syntaxofspeechacts.linguistics.ubc.ca
The Syntax of Sentenceperipheral Discourse Markers
A NEO-PERFORMATIVE ANALYSIS
Martina Wiltschko, UBC, Johannes Heim, UBC
1
Prologue
What does it mean to be
inside or outside of the clause?
2
From the call for papers…
Extra-clausal constituents (ECC):
parentheticals, discourse markers, appositions, non-restrictive relative clauses, tails
and afterthoughts, insubordinate clauses, vocatives, interjections, left-dislocands,
formulae of social exchange, etc.
outside ordinary
sentence
grammar
syntactically
independent
from the linguistic
environment
only loosely
associated with
a host
construction
not easily
accountable in
terms of clauseinternal rules of
sentence
grammar
3
From the call for papers
Extra-clausal constituents (ECC)
outside ordinary
sentence
grammar
What is syntax?
syntactically
independent
from the linguistic
environment
only loosely
associated with a
host construction
What is a clause?
not easily
accountable in
terms of clauseinternal rules of
sentence
grammar
What is outside the clause?
4
What does it mean to be outside the clause?
(1) So Mary
Du Maria
You Mary
[you have a new dog]
eh
[du host an neichn Hund]
goi
you have a
new
dog
ECC
5
What does it mean to be outside the clause?
Distribution: Sentence-peripheral
ECC’s
So Mary
Du Maria
You Mary
Root clause
ECC’s
[you have a new dog]
eh
[du host an neichn Hund]
goi
you have a
new
dog
6
What does it mean to be outside the clause?
Function:
Speech
Act
Modifier
Request for confirmation
Assertion
ECC’s
ECC’s
Root clause
So Mary
[you have a new dog]
eh
The syntax
of sentence-peripheral discourse markers
Grounded clause
ECC’s
ECC’s
Root clause
So Mary
Du Maria
You Mary
[you have a new dog]
eh
[du host an neichn Hund]
goi
you have a
new
dog
7
8
What is syntax?
The relation between form and interpretation is mediated by syntax.
Syntax
(LF) Interpretation
Speech ACT
(PF)
Form
Utterance
9
What is a clause?

Consists (minimally) of subject and predicate

Expresses a proposition
VP = ‘small clause’
(2) I saw [ John walk his dog ]
VP
NPSubj
John
V'
V
walk
NPObj
his dog
10
What is a clause?
CP

Consists (minimally) of subject and predicate

Independent clauses require tense & agreement

(some) embedded clauses require a complementizer
(3) Independent clause:
a. *John walk his dog
b. John walks his dog.
(4) Embedded under factive predicate
a. I regret *[ John walks his dog ]
b. I regret [that John walks his dog ]
CP = complement clause
C'
IP = finite clause
IP
C
that
NPSubj
John
I'
VP
I TENSE
walks
NPSubj
John
V'
V
walk
NPObj
his dog
11
Clauses come in different sizes

A clause is the maximal projection
of the highest functional category
Complement clause
CP
associated with a small clause.
IP
Finite clause
VP
Small clause
12
Clauses come in different sizes

A clause is the maximal projection
of the highest functional category
A’-syntax:
linking structure
CP
associated with a small clause.
IP

Each domain has
distinct syntactic properties
A-syntax:
anchoring structure
VP
Theta-syntax
event structure
13
Working hypothesis:
A syntactic layer for
grounding
Grounding structure
CP
IP
VP
14
Grounding

