Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:58:27.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a model of the syntax–discourse interface: a syntactic analysis of please

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2020

REBECCA WOODS
REBECCA WOODS*
Affiliation:
School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneNE1 7RUUnited [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the syntax and semantics of please. Using a mainstream generative syntactic framework, I propose that syntactically integrated please is a discourse marker that marks the clause in which it occurs as a request. Please may appear clause-initially or clause-medially as determined by a number of factors, including clause type, modality, negation and the application of ellipsis. There is also a homophonous marker please that occurs in clause-final position; clause-final please does not mark requests per se but ‘bonds’ a speaker and addressee, reinforcing their relationship as requester and requestee. This analysis of please provides support for syntactic approaches to speech act structure, particularly the claim that illocutionary force is part of narrow syntax rather than a solely pragmatic phenomenon. The article provides support for pursuing a model of the syntax–discourse interface in which interactions between discourse markers and clause-internal functional elements, such as mood and modality, form the interface between syntax and discourse.

Keywords

syntax–discourse interfacespeech actsdiscourse particles
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 121 - 153
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)

Footnotes

This article has been many years and many revisions in the making. The first iteration was produced during my ESRC 1+3 scholarship number ES/J500215/1 at the University of York. Thanks to colleagues and visitors at the University of York, in particular George Tsoulas, Norman Yeo, Maria-Margarita Makri, Elin McCready and Eytan Zweig, and the audience at ConSOLE XXIII (7–9 January 2015) in Paris, in particular Jon Ander Mendia, Imke Driemel, Andrew Murphy and Victor Pan, as well as two anonymous reviewers for Proceedings of ConSOLE XXIII, where an earlier version of this article appeared. The second iteration was submitted for the ISLE Richard M. Hogg Prize in 2017 – my thanks to the prize committee for their feedback, in particular Martin Hilpert and David Denison. This third iteration owes much to E Jamieson and two anonymous reviewers for their time and extensive comments and suggestions, as well as the help and patience of ELL editor Bernd Kortmann and secretary Melitta Cocan, as it turns out that the gestation of a child (and subsequent period of parental leave) is much shorter than that of (some) research ideas. All remaining errors are my own. The work is dedicated to the memory of the seventeen people killed in the 2015 Paris terror attacks, which coincided with ConSOLE XXIII.

