  337 proposition  3ff., 9ff,, 55–70 passim, 201, 208, 236ff., 249, 262, 293–298, 330, 332, 335f., 347, 367, 369, 378, 382, 384ff., 406, 409, 412, 420–443 passim prose text  139–142., 197, 273 prosody  1, 4, 71f., 155ff., 251, 254, 342, 348, 362, 373, 378, 423f. pues (Spanish)  95 purpose  9, 44, 237, 249, 349, 359, 373, 396, 432 Q qualitative analysis  10, 106ff., 139ff., 260f., 267, 277, 283f., 291, 302, 373, 399 quantitative analysis  10, 106f., 139–142, 144f., 212, 225, 256, 260f., 268, 272, 278, 281, 291f., 299, 316, 373, 446 que (French)  7, 120, 122, 132, 256, que (Portuguese)  11, 396, 405–409, 412, 414 qui (French)  131f., 256 quotation  11, 367–373, 380, 391 R raising  8, 177f., 427 rassyaru (Japanese)  33–41, 47 reanalysis  22, 25, 157, 170, 181, 443 recipient language  65, 75–95 passim, 102 recontextualization  260, 265, 267, 281 referent tracking  154 referential coherence  154, 162

referential cohesion  139, 154f. referential scope  293 reflection stage  421, 441 reflection time  70, register  51, 84, 103, 132, 139, 159, 163, 175f., 187, 197, 231, 235, 241, 248, 250, 260f., 286, 444 relative anteriority  205, 207f., 215 relative clause  5, 190, 233, 242–246, 253f., 256, 430 reported event  191f., 372f. reported speech  11, 124, 223, 296, 395–414 passim, 440 restrictive relative clause  242f., 256 restructuring  6, 181 result, resultative  24, 47, 69, 188f., 234, 251f., 350 resumptive pronoun  175, 244f. retrospective  190, 350, 385, 389, 428, 431, 444 retrospective grounding  385 rhetorical  9f., 231, 241, 252, 254, 329–332, 339ff., 349, 435, 437, 443f. right-branching  9, 253f. Role and Reference Grammar  30 S scope  11, 17, 37f., 214, 314, 332, 336, 404, 412, 414, 424 se (Italian)  126 sé/sí (Irish)  168 secondary predication  190 second-level discourse marker  346 semantic bleaching  44 semantic change  39, 42, 329, 332, 344 semantic congruity  43–46 sentence fragment  36, 178 separation of languages  6, 54, 71 sequential  10, 222, 302, 318, 332, 372, 431 serialization  2, 12, 48, 187, 196, 210 shared knowledge  295, 298, 307, 312ff., 348 she  7, 193, 425 shifter  3 si (French)  126, 237, 242, 249 sí (Irish)

see sé sie (German)7, 425 simultaneity  190f., 281, 321 Sinn (German) 419, 446 small clause  255 so (German)  432ff. source language  6, 8, 11, 286, 329f., 333, 396, 399, 412 source argument  34, 46f. speech action  10f., 199, 207–214 passim, 222, 352, 367, 420–431 passim, 438f., 441 speech formula  380, 419, 439 speech situation  214, 243, 253, 373, 384, 395f., 409, 419ff., 423, 425, 433f., 437, 440ff. Spell Out  125f. spoken discourse  4, 221, 241, 243, 261, 280, 292, 363, 391 spoken language  9, 84, 124, 128f., 159, 172, 176, 243, 260, 269–272, 277f., 280f., 283f., 321, 420 spoken language corpora  260, 281 stance  241, 295, 330f., 395, 405f., 419, 428 statistical methods  140 stress  102, 156f., 159f., 240f., 244, 250, 256, 348 structural case  168, 179 style  103, 144, 151, 262, 285, 331, 434, 437 subject-prominent  7 subjunctive  9, 67, 141ff., 157f. subordination  1f., 7ff., 25, 29f., 101f., 112–131 passim, 141, 165, 187, 193, 196f., 223, 225, 229, 231–258 passim, 351, 356f., 360f., 399, 401, 425ff., 439, 443 subordinating suffix  233f., 242 subordinator  9, 97, 171, 173f., 232, 237f., 248f., 253, 257 substrate  165, 176 suffix  26, 37, 168, 234f., 238, 242, 257, 297, 322, 380f. superstrate  75, 165 suppletion  32 SVO  68, 105f., 115, 129 symbol field, Symbolfeld  4, 11, 199ff., 419, 423–428, 430, 432–435, 437ff., 442ff.