Grounding is the fundamental, moment-by-moment
conversational process by which speaker and addressee are
constantly establishing mutual understanding.
(Bavelas et al. 2012)
Set of beliefs
about the
world and
interlocutor(s)
Set of beliefs
about the
world and
interlocutor(s)
Malamoud&Stephenson (forth.), Stalnaker (2002)
15
The grounding structure
Grounded clause
ECC’s
ECC’s
Root clause
So Mary
Du Maria
You Mary
[you have a new dog]
eh
[du host an neichn Hund]
goi
you have a
new
dog
16
Inside the grounding structure
Call on Addressee
What S wants A to do
Ground.Adr
(What S thinks about)
A’s attitude towards p
Ground.S
S’s attitude towards p
Root-clause
Proposition
17
Introducing
confirmationals
“So I go to this shrink, eh, and he goes like I
don’t have no confidence, eh? I go, ‘No way,
man.’ He goes I should take assertiveness
training, Weird eh? Like I’m always supposed
to be seeking approval, eh , from, you know,
other people? I felt like he could kiss my Royal
Canadian, eh? But sayin’it woulda been too
pushy. Dyuh think?”
http://www.billcasselman.com/casselmania/mania_eh.htm
18
Introducing confirmationals
(5) a. You have a new dog eh?
b. You have a new dog right?
c. You have a new dog huh?
d. You have a new dog no?
19
The function of confirmationals
Utterance
You have a new dog.
You have a new dog, eh
20
The function of confirmationals
… modify the speech act
… derive complex speech acts
(Beyssade & Marandin 2006a,b,
Reese & Asher 2007, a.o.)
Speech act
What S wants A to do
What S is saying
Utterance
Assertion
Believe p!
i) p
ii) I believe p
You have a new dog.
Request for
confirmation
Respond
i) p
ii) I believe you believe p
You have a new dog, eh
21
The syntax of ‘eh’
Call on Addressee
! Rising intonation: Respond!
Ground
Root-clause
eh
(what S thinks about) A’s attitude towards p
Proposition and clause type
22
Decomposing ‘eh?’
So I go to this shrink, eh, and he goes like I don’t have no confidence, eh?
“Eh comes in two basic flavors, in two categories of usage:
final interrogative eh? With a rising intonation, and a narrative eh with a sustained
or flat intonation and found in the mist of spoken Canadian English sentences.”
http://www.billcasselman.com/casselmania/mania_eh.htm
23
Decomposing ‘eh?’
Narrative eh
Confirmational eh?
24
Intonation and clause boundaries
Assertion of Adr attitude towards p
Assertion of p
Root clause
[you have a new dog]
eh
25
Intonation and clause boundaries
Request for confirmation
Assertion of Adr attitude towards p
Assertion of p
Root clause
[you have a new dog]
eh

