1887
Volume 38, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0920-9034
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9870
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Widely attested in both creole and non-creole languages of the Atlantic basin, the function word has been traditionally described as a ‘sentence/phrase final particle’, owing to its typical syntactic behaviour, rather than to its multiple grammatical meanings. Based on the corpus-driven analysis of the NaijaSynCor, a ~400K words corpus of spoken Naijá (i.e., Nigerian Pidgin), this study suggests that sentence-final can be better described as an ‘illocutionary force indicator’ whose main pragmatic function is to modify the illocutionary force associated with directive and assertive speech acts. The study also provides evidence for the emergence of new coordinating and subordinating functions of in intra-sentential position that are semantically harmonic with its assertive (i.e. epistemic) meaning in sentence-final position. The corpus-driven analysis further shows that the higher occurrence of sentence-final in (formal and informal) dialogic texts in comparison to monologic texts is a reflex of its basic illocutionary function.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.22016.man
2023-05-29
2025-02-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, John Langshaw
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Second edition (2005) Cambridge: Harvard University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca
    1994The Evolution of Grammar Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee, Joan L. and Suzanne Fleischman
    1995Modality in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32 [Google Scholar]
  5. Caron, Bernard
    2006 Condition, topic and focus in African languages: why conditionals are not topics. ZAS Papers in Linguistics (46): 69–82. 10.21248/zaspil.46.2006.336
    https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.46.2006.336 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2019 Clefts in Naijá, a Nigerian pidgincreole. Linguistic Discovery, 17 (1): 149–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Caron, Bernard, Marine Courtin, Kim Gerdes and Sylvain Kahane
    2019 A Surface-Syntactic UD Treebank for Naijá. TLT 2019, Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, Syntax fest, Aug 2019, Paris, France. Accessed onhttps://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02270530. 10.18653/v1/W19‑7803
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-7803 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chafe, Wallace
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. InCharles Li and Sandra Thompson (eds.), Subject and Topic, 25–56. London – New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cornillie, Bert
    2009 Evidentiality and epistemic modality: on the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language16 (1): 44–62. 10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor [Google Scholar]
  10. Courtin, Marine, Bernard Caron, Kim Gerdes and Sylvain Kahane
    2018 Establishing a language by Annotating a Corpus: The Case of Naijá. InSandra Kübler and Heike Zinsmeister (eds.), Proceedings of annDH 2018, Annotation in Digital Humanities. Sofia: 7–11.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2003Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. De Haan, Ferdinand
    1999 Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: Setting Boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics181: 83–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Deuber, Dagmar
    2005Nigerian Pidgin in Lagos: Language Contact, Variation and Change in an African Urban Setting. London: Battlebridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Faraclas, Nicholas G.
    1996Nigerian Pidgin. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
    1995 A functional theory of complementizers. InJ. Bybee & S. Fleischman (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse, 473–502. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.32.21fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.21fra [Google Scholar]
  16. Gerdes, Kim, Bruno Guillaume, Sylvain Kahane and Guy Perrier
    2018 SUD or Surface-Syntactic Universal Dependencies: An annotation scheme near-isomorphic to UD. Universal Dependencies Workshop 2018, Nov 2018, Brussels, Belgium. 10.18653/v1/W18‑6008
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-6008 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gonzales, Montserrat
    2017 Epistemic and evidential marking in discourse: effects of register and detability. Lingua, 186–1871: 68–87. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  18. Haiman, John
    1978 Conditionals are topics. Language54 (3): 564–589. 10.1353/lan.1978.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1978.0009 [Google Scholar]
  19. Haspelmath, Martin
    2003 The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. InM. Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2, 211–242. Mahwa: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Honkanen, Mirka
    . forthcoming. ‘This word no get concrete meaning oo’: Pragmatic markers in Nigerian online communication. In InS. Mohr, J. A. Anderson, & K. Schneider Eds. Communicative action and interaction in Africa. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.10.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.10.015 [Google Scholar]
  21. Izre’el, Shlomo
    2018 Unipartite clauses. A view from spoken Israeli Hebrew. InM. Tosco (ed.), Afroasiatic: Data and Perspective, 235–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.339.13izr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.339.13izr [Google Scholar]
  22. Karttunen, Lauri
    1971 Implicative verbs. Language47 (2) : 340–358. 10.2307/412084
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412084 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubı́ček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý and Vít Suchomel
    2014 The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography1(1): 7–36. 10.1007/s40607‑014‑0009‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9 [Google Scholar]
  24. Malchukov, Andrej L.
    2004 Towards a semantic typology of adversative and contrast marking. Journal of Semantics211: 177–198. 10.1093/jos/21.2.177
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/21.2.177 [Google Scholar]
  25. Manfredi, Stefano, Slavomír Čéplö, Francis Egbokhare, and Christine Ofulue
    2019 A first variationist approach to the NaijaSynCor corpus. Paper presented at theInternational Naijá Symposium. University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 27–29 June 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Mauri, Caterina and Andrea Sansò
    2011 How directive constructions emerge: Grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics43 (14): 3489–3521. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Mazzoli, Maria
    2013 Copulas in Nigerian Pidgin. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Padova.
  28. Migge, Bettina
    2020 Broadening Creole Studies. From grammar to discourse. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Studies35 (1): 160–177.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Nordström, Jackie
    2010Modality and Subordinators. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.116
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.116 [Google Scholar]
  30. Pietrandrea, Paola and Sylvain Kahane
    2019 Macrosyntactic annotation. InLacheret-Dujour, A., Kahane, S. and Pietrandrea, P. (ed.), Rhapsodie: A prosodic and syntactic treebank for spoken French, 97–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.89.07pie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.89.07pie [Google Scholar]
  31. Petrov, Slav, Dipanjan Das and Ryan McDonald
    2012 A Universal Part-of-Speech Tagset. InProceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), 2089–2096. Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rychlý, Pavel
    2007 Manatee/Bonito-A Modular Corpus Manager. InRASLAN, 65–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  34. 1975 A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. InGünderson, K. (ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis, vol.71.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Searle, John R. and Daniel Vanderveken
    1985 Speech Acts and Illocutionary Logic. InDaniel Vanderveken (eds) Logic, Thought and Action. Logic, 109–134. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑3167‑X_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3167-X_5 [Google Scholar]
  36. Singler, Victor
    1988 The story of o. Studies in Languages121: 123–144. 10.1075/sl.12.1.06sin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.06sin [Google Scholar]
  37. Tognini-Bonelli, Elena
    2001Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.6 [Google Scholar]
  38. Unuabonah, Foluke and Oladipupo, Rotimi
    2018 ‘You’re not staying in Island sha o’: O, sha and abi as pragmatic markers in Nigerian English. Journal of Pragmatics1351: 8–23. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  39. Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. and Randy J. LaPolla
    1997Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  40. Yakpo, Kofi
    2019A Grammar of Pichi. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Zeman, Daniel,
    2022Universal Dependencies 2.10, LINDAT/CLARIAH-CZ digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, hdl.handle.net/11234/1-4758
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.22016.man
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jpcl.22016.man
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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