32.2425, Review: Discourse Analysis; Linguistic Theories; Pragmatics; Semantics; Syntax: Modicom, Duplâtre (2020)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-32-2425. Mon Jul 19 2021. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 32.2425, Review: Discourse Analysis; Linguistic Theories; Pragmatics; Semantics; Syntax: Modicom, Duplâtre (2020)

Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn, Lauren Perkins
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Nils Hjortnaes, Joshua Sims, Billy Dickson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 22:27:23
From: Viatcheslav Yatsko [iatsko at gmail.com]
Subject: Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36697717


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/31/31-1388.html

EDITOR: Pierre-Yves  Modicom
EDITOR: Olivier  Duplâtre
TITLE: Information-Structural Perspectives on Discourse Particles
SERIES TITLE: Studies in Language Companion Series 213
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2020

REVIEWER: Viatcheslav Yatsko, Katanov State University of Khakasia

SUMMARY

This book is a collection of papers that focus on specific features of modal
particles. Their study is of relevance to a number of fields, sentiment
analysis, opinion mining, recognition of manipulative and propagandistic
strategies, and bilingual translation being among some of them. 

The contributions collected in the book go back to the workshop ''Discourse
Particles  and Information Structure'' held at the 51st meeting of the
''Societas Linguistica Europaea'' in Tallinn, Estonia, in September 2018. The
book comprises an Introduction and 11 chapters grouped into three parts: ''The
contribution of information structural strategies to the rise of discourse
particles'' (Chapters 1-4), ''Information structure as a factor in the
interpretation of polysemic and polyfunctional particles''  (Chapters 5-7),
and ''The contribution of discourse particles to the information structural
characterisation of illocutionary acts'' (Chapters 9-11). 

In the Introduction, Pierre-Yves Modicom and Olivier Duplatre introduce their
notion of discourse structure distinguishing between its three layers. The
first one is characterized by the ''topic'' and ''comment'' notions, the
second layer hinges upon new and old information, and the third layer deals
with the repartition between focus and background. The authors'
differentiation between the three discourse layers is similar to my
Integrational Discourse Analysis conception, which distinguishes between
semantic, communicative, modal, and relational dimensions of discourse. The
conception was presented in a number of papers, a monograph, and my
dissertation, the first paper in English being published as long ago as in
1995 [1]. 

Discourse particles contribute to the three layers, but the book, as the
editors claim, focuses on ''other particles than focus particles'' (p. 4).
Those ''other'' particles seems to be modal ones that refer to the
conversational Common Ground, i. e. knowledge shared by speaker and hearer as
in the German ''Aber, Simone, deine Mutter war doch verheiratet'', where
''doch'' particle implies ''You should know that''. 

The editors state positively that German and Japanese have played a central
role in the research of correlation between discourse particles and
information structure [ibid]. I cannot agree with this statement. As Russian
has more than 200 particles  of various types [2], they have been studied in a
great number of works including dozens of monographs and PhD dissertations
that investigate the use particles in various genres , perform contrastive
analysis of their use in different languages, and discuss translation
problems, see, for example, [2, 3]. 

For me, the Introduction is far from being perfect, the editors present a
somewhat chaotic picture of investigations in the field and don't succeed in
integrating it into a broader discourse analysis framework. 

The first chapter ''Discourse particle position and information structure'' is
written by Marianne Mithun who attempts to find dependency between syntactic
position of particles in Mohawk and a grammaticalization process. The author
argues that the fact that in Mohawk particles occupy the second position in
syntactic constructions is the result of development of such processes as
topic shift, anti-topicalization, and focusing. The idea itself being
interesting, I cannot say the arguments are convincing. Mithun concentrates on
the ''kati'' (shortened form is ''ki'') explaining that its English
counterparts  may be  ''so'', ''actually,'' and ''in fact'', but in numerous
examples that follow these particles are not translated at all.  The reader is
very unlikely to have any command of Mohawk and the author's conclusions seem
unsubstantiated. Unfortunately, the author doesn't provide information about
the sources of the linguistic data, stating that ''all examples here come from
unscripted conversations'' (p. 28). Were they recorded by the author or
someone else? Or are they included in a corpus? Where can they be found? 