26
Intonation and clause boundaries
Request for confirmation
Assertion of p
Root clause
[you have a new dog]

27
Rising intonation without ‘eh’
(6) You have a new dog?
28
The function of rising intonation
Utterance
What S is saying
What S wants
A to do
Speech act
You have a new dog.
i) p
Believe p
Assertion of p
You have a new dog?
i) p
Respond
Question
You have a new dog, eh?
i) p
ii) you believe p
Respond
Request for confirmation
You have a new dog, eh.
i) p
ii) you believe p
Believe p’
Assertion of p & p’
29
The syntax of ‘eh’
Call on Addressee
! Rising intonation: Respond!
Ground
Root-clause
eh
(what S thinks about) A’s attitude towards p
Proposition and clause type
30
The syntax of ‘eh’
The relation between utterance and speech act is mediated by syntax.
Syntax
Speech ACT
Utterance
31
The syntax of ‘eh’
Call on Addressee
! Rising intonation: Respond!
Ground
Root-clause
eh
(what S thinks about) A’s attitude towards p
Proposition and clause type
32
Confirm that you believe p.
(7) Surprise! You’re on candid camera (#eh?)
33
Confirm that you believe p.
Utterance
I have a new dog.
I have a new dog, eh
I have a new dog?
34
Confirm that you believe p.
Speech act
What S wants A to do
What S is saying
Utterance
Assertion
Believe p
i) p
I have a new dog.
Request for
confirmation
Respond to p’
i) p
ii) you believe p
I have a new dog, eh
Question
Respond
i) p
I have a new dog?
35
The syntax of ‘eh’
Call on Addressee
! Rising intonation: Respond!
Ground
Root-clause
eh
(what S thinks about) A’s attitude towards p
Proposition and clause type
36
The syntax of ‘eh’
Call on Addressee
! Rising intonation: Respond!
Ground
Root-clause
eh
(what S thinks about) A’s attitude towards p
Proposition and clause type
37
Confirm that you believe p.
(8) a. I have a new dog eh?
b. #I have a new dog right?
c. #I have a new dog huh?
d. #I have a new dog no?
38
The syntax of ‘eh’
Call on Addressee
Ground
Root-clause
! Rising intonation: Respond!
huh
S’s attitude towards p
right
no
Proposition and clause type
39
Call on Addressee
Ground.Adr
Ground.S
Root-clause
huh
right
no
eh
!Rising intonation: Respond!
A’s attitude towards p (inter-subjectivity)
S’s attitude towards p (subjectivity)
Proposition and clause type
40
Argument 1:
Distribution
Why syntax?
Argument 2:
Why not?
Argument 3:
Defines a formal typology
a tool for cross-linguistic comparison
41
Distribution: Stacking
Cantonese:
(9)
daai6 seng1 zau6 dak1 laa3
me1 ho2?
big
voice then okay change.of.state me1 ho2
‘Can one get by just by being loud? I don’t think so!
You’d agree I’m asking a valid question, right?’
* daai6 seng1 zau6 dak1 laa3
ho2 me1
42
Distribution: Stacking
Bavarian:
(10)
a. Da Hansi geht fei äh zum
Eikaffa
det Hansi goes fei äh to.det shopping
‘Hansi is going shopping I already knew this you don’t
seem to know’
b. *Da Hansi geht äh fei zum
Eikaffa
43
Distribution: Mirror effects
Addressee grounded clause
Speaker grounded clause
Adr
S
Root clause
S
Adr
44
Call on Addressee
Ground.Adr
Ground.S
Root-clause
huh
right
no
eh
!Rising intonation: Respond!
A’s attitude towards p (inter-subjectivity)
S’s attitude towards p (subjectivity)
Proposition and clause type
45
Argument 1:
Distribution
Why syntax?
Argument 2:
Why not?
Argument 3:
Defines a formal typology
a tool for cross-linguistic comparison
46
The universal structure of categories
κP
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!arg
Discourse markers
relate the host utterance
to the discourse situation
i) my evaluation of host
ii) your evaluation of host
iii) how I want you to respond
κ
#####κ
!!!!!!!arg
[ucoin]
Wiltschko, in press
47
Why not Syntax?

Each domain has distinct syntactic properties
A’-syntax:
linking structure
CP
IP
A-syntax:
anchoring structure
VP
Theta-syntax
event structure
48
Why not Sytax?

Each domain has distinct relational properties
relates the host utterance to the discourse situation
GroundP
speaker ~ addressee
relates the utterance to the host utterance
CP
topic ~ focus
relates the event to the utterance
IP
subject ~ object
VP
agent ~ patient
relates the argument to the event
49
Why not not Syntax:
ECC’s
(11) a. Ma du gäu,…
b. ?*Ma gäu du,…
c. ?* Du ma gäu,…
d. **Gäu du ma,…
e. **Gäu ma du,…
Root clause
…da Hons hot an neichn Hund.
50
Call on Addressee
Ground.Adr
Ground.S
Root-clause
!Rising intonation: Respond!
A’s attitude towards p (inter-subjectivity)
S’s attitude towards p (subjectivity)
Proposition and clause type
51
Argument 1:
Distribution
Why syntax?
Argument 2:
Why not?
Argument 3:
Defines a formal typology
a tool for cross-linguistic comparison
Previous analyses:
Classification without a formal analysis
type of “eh?”
reversed polarity
constant polarity
affirmation/confirmation
Force/strength of statement
politeness
stylistic
imperative
exclamation
polar interrogative
wh question
pardon
checking
anecdotal (narrative)
classification is based on…
equivalence with tag
equivalence with tag
output (when input is statement)
output in comparison to input
output in comparison to input
output in comparison to input
input clause type
input clause type
input clause type
input clause type
equivalence
output (when input is question or command)
function
52
53
A tool for crosslinguistic comparison

Spanish
Tú tienes un coche nuevo, no?
You have.2SG.PRES a car new, eh?
‘You have a new car, eh?’

