Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


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 as used in a dataset of spoken Glaswegian English, a variety in which may occur in both left- and right-peripheral positions. Considering that derives its discursive meaning not , 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 . A fine-grained analysis of the patterns forms with subjective and intersubjective cues in its local linguistic context shows that discourse patterns of left-peripheral tend to foreground subjective meanings, while discourse patterns of right-peripheral tend to foreground more intersubjective meanings, supporting the hypothesis of peripheral asymmetry.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2002English Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2013Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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]
  4. 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]
  5. Ariel, Mira
    2008Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2002On the development of Final though: A case of grammaticalization?In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on Grammaticalization, 345–361. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.49.22bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.22bar [Google Scholar]
  7. Beeching, Kate
    2007 A politeness-theoretic approach to pragmatico-semantic change. Journal of Historical Pragmatics8(1). 69–108. doi: 10.1075/jhp.8.1.05bee
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.8.1.05bee [Google Scholar]
  8. 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: 10.1163/9789004253216_006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253216_006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges
    (eds.) 2014Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Brill: Leiden. doi: 10.1163/9789004274822
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822 [Google Scholar]
  10. Benveniste, Émile
    1966Problèmes de linguistíque générale. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Blakemore, Diane
    1987Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brinton, Laurel J.
    1996Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110907582
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  14. 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: 10.1075/tsl.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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: 10.1515/9783110219043.4.381
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043.4.381 [Google Scholar]
  16. Degand, Liesbeth
    2014So very fast very fast then: Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. In Kate Beeching & Ulrich Detges (eds.), 151–178. doi: 10.1163/9789004274822_008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822_008 [Google Scholar]
  17. Degand, Liesbeth & Benjamin Fagard
    2011Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language18(1). 29–56. doi: 10.1075/fol.18.1.02deg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18.1.02deg [Google Scholar]
  18. Detges, Ulrich & Richard Waltereit
    2011Moi, je ne sais pas. Je ne sais pas, moi: French tonic pronouns in the left vs. right periphery. Paper presented atIPra, Manchester. (July, 2011.)
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dik, Simon
    1997The Theory of Functional Grammar, 2vols.. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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 atIPra, New Delhi. (September, 2013.)
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fetzer, Anita
    2004Recontextualizing context: Grammaticality meets appropriateness. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.121
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.121 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2014I think , I mean and I believe in political discourse: Collocates, functions and distribution. Functions of Language21(1). 67–94. doi: 10.1075/fol.21.1.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.05fet [Google Scholar]
  23. 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.
  24. Fritz, Clemens W. A.
    2007From English in Australia to Australian English: 1788–1900. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. doi: 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑01830‑1
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-01830-1 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gumperz, John J.
    1982Discourse strategies. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1992 Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 229–252. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hansen, Maj-Britt Moosegard
    1998The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference to spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.53
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.53 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2005 From prepositional phrase to hesitation marker: The semantic and pragmatic evolution of French enfin . Journal of Historical Pragmatics6(1). 37–68. doi: 10.1075/jhp.6.1.03mos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.6.1.03mos [Google Scholar]
  30. Haselow, Alexander
    2012 Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language and Communication32(3). 182–204. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.008 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2013 Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica47(2). 375–424. doi: 10.1515/flin.2013.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2013.015 [Google Scholar]
  32. Izutsu, Mitsuko N. & Katsunobu Izutsu
    2014 Truncation and backshift: Two pathways to sentence-final coordinating conjunctions. Journal of Historical Pragmatics15(1). 62–92. doi: 10.1075/jhp.15.1.04izu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.15.1.04izu [Google Scholar]
  33. Jucker, Andreas H. & Yael Ziv
    1998 Introduction. In Andreas H. Jucker & Jael Ziv (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, 1–12. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.57.03juc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.03juc [Google Scholar]
  34. Kaltenböck, Gunther
    2009 English comment clauses: Position, prosody, and scope. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik34(1). 49–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaltenböck, Gunther , Bernd Heine & Tanja Kuteva
    2011 On thetical grammar. Studies in Language35(4). 852–897. doi: 10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal [Google Scholar]
  36. Koivisto, Aino
    2012 Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics44(10). 1254–1272. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  37. 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: 10.1017/CBO9781139108652.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139108652.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1985 Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 109–150. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.6.07lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.07lan [Google Scholar]
  39. Lenk, Uta
    1998 Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics30(2). 245–257. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00027‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00027-7 [Google Scholar]
  40. López-Couso, María José
    2010 Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 127–164. Berlin: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyons, John
    1977Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White
    2005The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  43. Moore, Bruce
    2008Speaking our language: The story of Australian English. South Melbourne, Vic.: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 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. www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2005/mulder-thompson.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 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: 10.1075/tsl.80.09mul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80.09mul [Google Scholar]
  46. 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: 10.1075/veaw.g39.19mul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g39.19mul [Google Scholar]
  47. Narrog, Heiko
    2012Modality, subjectivity, and semantic change: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694372.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199694372.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Norrick, Neal R.
    2001 Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics33(6). 849–878. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)80032‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)80032-1 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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: 10.1163/9789004253209_041
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253209_041 [Google Scholar]
  50. Nuyts, Jan
    2001 Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics33(3). 383–400. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00009‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00009-6 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2012 Notions of (inter)subjectivity. English Text Construction5(1). 53–76. doi: 10.1075/etc.5.1.04nuy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.04nuy [Google Scholar]
  52. Onodera, Noriko O.
    2004Japanese Discourse Markers. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.132
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.132 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2007 Interplay of (inter)subjectivity and social norm. Journal of Historical Pragmatics8(2). 239–267. doi: 10.1075/jhp.8.2.05ono
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.8.2.05ono [Google Scholar]
  54. Palmer, John F.
    2001Mood and modality, 2nd edn.Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pichler, Heike
    2013a Discourse function and clause periphery, innit? Paper presented atIPra, New Delhi. (September, 2013.)
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2013bThe structure of discourse-pragmatic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/silv.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.13 [Google Scholar]
  57. 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]
  58. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech & Ian Svartvik
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  60. Shinzato, Rumiko
    2006 Subjectivity, intersubjectivity, and grammaticalization. In Satoko Suzuki (ed.), Emotive communication in Japanese, 15–33. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.151.03shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.151.03shi [Google Scholar]
  61. 2007 (Inter)subjectification, Japanese syntax and syntactic scope increase. Journal of Historical Pragmatics8(2). 171–206. doi: 10.1075/jhp.8.2.03shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.8.2.03shi [Google Scholar]
  62. 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. soundsofthecity.arts.gla.ac.uk/.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Tottie, Gunnel & Sebastian Hoffmann
    2006 Tag questions in British and American English. Journal of English Linguistics34(4). 283–311. doi: 10.1177/0075424206294369
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424206294369 [Google Scholar]
  64. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    2003 From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–142. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  65. 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: 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2012 Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction5(1). 7–28. doi: 10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau [Google Scholar]
  67. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
    2002Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Trudgill, Peter
    1986Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Van der Wouden, Ton & Ad Foolen
    2011 Dutch particles in the right periphery. www.tonvanderwouden.nl/index_files/papers/fipa-2011-05b.pdf. (April16 2013.)

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error