The second chapter ''Information-structural properties of IS THAT clause'' is
written by Eva-Maria Remberger who in the abstract describes it as an
''article'' rather than a chapter. The example ''It is that he smokes a lot''
(p. 48) cannot be considered adequate, as the phrase is incomplete and
requires some context for its interpretation. The author often uses sexist
interpretations of the examples she discusses. The phrase ''es que fuma
mucho'' (p. 54) is rendered into English ''it's that he smokes a lot'', though
the 3d person singular ''fuma'' in this phrase may be associated with feminine
subject as well. Diachronic analysis in the third section of the chapter is
interesting, the author provided evidence that the ''que'' clause performs the
function of the subject while the preceding phrase is a predicate. I don't
quite understand the term ''reduced''. In what way does it correlate with such
a linguistic phenomenon as ''ellipsis''? What are the reasons for the
reduction? The author tries to make her analysis more comprehensive discussing
interrogative and negative constructions.

The third chapter (defined as ''paper'' in the abstract) ''Kazakh particle
''goj'' as an existential operator'' written by Nadezda Christopher
concentrates on syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic properties of this
particle. The investigation was done on the vast data including those obtained
during a field research in Kazakstan. The author proves that ''goj'' in
imperative sentences is a form of the verb ''qoju'' rather than a particle, as
it has been considered by many researchers. Cristopher gives profound analysis
of the syntactic distribution of the particle to reveal peculiarities of its
use in post-predicative  and post-nominal positions. In the next sections
Christopher focuses on the Russian ''zhe'' and  Yukaghir ''me'' particles that
express similar meanings. Section 7.1  that deals with the Russian particle
seems to fall out of the  chapter's scope because  of the lack of contrastive
analysis with goj.  Analyzing post-predicative uses of goj (p. 83) the author
concludes that it cannot appear in wh-questions. But this does not refer to
Russian zhe, cf. ''Kuda zhe ty idyosh segodnya?'' (Where are you going
today?). The sentence (wh-question) is grammatical as well as many other
sentences of this type.  I haven't been  convinced by the existential
interpretation of the particle the author gives in the last section of the
chapter. The interpretation implies that the proposition introduced by goj
''exists in CG'' (p. 105). Clearly, the notion of the Common Ground
presupposes the existence of some ideas shared by the speaker and hearer, but
that doesn't mean that propositions, in which the ideas are expressed, are of
existential nature. 

Chapter 4 (called a paper by the author) ''From focus marking to illocutionary
modification: Functional developments of Italian'' solo'' 'only' '' written by
Marco Favoro focuses on connective and illocutive uses of this adverb that
haven't been properly investigated yet.  The investigation was done on corpus,
questionnaire and internet data.  In the opening section the author, following
Krifka, presents his  view of information structure differentiating between 
CG content and CG management, the latter being associated with pragmatic
discourse dimension. The concept of CG management underlies his investigation
of ''solo'' in Italian. It functions as an illocutionary operator in
directives and assertions to provide emphatic marking of the illocutionary
force. Discussing examples (10) ''Stai solo zitto que porti ancora sfiga!!!''
and (11) ''Lascia solo stare, sono piena tutto il giorno'' the author
correctly states that ''solo'' gives emphasis to the directive highlighting
the contrast between the speech act and belief attributed to the addressee.
For me it would have been interesting to study emotive differences between
these utterances because (10) expresses a distinctly negative or ironical
attitude of the speaker to the interlocutor while (11) expresses regret. 