Medumba kʉla u
ɣʉ ʙʉ swə a?
Part 2SG have dog new Q
“you have a new dog, eh?”

Cantonese ngo5 san1 joeng5 zo2 zek3 gau2 me1?
1SG new keep ASP CL dog PRT?
‘What, I have a new dog!???’
54
Research agenda

What are the grounding categories: (linguistic expressions that occur in the grounding domain)

Are there any correlations between the GCs and their host clause?

Selectional restrictions? (particle – clause-type]

Are there any restrictions that hold between the grounding expression and a clause-internal constituent?


Are there co-occurrence restrictions among different types of grounding elements?
Are there any linear ordering restrictions that hold between
i) the grounding expression and the clause
Ii) among different types of grounding expressions


What are the prosodic properties of

i) the grounding expression

Ii) the combination of the clause and the grounding expression
What are the lexicalization patterns of

I) external merge grounding expression

ii) internal merge grounding expression
55
Thank you!
Financing:
SSHRC Insight Grant
Eh-lab Team:
Hermann Keupdjio, Wai Man (Zoe) Lam, Adriana Osa Gomez, Emily Sadlier-Brown,
Sonja Thoma, Oksana Tkachman
Story board illustrations
Strang Burton
Comments on earlier versions
Laurel Brinton, Strang Burton, Rose-Marie Déchaine Elizabeth Ritter
Select References
Beyssade, C. and J.-M. Mrandin. 2006. The Speech Act Assignment Problem Revisited: Disentangling Speaker’s
Commitment from Speaker’s Call on Addressee , in Selected papers of CSSP 2005, 37-68. Available at
http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/index_en.html .
Degand, L. (forthc.). 'So very fast very fast then' Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. In Beeching,
Kate and Ulrich Detges, eds. Forthcoming. The Role of the Left and Right Periphery in Semantic Change. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Gunlogson, C. 2013. True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. Routledge.
Haegeman, L. and V. Hill. 2013. The syntactization of discourse In: R. Folli, C. Sevdali and R. Truswell (Eds.) Syntax and its
limits. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. 70-390
Krifka, M. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In C. Fery and M. Krifka (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies of Information
Structure 6, Potsdam, 2007. Also in Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55 (2008), 243-276.
Ross, J. R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational
grammar (pp. 222–272). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Speas, P. and C. Tenny. 2003. Configurational Properties of Point of View Role. In DiSciullo, A. (ed.) Asymmetry in Grammar.
Amsterdam: John Bejamins, 315-343.
Stalnaker, R. 2002. Common Ground. In: Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, S. 701-721. Truckenbrodt, H. 2012. Semantics of
intonation. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics. An international handbook of
natural language meaning. Vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2039-2969
Wiltschko, M. S. Burton, and S. Thoma. 2012. A unified analysis of Canadian ‘eh?’. Talk presented at the Canadian Linguistic
Association, Waterloo, May 2012.
Zimmermann, M. 2011. Discourse particles. In von Heusinger, Maienborn and Portner (eds.) 2011, Semantics (HSK 33.2), de
Gruyter, 2011–2038.
56
57
Appendix

Interaction Management

Sentence Typing

Other Confirmationals and the different GroundP levels

An alternative analysis for the peripheries

Evidence from non-tonal languages

Elaboration on the syntactic analysis

Other Confirmationals and the different GroundP levels