Cover not available
Part of
Discourse Phenomena in Typological Perspective
Edited by Alessandra Barotto and Simone Mattiola
[Studies in Language Companion Series 227] 2023
► pp. 167–199

Chapter 7
Polish że ‘that’ as an elaboration marker

Language-internal and cross-linguistic perspectives

| John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin
| University of Cologne
This chapter discusses a colloquial spoken use of the Polish subordinating conjunction że (lit. ‘that’) as an elaboration marker. Mainly, we argue that że has a core meaning of elaboration spanning a continuum of context-dependent discourse slots. One extreme end of it sees the canonical complementizer tasks, the other one sees the elaboration marker uses operating on the plane of discourse and spoken dialogic interaction. Much of the chapter demonstrates the contrasts between the two types. Additionally, the Polish pattern is reviewed against a cross-linguistic background of elaboration markers in discourse/text as well as a more fine-grained overview of forms signalling both elaboration (in discourse) and complementation (in clause-combining syntax).
Keywords: declarative complementizer, discourse marker, elaboration, Polish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus, data retrieval and sample
  • 3.Elaboration and its semantic subtypes
  • 4.Distributional differences between że1 and że2
    • 4.1że2-clauses are not embedded
    • 4.2że2-clauses may co-occur with complementizers
    • 4.3że2 is an optional element
    • 4.4że2-clauses are more varied
    • 4.5że2 need not introduce clauses and it can scope over speech acts
  • 5.Proposal: że1 and że2 share the procedural core meaning of ‘elaboration’
  • 6.Interactional uses of że2 in turn-taking
  • 7.Marking elaboration in clause combining and discourse analysis – some typological remarks
    • 7.1Clause combining
    • 7.2Discourse analysis
    • 7.3A unified account of rhetorical relations
  • 8.‘That’-complementizer forms serving as elaboration markers – a cross-linguistic perspective
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.227.07guz
References (70)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The meaning and functions of the Swedish discourse marker alltså. Evidence from translation corpora. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 31–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2003. The discourse particle well and its equivalents in Swedish and Dutch. Linguistics 41(6): 1123–1161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin, Foolen, Ad & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2006. Pragmatic markers in translation. A methodological proposal. In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed), 101–114. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2009. Semantics and grammar in clause linking. In The Semantics of Clause Linking: A Cross-linguistic Typology [Explorations in Linguistic Typology 5], Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds), 380–402. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ament, Jennifer, Barón Páres, Júlia & Pérez-Vidal, Carmen. 2020. A study on the functional uses of textual pragmatic markers by native speakers and English-medium instruction learners. Journal of Pragmatics 156: 41–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bidaoui, Abdelaadim. 2016. Discourse markers of elaboration in Maghrebi and Egyptian dialects: A socio-pragmatic perspective. International Journal of Arabic Linguistics 2(1): 19–45.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1992. Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Kehayov, Petar. 2016. Complementizer Semantics in European Languages [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 57]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English. Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buysse, Lieven. 2009. So as a marker of elaboration in native and non-native speech. In From Will to Well: Studies in Linguistics Offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Stef Slembrouck, Miriam Taverniers, & Mieke Van Herreweghe (eds), 79–91. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics 44(13): 1764–1782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria-Josep. 2003. Two ways to reformulate: A contrastive analysis of reformulation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 35(7): 1069–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Pragmatic markers in contrast: the case of well. Journal of Pragmatics 40(8): 1373–1391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria-Josep & Bach, Carme. 2007. Contrasting the form and use of reformulation markers. Discourse Studies 9(2): 149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dal Negro, Silvia & Fiorentini, Ilaria. 2014. Reformulation in bilingual speech: Italian cioè in German and Ladin. Journal of Pragmatics 74: 94–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Akkadian. In Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds), 56–73.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in typological perspective. In Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds), 1–55.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Complementation: A Cross-Linguistic Typology [Explorations in Linguistic Typology 3]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2009. The Semantics of Clause Linking. A Cross-Linguistic Typology [Explorations in Linguistic Typology 5]. Oxford: OUP.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
Fiorentini, Ilaria & Sansò, Andrea. 2017. Reformulation markers and their functions: Two case studies from Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 120: 54–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne & Yaguello, Marina. 2004. Discourse markers across languages? Evidence from English and French. In Discourse across Languages and Cultures [Studies in Language Companion Series 68], Carol Lynn Moder & Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds), 129–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E. & Schrock, Josef C. 2002. Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics 34(6): 727–747. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2): 167–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7): 931–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics 1(2): 293–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Germanos, Marie Aimée. 2013. From complementizer to discourse marker: The functions of ʔәnno in Lebanese Arabic. In Information Structure in Spoken Arabic, Jonathan Owens & Alaa Elgibali (eds), 145–164. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Givón, Thomas. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Topic Continuity in Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 3], Thomas Givón (ed), 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1979. Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10(2): 279–326.Google Scholar