Chapter 5 ''Final or medial: Morphosyntactic and functional divergences in
discourse particles of the same historical sources'' written by Mitsuko Narita
Izutsu and Katsunobu Izutsu opens the second part of the book. It focuses on
information status, addressee directedness, and speaker gender expressed by
the final and interjectional particles ''yo,'' ''ne'', and ''sa'' that in
Japanese have the same form. The investigation was done on data from corpora
as well as on introspection data. The authors analyze positional distribution
of the particles across sentences and employ the ''old-new information''
approach to reveal discourse-pragmatic differences between interjectional and
final particles. They demonstrate that these types of particles are not used
together in the same sentence when they show contrastive or incompatible
features. 

The main problem with this chapter is lack of contrastive analysis. Discussing
the use of the ''-ne'' final particle (pp. 147-148) in sentences like (22)
''Ore asita isogasii-kara yasumu-ne'' (I am not coming because I am busy
tomorrow) Izutsu&Isutsu state: ''Unlike information about a past or present
situation the speaker's future action does not, in essence, constitute shared
knowledge if not uttered''. Clearly, this assertion is an oversimplification.
The addressee may have knowledge of the speaker's plans, having been informed
by the speaker or someone else earlier, and in this case her/his inquiry about
the shared knowledge may result in response with a modal particle, cf. Russian
analogue of (22): ''Ya ne pridu, ya ved' zavtra zanyat'' where ved' particle
refers the CG to express  surprise or irritation. 

The chapter's summary is very short.  

Chapter 6 (called ''paper'' by the author) ''Types and functions of wa-marked
DPs and their structural distribution in a Japanese sentence'' was written by
Koichiro Nakamura. I just reproduce the chapter's summary because I failed to
grasp its content. 

The chapter focuses on the ''wa'' particle and shows that a Japanese sentence
has a CP peripheral structure, in which multiple wa-marked phrases can seat.
The left peripheral in CP territory includes Topic Phrases that host Thematic
Topics in the sentence initial positions or contrastive topics elsewhere.
These topics correspond to DPs marked with the particle ''wa''. A Japanese
sentence can include multiple wa-marked phrases. The left peripheral structure
also includes one Focus Phrase, the locus for Exhaustive Identificational
Focus elements. This Focus Phrase is the slot for focally-stressed WA-marked
DPs. Unlike wa-marked phrases a Japanese sentence has only one WA-marked
phrase. 

What is a CP mentioned in the abstract? In the chapter's text it appears only
once (p. 172). Maybe it stands for Complementizer Phrase, but I am not sure as
the author didn't give any examples of such phrases. What is a DP? Usually it
stands for Determiner Phrase, and the examples the author gave show it may be
this phrase type. I wish the author had described the structure and
distinctive features of DPs in Japanese. What is a ''gerondive form'' referred
to on p. 172? Maybe this is a misprint and the correct variant is
''gerundive''? 

Nakamura illustrates his conclusions by 29 examples, 9 of them were taken from
the works of some other authors and 1 (p. 173) seems to have been provided by
some ''anonymous reviewers''. Where were the rest 20 examples taken from? The
author doesn't give any information about their sources. 

Chaper 7 ''Is the information-structural contribution of modal particles in
the syntax, in discourse structure or in both?'' written by Richard Waltereit
falls into two parts. The first one deals with the differences between modal
and discourse particles. The second part touches upon the French ''quand
meme'' particle. Linguistic data in the first part were borrowed from the
works of some other authors and in the second part - from the FRANTEXT
diachronic corpus. The author distinguishes between the two types of the
particle, viz. a backward-looking exhaustive-contrast particle and a
forward-looking particle expressing an uncertainty contrast. The first type is
close to the adverb and contributes to discourse structuring, while the second
type has a strong information-structuring profile that is not limited to a
clause and has a variable scope. 

