Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New perspectives
Edited by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansó
[Studies in Language Companion Series 186] 2017
► pp. 37–69

Chapter 1
The emergence of Hebrew loydea / loydat (‘I dunno masc/fem’) from interaction

Blurring the boundaries between discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle

| University of Haifa
A general approach to discourse markers is sketched through an analysis which approaches grammar as emerging in interaction and coming into being through mundane language use (Hopper 1987, 2011). The study continues work on mental verb constructions in a variety of languages. By analyzing all 191 tokens of the (subj)-neg-pred construction of the Hebrew mental verb yada (‘know’) employed throughout audio-recordings of over 7.5 hours of Hebrew casual interactional data, I trace the route of this construction’s gravitation towards the discourse marker loydea / loydat (‘I dunno masc/fem’). I argue that employment of the construction is highly formulaic, not necessarily epistemic, and that its uses are closely tied to its prosodic, morphophonological and syntactic properties, to its position within the ongoing turn and sequence, and to the particular activities in which participants engage in interaction. Based on a mostly synchronic analysis of the data, I suggest two grammaticization paths leading to employment of this construction as a discourse marker. This is then supported with some diachronic evidence. The study of Hebrew loydea / loydat (‘I dunno masc/fem’) shows that the boundaries between the three categories of discourse marker, pragmatic marker, and modal particle can be rather blurred.
Keywords: discourse markers, mental verb constructions, grammaticization, Hebrew
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. ('ani) lo yode'a / yoda'at + object complement constructions
    • 2.1 ('ani) lo yode'a / yoda'at + Object clause
      • 2.1.1 ('ani) lo yode'a / yoda'at + object clause opening with ma (‘what’): Literal use
      • 2.1.2 ('ani) lo yode'a / yoda'at + Object clause opening with 'im (‘if, whether’): Epistemic stance of uncertainty and doubt
    • 2.2 ('ani) lo yode'a / yoda'at + Question word
      • 2.2.1Epistemic stance of uncertainty
      • 2.2.2Repair preface
  • 3. ('ani) lo yode'a / yoda'at constructions lacking an object
    • 3.1Literal uses
    • 3.2Epistemic stance of uncertainty
    • 3.3Repair preface
    • 3.4Changing the course of talk
      • 3.4.1Steering away from an unwanted topic raised by interlocutor
      • 3.4.2Abrupt change of topic
    • 3.5Interlude: An interactional approach to discourse markers
    • 3.6Allowing one’s response to ‘die out’
    • 3.7Avoiding dispreferred response
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 13 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186.02mas
References (75)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. I think – an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic Languages, Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds), 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25: 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1972[1956]. A theory of play and fantasy. In Steps to an Ecology of Mind, 177–193. New York NY: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Becker, Alton L. 1988. Language in particular: A lecture. In Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding (Lectures from the 1985 LSA/TESOL and NEH Institutes), Deborah Tannen (ed.), 17–35. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Blau, Yehoshua. 1966. yesodot hataxbir (Foundations of syntax). Jerusalem: hamaxon ha'ivri lehaskala bixtav.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2: 177–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
De Mulder, Walter & Lamiroy, Béatrice. 2012. Gradualness of grammaticalization in Romance. The position of French, Spanish and Italian. In Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 130], Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), 119–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. Forthcoming. Representing discourse. University of California at Santa Barbara, Fall 2012 version. <[URL]>
Du Bois, John W., Cumming, Susanna, Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan & Paolino, Danae. 1992. Discourse Transcription [Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 4]. Santa Barbara CA: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Englebretson, Robert. 2003. Searching for Structure: The Problem of Complementation in Colloquial Indonesian Conversation [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 13]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 1–20. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara, Maschler, Yael, & Uhmann, Susanne. 2010. A cross-linguistic study of self-repair: Evidence from English, German, and Hebrew. Journal of Pragmatics 42(10): 2487–2505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara. 2014. The development of discourse and pragmatic markers. In Ghezzi & Molinelli (eds), 10–26.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara & Molinelli, Piera (eds). 2014. Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2006. “Was ihn trieb, war vor allem Wanderlust” (Hesse: Narziss und God- mund): Pseudocleft-Konstruktionen im Deutschen. In Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, Susanne Günthner & Wolfgang Imo (eds), 59–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Between emergence and sedimentation: Projecting constructions in German interactions. In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds), 156–185. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde, & Harry Perridon (eds), 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, & Hana Filip (eds), 139–157. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1, [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: prototype or family resemblance? In Applied Cognitive Linguistics, I: Theory and Language Acquisition, 109–129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. 40th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 15th, 2004. Ms.Google Scholar
2011. Emergent grammar and temporality in interactional linguistics. In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, Peter Auer & Stephan Pfänder (eds), 22–44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions [Typological Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed.), 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2011. Clines of subordination – constructions with the German ‘complement-taking predicate’ glauben . In Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 24], Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds), 165–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael (eds). 1998. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I think [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 115]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson (ed.), 183–219.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2006. From discourse pattern to epistemic marker: Estonian (ei) tea ‘don't know’. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29: 173–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The terms of not knowing. In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, & Jakob Steensig (eds), 184–206. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krupik, Shani. 2007. Samaney siax batikshoret hakwazi-sinxronit metuvexet-hamaxshev (siax hachet) (Discourse Markers in Israeli Hebrew Quasi-Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (Chat Discourse)). MA thesis, University of Haifa.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva. 2006. On subordination, Finnish – style: Questioning the category of finite clausal complements in spoken Finnish. SKY journal of Linguistics Supplement 19: 310–321.Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Okamoto, Shigeko. 2011. Teyuka and I mean as pragmatic parentheticals in Japanese and English. Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. & Kitzinger, Celia E. 2015. Or-prefacing in the organization of self-initiated repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(1): 58–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Jan, Maschler, Yael & Pekarek Doehler Simona (eds). 2016. Grammar and Negative Epistemics in Talk-in-Interaction: Cross-Linguistic Studies. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics 106.Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan & Wide, Camilla. 2005. Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type you know . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 6: 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 1988. The Games Bilinguals Play: A Discourse Analysis of Hebrew-English Bilingual Conversation. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
. 1991. The language games bilinguals play: Language alternation at language game boundaries. Language and Communication 11(4): 263–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23: 325–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997a. Discourse markers at frame shifts in Israeli Hebrew talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics 7(2). 183–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. Emergent bilingual grammar: The case of contrast. Journal of Pragmatics 28(3): 279–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Rotse lishmoa keta? ‘wanna hear something weird/funny [lit. ‘a segment’]?’: The discourse markers segmenting Israeli Hebrew talk-in-interaction. In Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds.), Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. What can bilingual conversation tell us about discourse markers? Introduction to the special issue on Discourse Markers in Bilingual Conversation. International Journal of Bilingualism 4: 437–445.Google Scholar
. 2009. Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 181]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Emergent projecting constructions: The case of Hebrew yada (‘know’). Studies in Language 36(4): 785–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Estlein, Roi. 2008. Stance-taking in Israeli Hebrew casual conversation via be'emet (‘really, actually, indeed’, lit. ‘in truth’). Discourse Studies 10(3): 283–316 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Fishman, Stav. 2015. From multi-clausality to discourse markerhood: The Hebrew ma she- (‘what that’) construction in so-called ‘pseudo-clefts’. Paper presented at the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) conference, Antwerp, 27 July.
