Cover not available
Part of
Outside the Clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents
Edited by Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer and Arne Lohmann
[Studies in Language Companion Series 178] 2016
► pp. 379–416

Intensifying adverbs ‘outside the clause’

A cognitive analysis

| University of Rostock
This paper discusses utterance-final uses of intensifying adverbs (absolutely, definitely, really and totally), which are often ambiguous in terms of their syntactic status between postposed clausal constituents and extra-clausal units. These adverbs are analyzed as macrogrammatical elements serving different cognitive tasks arising at one particular point in the linear production of an utterance, namely its potential end, such as modifying illocutionary force and strengthening the display of alignment with the co-participant’s views. As part of macrogrammar, they accompany a microgrammatical unit, which is characterized by internal morphosyntactic dependency relations. Final intensifying adverbs are showcase examples of the piece-by-piece emergence of linguistic structure in on-line speech production and thus require an analytic approach based on the linearity of speaking in time.
Published online: 3 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.178.13has
References (54)
References
Auer, Peter. 1996. On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In Prosody in Conversation. Interactional Studies, Elizabeth Couper Kuhlen & Margret Selting (eds), 57–100. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25 (1): 7–36.Google Scholar
. 2006. Increments and more. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten. In Grammatik und Interaktion, Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds), 279–294. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
. 2009. On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In Temporality in Interaction [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27], Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (eds), 27–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter & Pfänder, Stefan (eds). 2011. Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Detges, Ulrich (eds). 2014. Discourse Functions at the Right and Left Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berendonner, Alain. 1990. Pour une macro-syntaxe. Travaux de Linguistique 21: 25–36.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire. 2003. Le recouvrement de la syntaxe et de la macro-syntaxe. In Macro-syntaxe et pragmatique. L’analyse linguistique de l’oral, Antonietta Scarano (ed.), 53–75. Firenze: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1992. Intonation units and prominences in English natural discourse. Proceedings of the IRCS Workshop on prosody in natural speech , Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, Report No. 92-37[R1] . Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Cheshire, Jenny. 2007. Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2): 155–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Ono, Tsuyoshi. 2007. Increments in cross-linguistic perspective: Introductory remarks. Special issue of Pragmatics 17(4): 505–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Fagard, Benjamin. 2011. ‘Alors’ between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18(1): 29-56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. & Giora, Rachel. 2014. From cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3): 351–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duden-Grammatik. 2009. Die Grammatik. Published by the Dudenredaktion. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik, Vol. 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia & Thompson, Sandra A. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 134–184. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2006. Retrospective and prospective orientation in the construction of argumentative moves. Text and Talk 26(4/5): 443–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication 32(3): 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Left vs. right periphery in grammaticalization: The case of anyway . In New Directions in Grammaticalization Research [Studies in Language Companion Series 166], Andrew Smith, Graeme Trousdale & Richard Waltereit (eds), 157–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Grammatikalisierung: Von der Performanz zur Kompetenz ohne angeborene Grammatik. In Gibt es eine Sprache hinter dem Sprechen?, Sybille Krämer & Ekkehard König (eds), 262–286. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hennig, Mathilde. 2013. Die Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Phänomen. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1988. Of course: A pragmatic particle in New Zealand woman’s and men’s speech. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8(1): 49–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Emergent grammar. In The New Psychology of Language, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 155–175. Mahwah NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 40: 239–256.Google Scholar
. 2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds), 22–44. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. Language description: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2015. Temporality and syntactic structure – Utterance-final intensifiers in spoken German. In Temporality in Interaction [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27], Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (eds), 147–171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 852–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene. 1996. On the ‘semi-permeable character’ of grammatical units in conversation: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Interaction and Grammar, Eleonore Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra Thompson (eds), 238–276. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Diana. 2003. Rhetorical motivations for the emergence of discourse particles, with special reference to English of course . In Particles, Ton van der Wouden, Ad Foolen & Piet van de Craen (eds). Special issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16: 79–91.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-making. Charlotte NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Linell, Per & Mertzlufft, Christine. 2014. Evidence for a dialogical grammar: Reactive constructions in Swedish and German. In Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation, Susanne Günthner, Wolfgang Imo & Jörg Bücker (eds), 1–32. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2005. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6): 661–738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2011. Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation. In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer & Stefan Pfänder (eds), 45–87. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pichler, Heike & Levey, Stephen. 2011. In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: general extenders in Northeast England. English Language & Linguistics 15(3): 441–471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrhumbert, Janet & Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Intentions in Communication, Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds), 271–311. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, John M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2002. The expectation marker of course . Languages in Contrast 4(1): 13–43.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(5–6): 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenström, Ana-Brita & Jørgensen, Annette M. 2008. La función fática de los apelativos en la conversación juvenil de Madrid y Londres. Actas del III Congreso EDICE , Universidad de Valencia, 1-14.
Tagliamonte, Sali & Denis, Derek. 2010. The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto, Canada. Journal of English Linguistics 38(4): 335–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel & Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2009. Tag Questions in English – The First Century. Journal of English Linguistics 37(2): 130–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Intersections of Intersubjectivity, Liselotte Brems, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde (eds). Special issue of English Text Construction 5(1): 7–28.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, Vol. 1–3. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Heine, Bernd
2023. The Grammar of Interactives, DOI logo
Lewis, Diana M.
2021. Chapter 13. Pragmatic markers at the periphery and discourse prominence. In Pragmatic Markers and Peripheries [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 325], ► pp. 351 ff. DOI logo
Haselow, Alexander & Gunther Kaltenböck
2020. The brain and the mind behind grammar. In Grammar and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 70], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Heine, Bernd, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long
2020. Chapter 2. Dual process frameworks on reasoning and linguistic discourse. In Grammar and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 70], ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Izutsu, Katsunobu & Mitsuko Narita Izutsu
2020. Chapter 5. Dichotomous or continuous?. In Grammar and Cognition [Human Cognitive Processing, 70], ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.