My impression is that Waltereit doesn't properly distinguish between particles
and adverbs. When discussing differences between discourse particles and modal
particles (p. 180) he notes that the latter are restricted in use to certain
languages, have a grammatically defined scope and position, and apply to
speech acts, while the former are cross-linguistically wide spread, being
variable in scope and position, and apply to discourse structure. Actually,
Waltereit enumerates general differences between adverbs and particles. I am
not sure that the analysis of the example (22) ''Il pouvait me faire tous les
discours qu'l voulait, je ne l'ecoutais pas. Mais je l'ai quand meme entendu''
(p. 187) is correct. The author asserts that there is an exhaustive contrast
between the propositions expressed by the two sentences that can be gradated
from ''listening'' to ''quand meme hearing'' (less stronger than
''listening'') and to ''not hearing'' (less stronger than ''''quand meme
hearing''). The point is that ''ne l'ecoutais pas'' means ''not listening''
(to him), and the author didn't include it in his gradational scale. 

Chapter 8 ''Discourse particles in thetic judgments, in dependent sentences,
and in non-finite phrases'' written by Werner Abraham  opens the  third part
of the book. I just reproduce its summary because I didn't grasp the author's
logic. 

The author surveys the discourse effects and conditions of selection of the
German modal (discourse) particles. Special attention is paid to the dimension
of the Common Ground that mediates between the prior context and the current
utterance or speaker and addressee and, depending on the individual modal
particle morpheme, allows for negotiation of the question under discussion.
Special focus is laid on the restrictions under which modal particles appear
in dependent sentences. 

The scientific community has developed apparent and simple  requirements for
the introduction of an academic paper. It is supposed to contain information
about: significance and aims of the investigation; its logical structure;
sources of data. Nothing of the sort can be found in the Introduction to this
chapter. Abraham described neither aims of his research, nor its logical
structure, nor sources from which the linguistic data were obtained. Moreover,
all the examples (69 of them) in the chapter appear without references to
their sources. The Introduction section is big, contains many examples in
French, German, and Japanese and ends with a list of selective constraints of
MPs in German, such as main clause status, speech act autonomous subordinate
sentences non-restrictve attributes in DP, autonomous infinitival phrase, etc.
The author claims that the constraints represent ''established knowledge'' (p.
198) without giving any references to the scholarly works, in which that
knowledge was established. 

Chapter 9 ''Information structure, null case particle and sentence final
discourse particle'' written by Yoshio Endo focuses on emotive functions of
Japanese final particles. The author shows that they can express anger,
empathy, worry and other emotions rather than referring to CG or sharing
information. Endo attempts to prove that sentence final particles in Japanese
trigger the deletion of case particles and create a news discourse related
semantic effect of eliminating focus carried by the subject DP. 

As a native speaker of Russian I can confirm that the main and much more
common function of particles is to express speaker's emotions rather than to
refer to Common Ground. Examples of sentences that Endo gives to illustrate
emotive functions of participles (9-12) have Russian analogs that feature
various particles to express certain emotions. I must note that some
linguistic data in the chapter have no references to their sources. 

Chapter 10 ''The discourse marker 'hani' in Turkish'' was written by Didar
Akar and Balkiz Osturk. The authors attempted to prove that ''hani''
constructions in Turkish are, semantically, in parallel to the inner negation
reading of negative polar questions and involve both a covert negation and a
question operator. Pragmatically, they differ from negative polar questions as
they are used for triggering an account from the hearer, rather than a simple
confirmation or rejection. 

Discussing approaches to the analysis of inner and outer negation questions
the authors give an extensive description of concept postulated by Ladd et al,
finally deciding to take as the basis for their research Krifka's conception
that has nothing in common with the Ladd's approach. The impression is that
they just wanted to make the chapter longer to meet some requirements. 

The chapter contains 61 examples, 10 of them were taken from the works of some
other authors, 3 examples (22), (26), and (44) are actually not examples but
sentences with some meta-information, though they are numbered as examples,
and the authors don't give any references to the sources of the other 48
examples. 

