Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 24:2 (2017) ► pp.166–195

Patterns of (inter)subjectivity

Asymmetries for Glaswegian peripheral but

| University of Augsburg
The prevalent hypothesis in research on pragmatic markers suggests that the left periphery of an utterance attracts predominantly subjective meanings, whereas the right periphery is the locus of intersubjective meanings. The goal of this paper is to test this hypothesis for but as used in a dataset of spoken Glaswegian English, a variety in which but may occur in both left- and right-peripheral positions. Considering that but derives its discursive meaning not per se, but from its embeddedness in particularized contexts, the methodological framework integrates the notion of (inter)subjectivity with the interactional-sociolinguistic concept of contextualization cue to identify (inter)subjective patterned co-occurrences for but. A fine-grained analysis of the patterns but forms with subjective and intersubjective cues in its local linguistic context shows that discourse patterns of left-peripheral but tend to foreground subjective meanings, while discourse patterns of right-peripheral but tend to foreground more intersubjective meanings, supporting the hypothesis of peripheral asymmetry.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Peripheries and (inter)subjectivity
  • 3.(Inter)subjective discourse patterns
  • 4.PM but in Glaswegian English
  • 5.(Inter)subjective patterns of Glaswegian but
    • 5.1Procedure
    • 5.2Results
    • 5.3Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 10 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.24.2.02hof
References (69)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Aitken, Adam J. 1979. Scottish speech: A historical view, with special reference to the Standard English of Scotland. In Adam J. Aitken & Tom McArthur (eds.), Languages of Scotland, 85–118. Edinburgh: Chambers.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1986. Contrastive linking in spoken and written English. In Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd Bäcklund (eds.), English in speech and writing: A symposium (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 60), 13–40. Uppsala: Academiae Ubsaliensis.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2002. On the development of Final though: A case of grammaticalization? In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on Grammaticalization, 345–361. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2007. A politeness-theoretic approach to pragmatico-semantic change. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8(1). 69–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Procatalepsis and the etymology of hedging and boosting particles. In Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline Visconti (eds.), Current trends in diachronic semantics and pragmatics, 81–105. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges (eds.). 2014. Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Brill: Leiden. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistíque générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Suzanne Fleischmann. 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse: An introductory essay. In Joan L. Bybee & Suzanne Fleischmann (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 1–14. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra A. Thompson. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth. 2014. So very fast very fast then: Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. In Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds.), 151–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Benjamin Fagard. 2011. Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18(1). 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit. 2011. Moi, je ne sais pas. Je ne sais pas, moi: French tonic pronouns in the left vs. right periphery. Paper presented at IPra, Manchester. (July, 2011.)
Dik, Simon. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, 21 vols.. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
El Zarka, Dina. 2013. Egyptian Arabic independent pronouns in the left and right periphery: Reference point and repair constructions with subjective and intersubjective meanings. Paper presented at IPra, New Delhi. (September, 2013.)
Fetzer, Anita. 2004. Recontextualizing context: Grammaticality meets appropriateness. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin & Maria Alm. 2013. A radical construction grammar perspective on the modal particle-discourse particle distinction. In Liesbeth Degand, Bert Cornillie & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles: categorization and description, 47–88. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fritz, Clemens W. A. 2007. From English in Australia to Australian English: 1788–1900. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 229–252. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2005. From prepositional phrase to hesitation marker: The semantic and pragmatic evolution of French enfin . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6(1). 37–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language and Communication 32(3). 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2). 375–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Izutsu, Mitsuko N. & Katsunobu Izutsu. 2014. Truncation and backshift: Two pathways to sentence-final coordinating conjunctions. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 15(1). 62–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Yael Ziv. 1998. Introduction. In Andreas H. Jucker & Jael Ziv (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, 1–12. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2009. English comment clauses: Position, prosody, and scope. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 34(1). 49–75.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tanja Kuteva. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4). 852–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, Aino. 2012. Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics 44(10). 1254–1272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2015. Maltese English. In Edgar Schneider, Daniel Schreier, Peter Trudgill & Jeffrey P. Williams (eds.), Further studies in the lesser-known varieties of English, 11–50. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1985. Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 109–150. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenk, Uta. 1998. Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30(2). 245–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 127–164. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, Bruce. 2008. Speaking our language: The story of Australian English. South Melbourne, Vic.: OUP.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean & Sandra A. Thompson. 2006. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Keith Allen (ed.), Selected Papers from the 2005 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. [URL].
. 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining, 179–204. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulder, Jean, Sandra A. Thompson & Cara Penry Williams. 2009. Final but in Australian English conversation. In Pam Peters, Peter Collins & Adam Smith (eds.), Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English, 337–358. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2012. Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, Neal R. 2001. Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics 33(6). 849–878. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Conjunctions in final position in everyday talk. In Bruce Fraser, Ken Turner & Jacob Mey (eds.), Language in life and a life in language: Jacob Mey – a festschrift, 319–328. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33(3). 383–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction 5(1). 53–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onodera, Noriko O. 2004. Japanese Discourse Markers. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Interplay of (inter)subjectivity and social norm. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8(2). 239–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, John F. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike. 2013a. Discourse function and clause periphery, innit? Paper presented at IPra, New Delhi. (September, 2013.)
. 2013b. The structure of discourse-pragmatic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, Livia & Remko Scha. 1983. On the recursive structure of discourse. In Konrad Ehlich & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), On connectedness in sentence, discourse and text: Proceedings of the Tilburg conference held on 25 and 26 January 1982, 141–178. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Ian Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shinzato, Rumiko. 2006. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and grammaticalization. In Satoko Suzuki (ed.), Emotive communication in Japanese, 15–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. (Inter)subjectification, Japanese syntax and syntactic scope increase. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8(2). 171–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2011–2014. Fine phonetic variation and sound change: A real-time study of Glaswegian. Research grant RPG-142 funded by the Leverhulme Trust. [URL].
Tottie, Gunnel & Sebastian Hoffmann. 2006. Tag questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics 34(4). 283–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–142. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29–74. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction 5(1). 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van der Wouden, Ton & Ad Foolen. 2011. Dutch particles in the right periphery. [URL]. (April 16, 2013.)
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita & Katsunobu Izutsu
2022. American and Irish English speakers’ perceptions of the final particles so and but. World Englishes 41:2 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Cuenca, Maria Josep
2020. Defective Connective Constructions: Some Cases in Catalan and Spanish. Corpus Pragmatics 4:4 ► pp. 423 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.