synchronic analysis  140 syntactic change  183, 257, 272, 288, 324 syntax-pragmatics interface  7, 101–136 T tag (discourse marker)  57, 62, 65f., 69f., 395, 444 tag (corpus)  266, 273–276, 284 tatsächlich (German)  355 taxis  187, 190–193 -te (Japanese)  2, 5, 21–49 -te (Turkish)  297 te iku/kuru (Japanese)  5, 30f., 46 temporal adverb  80, 82, 142f., 350 temporal deictic  9, 299, 318 temporal discourse markers  144, 153 temporal subordinate clause  351, 355f., 358, 361 tense  46, 187–194, 209, 213, 235, 237–240, 265f., 283, 322, 330, 351, 402 terminus finalis  188 terminus initialis  188 text construction  187, 193 text subdivision  187 textual coherence  2, 350 textual frequency  42 thematic  7, 145, 150f., 157, 187, 193f., 322 tinge field  423f. to (Japanese) 368 topic  7f., 27, 103, 132, 160, 296, 322 secondary topic cohesion  155 see also: secondary topic, TopP topic marker  27 topicalization  7, 160, 427, 433 topic-prominent  7 topic time 189 TopP (topic phrase)  132 transcription  270, 319ff., 388

Subject index  transfer  75f., 85, 97, 107, 124, 128, 165f., 169, 173, 177, 180f., 295, 420 translation  5, 10, 151, 260–267, 273, 283ff., 287f., 329–343 passim, 345–364 passim, 396f., 400, 405, 413, 419, 432ff., 436f. translational motion  31, 39, 46f. truncation  22, 33f. Turkish monolingual  209, 277, 283, 291 Turkish verbal system  200 Turkish-German bilingual  14, 209, 225f., 277, 284, 286f., 291, 319, 323, 446 turn  69, 80ff., 89, 95, 296, 307, 371ff., 380ff., 384, 391, 399f., 404f., 409, 414 turn-final  382 turn-initial  382, 405, 409 turn-internal  307, 382, 384, 414 typological  3, 6f., 9, 12, 21, 77, 154, 199, 244, 256, 262, 287, 294 U und (German)  54–58, 63, 261–266, 283ff., 298, 319f., universal  9, 11, 57, 103, 168, 179f. universal conditional  235, 248, 252 unstressed object pronoun  141, 143, 154 up-shift  381 utterance act  396, 423 utterance mode  4, 420, 441 utterance-final position  367, 369–374, 378, 382–385, 387f. utterance-transcending connector  367 V valency  5, 7, 34f., 39, 46, 48, 443 vantage point  188–192, 200 variationist approach  142 verb final  108, 123ff., 128f. verb initial  178 verb phrase  22, 35, 101, 119, 139

verb second  105, 108, 274, 300, 362 verb sequence  22, 25f. verb serialization  21f., 44, 48 verba cognoscendi  367 verba sentiendi  175, 420 verbal noun  167, 176ff., 180, 182, 234ff., 238, 257, 322 verbiness  30 verkligen (Swedish)  335, 337 viewpoint operator  188 visst (Swedish)  340 VO (verb-object word order)  105, 140, 143, 146–150 VP see: verb phrase -(V)rmIş (Turkish)  202 vulnerable  6, 67, 102, 105, 128, 130 W wa (Japanese)  27, 381, 384 weak object pronoun  139, 161f. wenn (German)  124–128 wh-complementizer  443 wh-element  9, 175, 443 word order  8f., 66, 68, 73, 101–132 passim, 139–162 passim, 182, 232, 254, 272–276, 283–287, 320, 424, 443 WP (functional projection)  119–127 written discourse  132, 139, 175, 187, 197, 242, 259–290 passim, 358, 361, 369 written language corpora  280 X XML  270–276 Y you (Japanese)  368 Z zero anaphora see also phoric  155 zur Vorbereitung (German)  356f. όστις (Greek)  143 ότι (Greek)  143

In the series Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 6 5 4 3 2 1

Thije, Jan D. ten and Ludger Zeevaert (eds.): Receptive Multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts. 2007. x, 328 pp. Rehbein, Jochen, Christiane Hohenstein and Lukas Pietsch (eds.): Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse. 2007. x, 465 pp. Lleó, Conxita (ed.): Interfaces in Multilingualism. Acquisition and representation. 2006. xiv, 284 pp. House, Juliane and Jochen Rehbein (eds.): Multilingual Communication. 2004. viii, 359 pp. Braunmüller, Kurt and Gisella Ferraresi (eds.): Aspects of Multilingualism in European Language History. 2003. viii, 291 pp. Müller, Natascha (ed.): (In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism. 2003. xiv, 374 pp.