Chapter 11 ''Modal particles in Basque: Two cases of interaction between 'ote'
and information structure'' is authored by Segio Monforte who attempts to
prove that in some varieties of Basque the ‘ote’ particle functions as a
phrasal element connected with a Focus Phrase though usually  modal particles
behave as clitic-heads attached to finite verbs and have no interaction with
focal constituents. This particle can be combined with a ''wh-word'' to get
emphasis for intensity. In the footnote (p. 285) the author indicates that he
used data from written sources of the 19th century (without giving any
references to those sources) as well as from interviews with native speakers.
Examples that appear in the text are unreferenced. Some assertions made by the
author need clarification. Analyzing syntactic positioning of modal particles
he states: ''Modal particles precede the finite verb and, therefore, occur
between the lexical and finite verbs'' (p. 281). To support this assertion he
gives example (11)''... erosten (buy. IPFV) omen (P) du (AUX)''. The example
clearly shows that particle ''omen'' comes after the finite verb ( not
precedes it as the author states), being followed by the auxiliary. Either the
example is incorrect or the author's assertion is false. 

EVALUATION

This book has some drawbacks. 1) Most chapters hinge upon contribution of the
particles to Common Ground structure and management, i. e. upon the modal
dimension of discourse ignoring its semantic and relational dimensions. The
reader cannot find here analysis of discourse structure, semantic types and
logical relations between discourse spans typical for the work written within
the scope of discourse analysis. The book's title is misleading and doesn't
match its content. Limiting the analysis of the particles to the modal
dimension of discourse is a methodological error because their role cannot be
properly understood without the investigation of their contribution to its
other dimensions.  2) The book (except Chapter 9) ignores apparent emotive
component associated with the use of the modal particles. I personally use
modal particles in everyday communication to express some emotions, and I am
sure this is their main function. Analysis of emotive function has practical
implications for human and machine translation, but these problems are not
even mentioned in the book. 3) The book was carelessly edited. The editors
just included in it papers presented at a conference without making any
revisions. Many contributors call their works ''papers'', rather than
chapters. Abstracts and conclusions are of various sizes, many of them are
short and uninformative. The abstract in Chapter 8 has 3 sentences; the
Conclusions section in Chapter 9 contains 4 sentences. The authors use lots of
abbreviations without explaining some of them. Only Chapter 3 has a list of
abbreviations. 4) The book was carelessly edited. I was surprised to see lots
of footnotes (e. g. 23 footnotes in Chapter 11), some of them occupying half
of the page (see, e. g. p. 283). The footnotes contain references to sources
of data and even analysis of examples. An elementary requirement of a
linguistic academic paper is the use of reliable and trustworthy sources of
linguistic data. Many contributors seem to be unaware of this requirement.
They give lots of examples without providing references to their sources. Some
examples may be construed, but in this case the author should properly inform
the reader explaining why and what for he/she construed the given example. Not
a single chapter provides such explanations. I am convinced a linguistic work
cannot be accepted for publication if its author doesn't properly specify
sources of linguistic data he/she analyzes. Nevertheless, the reviewers
recommended the chapters for publication. For the first time in my practice I
have read such a poorly edited book. 

Acknowledgement

This review was written thanks to the support from the Russian Foundation for
Basic Research, grant 20-07-00124

REFERENCES 

1. Yatsko, V.A. Integrational discourse analysis conception. URL:
http://yatsko.zohosites.com/integrational-discourse-analysis-conception.html

2. Mlynarova, B. (2018) The discourse aspect of semantics and functions of
Russian particles in modern newspaper articles. PhD thesis. URL:
http://www.psu.ru/files/docs/science/dissertatsionnye-sovety/mlinarova/Mlinaro
va_Barbora_Dissertatsia.pdf 

3. Mazzola, E. (2004) Semantics of Russian modal particles and its rendering
in Italian. PhD thesis. URL:
https://www.dissercat.com/content/semantika-russkikh-modalnykh-chastits-i-spos
oby-ee-otrazheniya-sredstvami-italyanskogo-yazyk


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Viatcheslav Yatsko, ScD, full Professor in the Department of Foreign
Linguistics and Language Theory at Katanov State University of Khakasia.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    LINGUIST List Support    ***************************
 The 2020 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
  to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
     ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
                   https://crowdfunding.iu.edu/the-linguist-list

                        Let's make this a short fund drive!
                Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
                    https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-32-2425	
----------------------------------------------------------