Maschler, Yael & Miller Shapiro, Carmit. 2016. The role of prosody in the grammaticization of Hebrew naxon (‘right/true’): Synchronic and diachronic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 92: 42–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Schiffrin, Deborah. 2015. Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn, Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds), 189–221. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Miller Shapiro, Carmit. 2012. hamaba naxon basiax ha'ivri hayom-yomi hadavur . (The utterance naxon (lit., ‘right’) in casual Hebrew conversation). balshanut 'ivrit (Hebrew Linguistics) 66: 107–130.Google Scholar
. 2014. “tir'i, hara'ayon po hu shone”: hapo'al ra'a vesamaney hasiax hamexilim 'oto basiax ha'ivri hayomyomi hadavur (“look, the idea here is different”: The verb see and the discourse markers containing it in casual spoken Hebrew discourse). Leshonenu 76(1–2): 165–200.Google Scholar
Pagliuca, William (ed.). 1994. Perspectives on Grammaticalization [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 109]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2011. Clause-combining and the sequencing of actions: Projector constructions in French talk-in-interaction. In Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla. 2004. tafkideyhem hashonim shel kinuyey haguf hanos'iyim basiax ha'ivri hadavur (Subject Pronouns: Attached, Overt and Proclitic in Israeli Hebrew Spoken Discourse). MA thesis, University of Haifa.Google Scholar
Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla & Maschler, Yael. Disclaiming understanding? Hebrew ′ani lo mevin/a (‘I don’t understand masc/fem’) in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 106: 163–183. DOI logo
Ravid, Dorit. 1995. Language Change in Child and Adult Hebrew: A Psycholinguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rosén, Haiim Baruch. 1992. zutot mehitgabshuta shel ha'ivrit hayisre'elit (“ Obiterdicta” concerning the crystallization of Israeli Hebrew’). Haxug hayisre'eli shel xavrey haxevra ha'eropit levalshanut, divrey hamifgash hashmini ( Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae Sodalicium Israelense Studia V ), 33–39.Google Scholar
Reshef, Yael. 2013. Revival of Hebrew: Grammatical structure and lexicon. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, Geoffrey Khan et al. (eds), 397–405. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1969. Guess who? In Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Robert I. Binnick, Alice Davidson, Georgia M. Green & Jerry L. Morgan (eds), 252–286. Chicago IL: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In Everyday language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, George Psathas (ed.), 23–78. New York NY: Irvington.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Jefferson, Gail & Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheibmann, Joanne. 2000. I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don't in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 105–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds), 54–75. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2006. Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and . In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 315–338. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers: Tutorial overview. Lingua 107: 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26: 125–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II [Typoloical Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Manchester, August 1995 (version of 11/97). <[URL]>
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Weatherall, Ann 2011. I don’t know as a prepositioned epistemic hedge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(4): 317–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Inbar, Anna & Yael Maschler
2023. Shared Knowledge as an Account for Disaffiliative Moves: Hebrew ki ‘Because’-Clauses Accompanied by the Palm-Up Open-Hand Gesture. Research on Language and Social Interaction 56:2 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Lo Baido, Maria Cristina
2023. Tra modalità e categorizzazione indessicale: il caso di sapiddu e chi sacciu. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 30 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Polak-Yitzhaki, Hilla & Yael Maschler
2023. From lack of understanding to heightened engagement: A multimodal study of Hebrew ′ATA LO MEVIN ‘You don’t understand’. Intercultural Pragmatics 20:5 ► pp. 521 ff. DOI logo
Shor, Leon & Michal Marmorstein
2023. Self-repeat as a multimodal retraction practice. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 132 ff. DOI logo
van der Meij, Sofie, Myrte Gosen & Annerose Willemsen
2022. ‘Yes? I have no idea’: teacher turns containing epistemic disclaimers in upper primary school whole-class discussions. Classroom Discourse ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Hilla Polak-Yitzhaki, Xiaoting Li, Ioana Maria Stoenica, Martin Havlík & Leelo Keevallik
2021. Multimodal Assemblies for Prefacing a Dispreferred Response: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Laury, Ritva & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
2020. Chapter 3. The emergence and routinization of complex syntactic patterns formed with ajatella ‘think’ and tietää ‘know’ in Finnish talk-in-interaction. In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Yael Maschler, Leelo Keevallik & Jan Lindström
2020. Chapter 1. Complex syntax-in-interaction. In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Shor, Leon
2020. Chapter 16. Negation in Modern Hebrew. In Usage-Based Studies in Modern Hebrew [Studies in Language Companion Series, 210], ► pp. 583 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Wei & Hongyin Tao
2020. Chapter 6. From matrix clause to turn expansion. In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2019. At the Interface of Grammar and the Body:Chais pas(“dunno”) as a Resource for Dealing with Lack of Recipient Response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 52:4 ► pp. 365 ff. DOI logo
Maschler, Yael
2018. The on-line emergence of Hebrew insubordinateshe- (‘that/which/who’) clauses. Studies in Language 42:3 ► pp. 669 ff. DOI logo
Maschler, Yael
2020. Chapter 4. The insubordinate – subordinate continuum. In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 87 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.