Gruet-Skrabalova, Hana. 2012. What kind of element is že in Czech? In Slavic Languages in Formal Grammar, Mojmir Docekal & Markéta Ziková (eds), 33–47. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Guz, Wojciech. 2019. Quotative Uses of Polish że. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Gülich, Elisabeth & Kotschi, Thomas. 1983. Les marqueurs de la reformulation paraphrastique. In Connecteurs pragmatiques et structure du discours; actes du 2ème Colloque de Pragmatique de Genève (7 – 9 mars 1983) [Cahiers de Linguistique Française 5], Jacques Moeschler (ed), 305–351. Genf: Université de Genève.Google Scholar
. 1987. Les actes de reformulation paraphrastique dans la consultation ‘La dame de Caluire’. In L’analyse des interactions verbales. La dame de Caluire: Une consultation, Pierre Bange (ed), 15–81. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 1995. Discourse production in oral communication. A study based on French. In Aspects of Oral Communication, Uta M. Quasthoff (ed), 30–66. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. 1986[1994]. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3(1): 67–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2011. O leksykalnych wykładnikach użycia interpretatywnego. Linguistica Copernicana 5(1): 77–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Semantic functions of complementizers in Baltic. In Complementizer Semantics in European Languages [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 57], Kasper Boye & Petar Kehayov (eds), 225–264. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Epistemic modality, evidentiality, quotativity and echoic use. In Epistemic Modalities and Evidentiality in Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 59], Zlatka Guentchéva (ed), 242–258. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jasinskaja, Katja. 2006. Non-canonical applications of topic continuity: restatement and elaboration. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Constraints in Discourse, Candy Sidner, John Harpur, Anton Benz & Peter Kühnlein (eds), 107–115. Maynooth: National University of Ireland.Google Scholar
. 2013. Corrective elaboration. Lingua 132: 51–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaspar, Jiri. 2017. Syncretism: A Case Study of the Particle že in Czech. PhD dissertation, University College London.
Keevallik, Leelo. 2008. Conjunction and sequenced actions. The Estonian complementizer and evidential particle et. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions [Typological Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed), 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolyaseva, Alena. 2018. The ‘new’ Russian quotative tipa: Pragmatic scope and functions. Journal of Pragmatics 128: 82–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva (ed). 2008. Crosslinguistic Study of Clause Combining. The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions [Typological Studies in Language 80]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laury, Ritva & Seppänen, Eeva-Leena. 2008. Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure and the conjunction-particle continuum. The Finnish että. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions [Typological Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed), 153–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Chin-hui. 2010. The utterance-final particle la in Taiwan Mandarin. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2010 [Linguistics in the Netherlands 27], Jacqueline van Kampen & Rick Nouwen (eds), 101–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William C. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8(3): 243–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In Haiman & Thompson (eds), 275–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2009. Natural Selection and the Syntax of Clausal Complementation. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. DOI logo
Owens, Jonathan & Rockwood, Trent. 2008. Yaʕni: What it (really) means. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Vol. XXI: Provo, Utah, March 2007 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 301], Dilworth B. Parkinson (ed), 83–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, Esther. 2014. Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language and Discourse [Human Cognitive Processing 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pęzik, Piotr. 2015. Spokes – A search and exploration service for conversational corpus data. In Selected Papers from the CLARIN 2014 Conference, Jan Odijk (ed), 99–109. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press. [URL] (22 July 2022).
Pietraszko, Asia. 2020. An argument for true c-selection in clausal complementation. Talk and handout delivered at the Brussels Conference on Generative Linguistics 13, 18 December.
Rossari, Corinne. 1994. Les opérations de reformulation: Analyse du processus et des marques dans une perspective contrastive français-italien [Sciences pour la Communication 40]. Berne: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, Mary J. 1989. Functions of because in Spoken Discourse. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Tutorial overview: Discourse markers. Lingua 107(3–4): 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The discourse marker now. A relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 43(8): 2110–2129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho-Min. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Korean. In Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds), 285–317.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [Language and Thought Series]. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stebbins, Tonya N. 2009. The semantics of clause linking in Mali. In Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds), 356–379.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1998. From sentence to discourse: cos (because) in teenage talk. In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57] Andreas Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds), 127–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite & Mann, William C. 2006. Rhetorical structure theory: looking back and moving ahead. Discourse Studies 8(3): 423–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ‘Object complements’ and conversation: towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26(1): 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15(3): 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs. 2012. Pragmatics and language change. In The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics [Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics], Keith Allan & Kasia Jaszczolt (eds), 549–566. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voghera, Miriam. 2013. Tipi di tipo nel parlato e nello scritto. In Di Linguistica e di Sociolinguistica. Studi offerti a Norbert Dittmar, Immacolata Tempesta & Massimo Vedovelli (eds), 185–195. Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Guz, Wojciech
2023. Presentational relative clauses introduced byżein Polish. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 68:2 ► pp. 307 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.