Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T17:22:54.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Imperative of Say as a Pragmatic Marker inEnglish and Dutch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2013

Daniël Van Olmen
Daniël Van Olmen*
Affiliation:
North-West University Potchefstroom
*
School of Languages, North-West UniversityPotcheftroom, Internal Box 395, Private Bag X6001,2520 Potchefstroom, South Africa,[daniel.vanolmen@nwu.ac.za]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the imperative of say as a pragmaticmarker in English and Dutch. Present-day say andzeg ‘say’ are contrasted on the basis ofcomparable corpus data. This comparison, together with additional diachronicdata, serves as input for a study of the typical developments of the imperativeof say as a pragmatic marker. Further-more, on the basis of awider range of European and other languages, the article explores thepossibility of the developments in English and Dutch being an arealphenomenon.*

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 247 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der. 1998. Conclusion. Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, ed. by van der Auwera, Johan & Baoill, Dónall P.Ó., 813–836. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2003. Look who's talking: The discourse-pragmatics of say, hear, look. Poster at the 8th International Pragmatics Association Conference, Toronto.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2001. From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2. 177–199.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brody, Jill. 1987. Particles borrowed from Spanish as discourse markers in Mayan languages. Anthropological Linguistics 29. 507–532.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary. 2012. Say in Sinitic: From verba dicendi to attitudinal discourse markers. Grammaticalization and (inter-)subjectification, ed. by van der Auwera, Johan & Nuyts, Jan, 81–110. Brussels: Royal Flemish Academy for Science and the Arts.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2001. Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language 77. 245–291.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, & Kytö, Merja. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1. 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 1998. Speaker-oriented particles in Dutch imperatives. Glot International 3. 23–24.Google Scholar
Devos, Magda, & Vandeweghe, Willy. 1985. Heteroniemen voor ‘(nog maar) pas’ in de Nederlandse dialekten (Heteronyms for ‘(nog maar) pas’ in the dialects of Dutch). Studia Germanica Gandensia 6. 5–53.Google Scholar
De Vriendt, Sera. 1995. Kom, kijk, zeg als interjectie. Van geen kleintje vervaard: Essays over Nederlandse taalwetenschap (Not afraid of anything: Papers on Dutch linguistics), 151–159. Brussels: VUB Press.Google Scholar
Dostie, Gaétane. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs: Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique (Pragmaticalization and discourse markers: Semantic analysis and lexicographical treatment). Brussels: De Boeck Duculot.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 1993. De betekenis van partikels: Een dokumentatie van de stand van het onderzoek met bijzondere aandacht voor maar (The meaning of particles: Documenting the state of the art with special attention to maar). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Catholic University Nijmegen dissertation.Google Scholar
Fortuin, Egbert. 2004. De syntaxis van imperatiefsubjecten en modale partikels: Een pragma-semantische benadering (The syntax of imperative subjects and modal particles: A pragma-semantic approach). Nederlandse Taalkunde 9. 335–374.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6. 931–952.Google Scholar
Fuller, Janet M. 2001. The principle of pragmatic detachability in borrowing: English-origin discourse markers in Pennsylvania German. Linguistics 39. 351–369.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1982. Say: Focus on message. Scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say and tell, ed. by Dirven, René, Goossens, Louis, Putseys, Yvan, & Vorlat, Emma, 85–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic Survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. How young is Standard Average European? Language Sciences 20. 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2, ed. by Tomasello, Michael, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2004. Using the OED quotations database as a corpus: A linguistic appraisal. ICAME Journal 28. 17–30.Google Scholar
Janssen, Theo A. J. M. 2006. Focusconstructies als kijk eens en moet je eens kijken (Focus constructions like kijk eens and moet je eens kijken). Nederlandse Taalkunde 11. 332–365.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig. 1998. On the role of corpora in cross-linguistic research. Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method, and case studies, ed. by Johansson, Stig & Oksefjell, Signe, 3–24. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S., & Deen, Jeanine Y.. 1990. Het mes snijdt aan twee kanten: On the semantics and pragmatics of the Dutch final particle hoor. The Low Countries: Multidisciplinary studies, ed. by Lacy, Margriet Bruijn, 1–12. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice, & Swiggers, Pierre. 1991. The status of imperatives as discourse signals. Discourse-pragmatics and the verb: The evidence from Romance, ed. by Fleischman, Suzanne & Waugh, Linda R., 120–146. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Landsmeer, Dianne. 2007. Dit gaat zeg maar over zeg maar: Analyse van formele en semantische eigenschappen van de zeg maar-constructie (This is about like zeg maar: Analysis of the formal and semantic properties of the zeg maar construction). Leiden, The Netherlands: Leiden University BA thesis.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36. 281–331.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, ed. by Matras, Yaron & Sakel, Jeanette, 31–73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2002. Will ‘translationese’ ruin a contrastive study? Languages in Contrast 2. 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt. 1998. The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference to Spoken Standard French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2000. Actually and in fact in American English: A databased analysis. English Language and Linguistics 4. 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmons, Joe. 1990. Bilingual discourse marking: Code switching, borrowing and convergence in some German-American dialects. Linguistics 28. 453–480.Google Scholar
Schermer, Ina. 2007. Wat doet dat woord daar, zeg? Over het tussenwerpsel zeg. (What is that word doing there, say? On the interjection zeg). Voortgang 25. 373–385.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Sara, & Jucker, Andreas H.. 2000. Actually and other markers of an apparent discrepancy between propositional attitudes of conversational partners. Pragmatic markers and propositional attitude, ed. by Andersen, Gisle & Fretheim, Thorstein, 207–237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroop, Jan. 2006. Wauwelwoorden en wat erop lijkt (Prattle words and what looks like it). Vaktaal 19. 5–6.Google Scholar
Stvan, Laurel S. 2006. Diachronic change in the discourse markers why and say in American English. Corpus linguistics: Applications for the study of English, ed. by Hornero, Ana María, Luzón, María José, & Murillo, Silviq, 61–76. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Taglicht, Josef. 2001. Actually, there's more to it than meets the eye. English Language and Linguistics 5. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. Syntax. The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1, ed. by Hogg, Richard M., 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Valstar, Debbie. 2010. De zeg maar-constructie: Pleidooi voor een gediscrimineerd partikel (The zeg maar construction: Plea for a maltreated particle). Leiden, The Netherlands: Leiden University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Van der, Horst, M, Joop. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis (History of Dutch syntax), vol. 1. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Van der, Wouden, Ton. 2002. Partikels: Naar een partikelwoordenboek voor het Nederlands (Particles: Toward a particle dictionary for Dutch). Nederlandse Taalkunde 7. 20–43. Available at http://www.let.rg.nl/~vdwouden/docs/nt2001.docGoogle Scholar
Van der Wouden, Ton. 2007. Bouwstenen van het Nederlands en het CGN (Building blocks of Dutch and the CGN). Nederlandse Taalkunde 12. 251–274.Google Scholar
Van der Wouden, Ton, & Caspers, Johanneke. 2010. Nederlandse partikel-beschrijving in internationaal perspectief: Waar zijn we eigenlijk en waar moet het toch naar toe? (The description of Dutch particles in an international perspective: Where are we in actual fact and where should it be headed?) Internationale Neerlandistiek 48. 52–62.Google Scholar
Van Olmen, Daniël. 2010a. The imperative of intentional visual perception as a pragmatic marker: A contrastive study of English, Dutch and Romance. Languages in Contrast 10. 223–244.Google Scholar
Van Olmen, Daniël. 2010b. Imperatives of intentional visual versus auditory perception as pragmatic markers in English and Dutch. English Text Construction 3. 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Olmen, Daniël. 2011a. Zeg, zwijg ‘ns!: Verdere ontwikkelingen van de imperatief van ‘zeggen’ in het Engels en het Nederlands (Zeg, zwijg ‘ns!: Further developments of the imperative of ‘say’ in English and Dutch). Papers of the Linguistics Society of Belgium 6. Available at http://webh01.ua.ac.be/linguist/SBKL/sbkl2011/olm2011.pdfGoogle Scholar
Van Olmen, Daniël. 2011b. The imperative in English and Dutch: A functional analysis in comparable and parallel corpora. Antwerp, Belgium: University of Antwerp dissertation. Available at http://www.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=daniel.vanolmen&n=45298Google Scholar
Van Oostendorp, Marc, & van der Wouden, Ton. 1998. Corpus Internet. Nederlandse Taalkunde 3. 347–361. Available at http://www.tonvanderwouden.nl/index_files/papers/digitaal-04.htmlGoogle Scholar
Vismans, Roel. 1994. Modal particles in Dutch directives: A study in functional grammar. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Free University Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda. Linguistics 40. 987–1010.Google Scholar

