The landscape of additive particles—with special reference to the Cantonese sentence-final particle tim

Lee, Peppina Po-lun; Pan, Haihua

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.12.001

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the key questions in the debate is whether it is necessary to postulate distinct entries for a negative polarity and a positive polarity even, or whether a unique semantic entry can account for all the readings of even, including those in negative sentences. From a more general perspective, it has been argued that the behavior of additives under negation, the nature of the scale used by scalar additives and the position of their associate on this scale are parameters that differentiate scalar additives both within a given language and also across languages, thus defining the "landscape of additive particles" (Giannakidou 2007;Lee & Pan 2010). These parameters will be relevant in the description of Cantonese additive particles in the section that follows.…”

Section: Additive Particlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From additivity to mirativity: The Cantonese sentence final particle <i>tim1</i>

Winterstein

Lai

Lee

et al. 2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper studies the Cantonese sentence final particle tim1 and more generally the semantics of additive particles. The range of meanings conveyed by tim1 appears quite broad, covering both scalar and non-scalar additive readings as well as mirative ones. We argue in favor of separating an additive tim1-particle and a mirative one. Our claims are based on their semantic differences but also on syntactic and acoustic differences. We formalize the meaning of each of these particles using a probabilistic argumentative framework which helps us define the scale with which tim1 associates, namely an argumentative scale which is relative to speaker's goal in the discourse. In doing so we also contrast the meaning of each particle with similar elements in other languages. We use these descriptions to claim that the mirative reading is the result of a metonymic semantic shift of the additive reading of the particle, and discuss paths of semantic change for additive particles in natural language from a cross-linguistic perspective.Abstract This paper studies the Cantonese sentence final particle tim1 and more generally the semantics of additive particles. The range of meanings conveyed by tim1 appears quite broad, covering both scalar and non-scalar additive readings as well as mirative ones. We argue in favor of separating an additive tim1-particle and a mirative one. Our claims are based on their semantic differences but also on syntactic and acoustic differences. We formalize the meaning of each of these particles using a probabilistic argumentative framework which helps us define the scale with which tim1 associates, namely an argumentative scale which is relative to speaker's goal in the discourse. In doing so we also contrast the meaning of each particle with similar elements in other languages. We use these descriptions to claim that the mirative reading is the result of a metonymic semantic shift of the additive reading of the particle, and discuss paths of semantic change for additive particles in natural language from a cross-linguistic perspective.

show abstract

Section: Additive Particlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zhan (1958) distinguishes the additive meaning of the verb and a "mood" particle. More recently, Lee & Pan (2010) proposed a unified analysis of the semantics of tim1 as an attempt to further refine the cross-linguistic landscape of additive items. This is by far the most sophisticated account of the particle, and we turn to it now.…”

Section: Previous Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From additivity to mirativity: The Cantonese sentence final particle <i>tim1</i>

Winterstein

Lai

Lee

et al. 2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For Japanese Lee (2007), Haugh (2008), McGloin & Konishi (2010), Saigo (2011) andHayano (2013). For (different varieties of) Chinese, see Li (2006), Lin (2010), Sybesma & Boya (2007), Sybesma (2010), Strauss & Xiang (2009), Lee & Pan (2010), Yap, Wang and Lam (2010).…”

Section: Utterance Final Particles In Other Languagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

10. Dutch particles in the right periphery

Wouden¹,

Foolen²

2015

Final Particles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThis exploratory paper deals with sentence final particles in Dutch. By particles, we mean pragmatic particles: those elements that don't contribute to the propositional content of the sentence (cf. Foolen 1993). As is well known from pragmatic research, such particles are more typical for spoken than for written language. It would, thus, be better to say 'utterance final' than 'sentence final'. The syntagmatic placement of pragmatic particles is variable, within languages (for Dutch, see section 6) and cross-linguistically. English discourse markers typically occur at the beginning of an utterance, German and Dutch modal particles are positioned in the middle field, in classical Greek the particles where attracted by the second position, whereas East Asian languages typically have their pragmatic particles at the end of the utterance. In section 5 we address the question whether there is any typological logic in such language specific preferences. We will argue that it is too early for typological conclusions, as not enough language specific descriptive work has been done. This lack of descriptive research became more and more clear for us while working on the present project: Dutch is not known for its utterance final particles, not even among Dutch linguists, but while searching for the phenomenon in the Spoken Dutch Corpus (CGN), we discovered that in fact there is a wide variety of pragmatic particles to be found at the end of Dutch utterances, as we will show in section 4, where we will illustrate our findings with many examples from this corpus.Given the title of this paper, we should briefly dwell upon the question what do we mean with the term 'right periphery'? At least since Koster (1975), Dutch is considered to be an SOV language. In subordinate clauses, the verbal elements, i.e. the finite verb and/or participles and infinitives, cluster at the end of the clause. In main clauses, this is also the case, albeit with the exception of the finite verb which moves to a position at the beginning of the clause (in generative terms: the C-position, "Verb second"). The SOV character of Dutch does not mean, however, that the verb cluster always constitutes an absolute end of the utterance, as has been shown by a wealth of studies, especially within generative

show abstract

“…voor het Japans o.a. Lee (2007), Haugh (2008) Hayano (2011), en voor (verschillende varianten van) het Chinees Li (2006), Lin (2010), Sybesma & Boya (2007), Sybesma (2010), Strauss & Xiang (2009), Lee & Pan (2010). Typologische verschillen lijken daarbij een ondergeschikte rol te spelen.…”

Section: Zinsfinale Partikels In Andere Talenunclassified

Pragmatische partikels in de rechterperiferie

Wouden

Foolen

2011

Nederlandse Taalkunde

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The landscape of additive particles—with special reference to the Cantonese sentence-final particle tim

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

From additivity to mirativity: The Cantonese sentence final particle <i>tim1</i>

From additivity to mirativity: The Cantonese sentence final particle <i>tim1</i>

10. Dutch particles in the right periphery

Pragmatische partikels in de rechterperiferie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About