Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Particles: Syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and historical aspects
Edited by Xabier Artiagoitia, Arantzazu Elordieta and Sergio Monforte
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 276] 2022
► pp. 131–156

Chapter 5
Outer particles vs tag particles

A distinction in homophony

| University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)
This article aims to draw a syntactic analysis that accounts for the differing properties of two sets of discourse particles: Outer (or Final) Particles (OutPs) and Tag Particles (TagPs). In recent years, researchers have built a syntactic model to accommodate OutPs (Haegeman 2014; Wiltschko & Heim 2016; a.o.), but TagPs have received little attention. In order to highlight the different nature of these two sets of particles, I will focus on two segmentally homophonous Basque particles: alaOutP and alaTag. After discussing their distinct prosodic, syntactic and pragmatic properties, I will argue that these particles show structural differences: while OutPs merge in the right periphery of the clause, TagPs are intransitive X0s and head their own Speech Act Phrase (SAP).
Keywords: discourse particles, syntax, pragmatics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Introduction to discourse particles
    • 2.1Syntactic models for discourse particles: An overview
    • 2.2General overview of Basque particles
  • 3.Appearances are deceptive
    • 3.1Intonation
    • 3.2Word order and syntax
    • 3.3Pragmatics
    • 3.4Interim summary
  • 4.Accommodating tagPs in syntax
    • 4.1Previous accounts of the syntax of tagPs
    • 4.2Proposal
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Corpus references
Published online: 17 May 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.276.05itu
References (41)
References
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Abraham, Werner. 1991. Discourse particles in German: How does their illocutive force come about. In Discourse particles: descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic, and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German, Werner Abraham (ed), 203–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences 18(1–2): 393–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Laura. 2015. Word order and the syntax of question particles. In Final Particles, Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow & Margje Post (eds), 406–427. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Joseph & Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. Linguistic Review 28(4): 449–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2008. Modal particles in Italian. Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 91–129.Google Scholar
Corr, Alice. 2016. Ibero-Romance and the syntax of the utterance. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Etxepare, Ricardo & Uria, Larraitz. 2016. Microsyntactic variation in the Basque hearsay evidential. In Microparameters in the Grammar of Basque, Beatriz Fernández & Jon Ortiz de Urbina (eds), 265–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farkas, Donka & Bruce, Kim. 2009. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27: 81–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goenaga, Patxi. 2009. Hauta-galderez. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca “Julio de Urquijo”- International Journal of Basque linguistics and Philology 43: 381–404.Google Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2015. Use Conditional Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddican, Bill. 2008. Euskal perpausaren oinarrizko espez-buru-osagarri hurrenkeraren aldeko argudio batzuk. In Antisimetriaren hipotesia vs. buru parametroa: euskararen oinarrizko hurrenkera ezbaian, Iñigo Arteatx, Xabier Artiagoitia & Arantzazu Elordieta (eds), 65–92. Bilbo: UPV/EHUren Argitalpen Zerbitzua.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2014. West Flemish verb-based discourse particles and the articulation of the Speech Act layer. Studia Linguistica 68(1): 116–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Dietrich. 1998. Particles. In Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, Jacob L. Mey (ed), 657–663. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of the common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication 32(3): 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2003. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2007a. Vocatives and the pragmatics-syntax interface. Lingua 117(12): 2077–2105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. Romanian adverbs and the pragmatic field. The Linguistic Review 24 (1): 61–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2015. The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2013. Response particles as propositional anaphors. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 23, Todd Snider (ed), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuong, Io-Kei Joaquim. 2008. Yes/no question particles revisited: The grammatical functions of mo4, me1, and maa3. In Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20), Marjorie K. M. Chan and Hana Kang (eds), 715–733. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Kuwabara, Kazuki. 2013. Peripheral effects in Japanese questions and the fine structure of CP. Lingua 126: 92–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Boya. 2006. Chinese Final Particles and the Syntax of Left Periphery. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.
Lizardi Ituarte, Aitor. 2022. On intonationally integrated complex speech acts: the Basque discourse particle ba in interrogatives. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 56. Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Malamud, Sophia & Stephenson, Tamina. 2015. Three ways to avoid commitments: declarative force in the conversational scoreboard. Journal of Semantics 32(2): 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monforte, Sergio. 2020. Galderetako -a, al eta ote partikulak euskaraz: sintaxia, mikroaldakortasuna eta interpretazioa. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU.
Munaro, Nicola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2002. Ways of clausal typing. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 27: 87–105.Google Scholar
Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. 1999. Focus Phrases, Force Phrases and Left Heads in Basque. In Grammatical Analyses in Basque and Romance Linguistics Papers in honor of Mario Saltarelli, Jon A. Franco, Alazne Landa & Juan Martín (eds), 179–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Waltraud & Pan Victor J. 2017. What you see is what you get: Chinese sentence-final particles as head-final complementisers. In Discourse particles. Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics, Joseph Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 49–77. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schelfhout, Carla, Coppen, Peter-Arno, Oostdijk, Nelleke & van der Silk, Frans. 2005. Interjections in Dutch: a corpus-based approach. Nederlandistiek.nl. 05.05.Google Scholar
Scherf, Nathalie. 2017. The syntax of Swedish modal particles. In Discourse Particles: Formal Approaches to their Syntax and Semantics, Joseph Bayer & Volker Struckmeier (eds), 78–99. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In Asymmetry in Grammar, Anna Maria Di Sciullo (ed), 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Struckmeier, Volker. 2014. Ja doch wohl C? Modal Particles in German as C-related elements. Studia Lingüística 68(1): 16–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina & Heim, Johannes. 2016. The syntax of confirmationals. A neo-performative analysis. In Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituent, Gunther Kaltenbock, Evelien Keizer and Arne Lohmann (eds), 303–340. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2017. Ergative constellations in the structure of Speech Acts. In The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity, Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa De Mena Travis (eds), 419–446. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Malte. 2011. Discourse particles. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 2011–2038. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zubeldia, Larraitz. 2010. Omen partikularen azterketa semantikoa eta pragmatikoa. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU.
Corpus references
Mintegi, Migel Anjel. 2002. Denak du bere prezioa. Bilbao: Ibaizabal.Google Scholar
Morillo, Fernando 2003. Ortzadarra sutan. Donostia: Elkar.Google Scholar
Rowling, Joanne K. 2002. Harry Potter eta Azkabango presoa. Translated by Iñaki Mendiguren. Donostia: Elkarlanean.Google Scholar