Abstract

Based on natural conversational data, the current study analyzes utterance-final pragmatic particle lāh in Shishan, a dialect of Lingao of the Tai-Kadai language family. The research proposes that lāh signals an interactively built, relational notion of restrictivity. Specifically, lāh signals to the addressee that the state-of-affairs described in the utterance is restricted such that “nothing else” is possible due to a pre-existing, external constraint. The core meaning of relational “nothing else” gives rise to such pragmatic extensions as marking suggestions necessitated by external circumstances, assertion of “obviousness,” negative politeness strategies, and various emotive stances toward the situation in focus and/or toward the addressee. The range of functions of lāh parallel a number of Southeast Asian languages’ pragmatic particles (e.g., Cantonese lo, Mandarin me, Singapore English lor), particularly surrounding the function of marking the propositional content as “obvious.” The overlap corroborates a recurrent theme in the expanding research on pragmatic particles, specifically, pragmatic particles’ encoding the speaker's subjectivity toward the content being communicated. Equally important is that their use is prompted by, and in turn, responds to, perceived sharedness/divergence in the speaker's and addressee's subjective understandings of the world, an embodiment of the “intersubjective” nature of language.

Highlights

  • This study argues that lāh signals a relational meaning of restrictivity

  • The core relational meaning of lāh (―nothing else‖ due to pre-existing, external constraint) gives rise to various emotive expressions, epistemic assertions (e.g., ―obviousness‖), and interactional functions

  • Such pragmatic extensions parallel the functions of a number of particles in other Southeast Asian languages (e.g. Mandarin Chinese me, Cantonese lo, and Singapore English lor) relating to the marking of ―obviousness‖ and negative emotive stances

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Variably called discourse markers or discourse particles (Aijmer, 2002; Schiffrin, 1987), modal particles (Chappell, 1991), interactional particles (Maynard, 1993), utterance-particles (Luke, 1990; Wu, 2004), and sentence particles (Li and Thompson, 1981), form a unique, arguably, universal, class of words. Pragmatic particles across diverse languages are broadly comparable in their ability to accomplish a complex range of interactional functions and convey speakers‘ nuanced stances vis-à-vis the propositional content of the utterance, toward the addressee, and other elements of the interactional context. Occurring pervasively in natural discourse, pragmatic particles play a significant role in creating and maintaining textual cohesion, highlighting discourse relationships, facilitating conversational tasks, and, on the more macro-levels, indexing sociocultural identities. 3. ―obviousness,‖ commonsense), emotive expressions (e.g., resignation, resolve, regret, indignation), and other contextualized senses and speakers‘ stances Facilitated are such interactional functions as correcting the addressee‘s false assumptions/expectations, making suggestions through epistemic and logical appeal, underscoring an interrogative act with senses of urgency, among others. This range of senses and functions parallel a number of pragmatic particles in Southeast Asian languages: Cantonese lo (Luke, 1990; Matthews and Yip, 1994), Mandarin me (Chappell, 1991; Chu, 1998), and Singapore English lor (Gupta, 1992; Platt and Ho, 1989; Wee, 2002). The current research argues that, with regard to Shishan lāh, the sense of ―obviousness,‖ as well as other functions (discourse, emotive, and epistemic, alike), derive from the central relational notion of restrictivity: a subjective representation of a ―constraint reality‖ where nothing else is possible

Restrictivity
A: Soli epsumyen ettehkey halkayo?
Waiter: áo dānggēi?
M: dūn bēng róh he mì bēi né?
C41: áo liǎo guā?
BC: ah giǎng ó?
Emotive Stances
NL: xiū mō bēi dlóng giǔ heégiù èy nā heʔ ?
Suggestions and Resolutions
M: mō áo liáo mǎi de áo lāh
Questions
BC: èy bēi rǎnghāo de ah shuǎnbū gāng yīngwěi lāh ?
H: sō mō mò jiāo n rái gīu lóu ?
Lāh and Particles in Neighboring Languages
Conclusion
Dataset
Findings
56 Tables Table 1
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call