References

Aijmer, Karin. 2015. ‘Will you fuck off please’. The use of please by London teenagers. Pragmática Sociocultural/Sociocultural Pragmatics 3(2), 127–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz. 1938. Logiczne podstawy nauczania [The logical foundations of teaching]. Warsaw: Nasza Księgarnia.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The Linguistic Review 28(4), 449–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2001. Inversion as focalization. In Hulk, Aafke & Pollock, Jean Yves (eds.), Subject inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar, 60–90. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the Low IP Area. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The structure of CP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2, 16–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1985. Modifiers as indicating devices: The case of requests. Presented at the Conference of Cognitive Aspects of the Utterance, Tel Aviv, Israel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1978. Yes-no questions are not alternative questions. In Hiż, Henry (ed.), Questions, 87–105. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 2011. German and Italian modal particles and clause structure. The Linguistic Review 28, 493–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2005. Deutsche Modalpartikeln: Eine syntaktische Analyse. MA dissertation, Università Ca'Foscari di Venezia.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco & Zegrean, Iulia. 2012. Splitting up force: Evidence from discourse particles. In Aelbrecht, Lobke, Haegeman, Liliane & Nye, Rachel (eds.), Main clause phenomena: New horizons, 229–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffield, Nigel. 2013. On polarity emphasis, assertion and mood in Vietnamese and English. Lingua 137, 248–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2014. The semantics of free indirect discourse: How texts allow us to mind-read and eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner & Pittner, Karin. 1998. Zur Positionierung der Adverbiale im deutschen Mittelfeld. Linguistische Berichte 176, 489–534.Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2010. On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18(1), 79–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2014. West Flemish verb-based discourse markers and the articulation of the Speech Act layer. Studia Linguistica 68(1), 116–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Hill, Virginia. 2013. The syntacticization of discourse. In Folli, Raffaella, Sevdali, Christina & Truswell, Robert (eds.), Syntax and its limits, 370–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2007a. Romanian adverbs and the pragmatic field. The Linguistic Review 24, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2007b. Vocatives and the pragmatics–syntax interface. Lingua 117, 2077–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Virginia. 2014. Vocatives: How syntax meets with pragmatics. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2016. The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1989. Politeness in English and German: The functions of please and bitte. In Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane & Kasper, Gabriele (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 96–122. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
ICE: International Corpus of English – Great Britain. www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/projects/ice-gb/index.htm (accessed 17 September 2019).Google Scholar
Jamieson, E. 2017. ‘Negation’ and CHECK moves in the Shetland dialect of Scots. Presented at NELS 48, University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Féry, Caroline & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapentia: A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2014. Embedding illocutionary acts. In Roeper, Tom & Speas, Margaret (eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition, 59–88. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2018. Questions in commitment spaces. Presented at GLOW 41 Semantics Workshop, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/180.html?&L=0%20order%20by%201000 (accessed 23 August 2018).Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. To appear. Layers of assertive clauses: Propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. In Hartmann, Jutta M. & Wollstein, Angelika (eds.), Propositionale Argumente im Sprachvergleich: Theorie und Empirie [Propositional Arguments in Cross-Linguistic Research: Theoretical and Empirical Issues]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Ladd, Robert. 1981. A first look at the semantics and pragmatics of negative questions and tag questions. Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 164–71.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Utpal. 2002. Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lennon, John & McCartney, Paul. 1965. Help! London: Parlophone.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Jim. 2006. Questions and questioning in a local English. In Zanuttini, Raffaella, Campos, Hector, Herburger, Elena & Portner, Paul H. (eds.), Crosslinguistic research in syntax and semantics: Negation, tense and clausal architecture, 87–126. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(6), 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Poletto, Cecilia. 2004. Sentential particles and clausal typing in the Veneto dialects. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35(2), 375–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 2000. Position and interpretation of adjuncts: Process, event and wieder ‘again’. Approaching the grammar of adjuncts: ZAS Papers in Linguistics 17, 203–16.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 2004. Where syntax and semantics meet: Adverbial positions in the German middle field. In Austin, Jennifer R., Engelberg, Stefan & Rauh, Gisa (eds.), Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context and syntactic structure, 253–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Young, Robert (ed.), Proceedings of SALT XIV, 235–52. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric. 1996. Syntactic issues in the English Imperative. PhD dissertation, University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The composition of INFL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32(4), 1331–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero, Maribel & Han, Chung-hye. 2004. On negative ‘yes/no’ questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(5), 609–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupp, Laura. 2003. The syntax of imperatives in English and Germanic: Word order variation in the Minimalist framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1974. Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sato, Shie. 2008. Use of ‘please’ in American and New Zealand English. Journal of Pragmatics 40(7), 1249–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaar, John H. 1981. Legitimacy in the modern state. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Schaden, Gerhard. 2010. Vocatives: A note on addressee management. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 16(1), 176–85.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimík, Radek. 2011. Introduction to the semantics of questions. Handout from the EGG Summer School 2011, České Budějovice, Czech Republic, 54 pp. http://egg.auf.net/11/abstracts/handouts/simik-w1a.pdf (accessed 23 August 2018).Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In DiSciullo, Anna Maria (ed.), Asymmetry of grammar, vol. 1: Syntax and semantics, 315–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooy, Robert & Šafářová, Marie. 2003. On polar questions. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13, 292–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim & Zimmerman, Thomas Ede. 1984. Term answers and contextual change. Linguistics 22, 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thoma, Sonja. 2016. Discourse particles and the syntax of discourse evidence from Miesbach Bavarian. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
University of Oxford, Bodleian Libraries. 2007. The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). Distributed on behalf of the BNC Consortium. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ (accessed 23 September 2019).Google Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2004. The intonation of Please-requests: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics 36(9), 1521–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The universal structure of categories: Towards a formal typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina & Heim, Johannes. 2016. The syntax of confirmationals: A neo-performative analysis. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents, 305–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, Rebecca. 2016a. Embedded inverted questions as embedded speech acts. In Kim, Kyeong-min, Umbal, Pocholo, Block, Trevor, Chan, Queenie, Cheng, Tanie, Finney, Kelli, Katz, Mara, Nickel-Thompson, Sophie & Shorten, Lisa (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 417–26. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Woods, Rebecca. 2016b. Investigating the syntax of speech acts: Embedding illocutionary force. PhD dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Woods, Rebecca. In press. A different perspective on embedded Verb Second: Unifying embedded root phenomena. In Rebecca Woods & Sam Wolfe (eds.), Rethinking Verb Second, 297–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woods, Rebecca & Vicente, Luis. 2017. Metacommunicative fragments as probes into the grammar of the speech act layer. Presented at Societas Linguistica Europaea 2017, Universität Zürich, Switzerland.Google Scholar