CORPORA

Coussé, Evie. 2010. Een digitaal compilatiecorpus historisch Nederlands [A digital compilation corpus historical Dutch]. Lexikos 20. 123–142. Available at http://www.diachronie.nl/corpora/pdf/Cousse_2010_Een_digitaal_compilatiecorpus_historisch_Nederlands.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GWNT. 1992. Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal [Comprehensive dictionary of the Dutch language]. Utrecht: Van Dale.Google Scholar
Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie. 2011a. 38 Miljoen Woorden Corpus [38-Million Word Corpus]. Leiden. Available at http://www.inl.nl/st-centrale/nl/producten/corpora/38-miljoen-woorden-corpus/6-47.Google Scholar
Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie. 2011b. Eindhoven Corpus. Leiden. Available at http://www.inl.nl/tst-centrale/nl/producten/corpora/eindhoven-corpus/6-27.Google Scholar
Maatschappij der Nederlandse Letterkunde. 2012. Digitale Bibliotheek voor de Nederlandse Letteren [Digital Library for Dutch Language and Literature]. Leiden. Available at http://www.dbnl.nl.Google Scholar
Nederlandse Taalunie. 2004. Corpus Gesproken Nederlands [Corpus of Spoken Dutch]. Release 1.0. The Hague. Available at http://lands.let.kun.nl/cgn>.Google Scholar
OED. 2011. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at http://www.oed.com.Google Scholar
ONW. 2010. Oudnederlands woordenboek [Old Dutch dictionary]. Leiden. Available at http://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=WNT.Google Scholar
Survey of English Usage. 2006. International Corpus of English: The British Component. Release 2. London.Google Scholar
Universiteit Leiden Opleiding Nederlands. 2011. Ceneton: Census Nederlands toneel [Ceneton. Census Dutch drama]. Available at http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/Dutch/Ceneton/index.html.Google Scholar
VMNW. 2010. Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek [Early Middle Dutch Dictionary]. Leiden. Available at http://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=WNT.Google Scholar
WNT 2010[1864–1998]. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal [Dictionary of the Dutch language]. Leiden. Available at http://gtb.inl.nl/?owner=WNT.Google Scholar