Emergent projecting constructions

Abstract

The present analysis is grounded in a view of grammar emerging in interaction and coming into being through mundane language use. By analyzing Hebrew interactional data, I outline the continua of synchronic usage from literal constructions involving the verb yada ('know') to three projecting constructions of the discourse marker variety. The study furthers our understanding of how projecting constructions are sedimentations of interactional practices. I combine interactional linguistics with grammaticization studies to show phonological, morphological, syntactic, pragmatic, and prosodic evidence in support of different grammaticization paths from matrix clause to discourse marker. Diachronic evidence from Mishnaic and Medieval Hebrew is added as further support for the paths suggested. The previously debated issue of complement-taking predicates is thus situated in another language and in a wider context, showing that different constructions employing the same matrix verb may follow different grammaticization paths. The study continues along an existing path of investigation into the issue of complement-taking constructions viewed as grammatically superordinate vs. as attachments to essentially monoclausal utterances. I argue for a more differentiated analysis recognizing both types of usage.

Multimodal Assemblies for Prefacing a Dispreferred Response: A Cross-Linguistic Analysis

“…The findings across the languages studied show that IDK in this use is semantically bleached (it does not work as a claim of no knowledge and is not treated as such) and tends to be morpho-phonologically reduced or otherwise prosodically downgraded (e.g., by speed-up of tempo or lower volume). These features suggest grammaticalization into a particle-like element (Bybee and Scheibmann, 1999 for English; Maschler, 2012Keevallik, 2003 for Estonian, Pekarek Doehler, 2016 for French). The IDK-prefaced turn is often delayed and/or sometimes prefaced by particles such as no/ben 'well, ' sound objects such as pff or clicks as further typical traits of dispreferred responses.…”

“…In a similar vein, Keevallik (2003Keevallik ( , 2011 observed that Estonian mai tea 'I don't know' (and its variant ei tea) may be used in disaligning actions giving dispreferred answers in an indirect manner, as well as signaling the speaker's uncertainty toward the produced content. Maschler (2012Maschler ( , 2017 found that Hebrew ('ani) lo yode'a/yoda'at '(I) don't know.M/F' (mainly its reduced form loyde'a/loydat) may function as discourse markers changing the course of talk. Lindström and Karlsson (2016) point out that Swedish jag vet inte 'I don't know' in doctor-patient interactions is a pragmatic marker that frames responsive turns as resisting the interlocutor's question.…”

Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Ya3ni in Najdi Arabic Interaction

“…DMs have attracted considerable attention from scholars examining their use in a variety of genres and communicative contexts such as narratives (Norrick, 2001) and classrooms (Fung & Carter, 2007;O'keeffe et al, 2007), as well as in language contact situations (Matras, 2020) and first language acquisition (Andersen et al, 1999). Moreover, DMs have been studied in various languages such as French (Beeching, 2009;Pekarek Doehler, 2016, 2022, Indonesian (Wouk, 1998), Italian (Menichetti et al, 2021), Japanese (Onodera, 2004;Onodera, 1995), Spanish (De Fina, 1997; Posio, 2014; Vizcaí no & Martí nez-Cabeza, 2005), and Hebrew (Maschler, 2009(Maschler, , 2012Maschler & Miller Shapiro, 2016).…”