This study analyzes the use of general extenders in recorded conversations in English and Spanish between nine pairs of young adult Spanish–English bilingual friends from Southern Arizona. Building on previous studies in both languages, 325 tokens of general extenders were analyzed quantitatively according to frequency, length in words, and function (referential or non–referential), as well as the gender and language dominance of participants. It was expected that general extenders would be susceptible to borrowing in a language contact situation since discourse–pragmatic features often appear on the periphery of grammar and are detachable. However, in the speech of the same Spanish–English bilinguals, contact with English did not appear to influence the use of general extenders in Spanish. No English forms of general extenders were found in Spanish. Moreover, general extenders in Spanish were significantly longer and were used to fulfill referential functions more often than general extenders in English. As the first study to analyze the use of general extenders in English and Spanish in the speech of the same bilinguals, these results underline the ability of bilinguals to both understand and reproduce the subtleties of the use of these features in the two languages they speak.

After a brief overview of the advent of functional approaches to language in the mid– and late 1900s, stressing the importance of investigating pragmatic, i.e. implicit aspects of language use, and of simultaneously approaching language from different perspectives, this overview stresses the importance of understanding – rather than of finding some definite truth about language. The analysis of pragmatic particles (you know, like, well) in the mid–1960s showcased a plethora of challenges for investigations of language function and use that had previously not attracted scholars’ attention. This strand of research has fruitfully continued, especially so within the DiPVaC community, and constantly opens up new avenues of research. This overview lastly offers a reinterpretation of the author’s 1981 study of you know in terms of aspects of responsibility, suggesting that precisely responsibility – and its various facets – need to be given a more central task in future studies of language function and use, discourse, and pragmatics.

This study provides a real–time analysis of variation in the use of consequence markers (ça) fait (que), donc, alors and English borrowing so in two genetically related varieties of Canadian French. It is based on corpora collected in the 1970s and 2010s in Montreal, Quebec, a majority francophone environment, and Welland, Ontario, a minority francophone environment. Comparison of the two corpora reveals that Montreal and Welland French had already started to diverge in the 1970s in relation to variant inventory, variant frequency, and constraints on their use and that intercommunity divergence has intensified over time. Among the manifestations of divergence, one can mention the emergence of connector so in Welland in the 1970s and its subsequent growth, at the expense of vernacular variant (ça) fait (que). This stands in contrast with a marked increase of (ça) fait (que) and its diffusion to all social groups in Montreal over time. The evolution of standard variant alors reveals another facet of intercommunity divergence. In Montreal, it has undergone a sharp decline and is becoming obsolescent in the speech of the younger generations; however, in Welland, it evidences stability. Our study discusses some of the (extra)linguistic factors accounting for such patterns of divergence.

Sentence–final is all has received little attention in the literature. Its use is a relatively recent development since the late nineteenth century, mostly restricted to colloquial American English (Delin 1992; Follett 1998). This chapter demonstrates that is all does not appear to represent reported speech so much as to refer back to the preceding text, in line with the OED’s claim that sentence–final is all implies ‘that is all there is to be said’. The chapter demonstrates that speakers often use sentence–final is all to close a topic and to distance themselves from an unwanted interpretation of the preceding utterance. In contrast, sentence–final that BE all ranges from literal meanings to the more (inter)subjective pragmatic meanings of is all.

The second half of the chapter examines the historical development, drawing on data from various corpora. The authors argue that sentence–final is all derives from postponed independent or conjoined that BE all by processes of phonological reduction and deletion with subsequent reanalysis. A conversational implicature arose from that is all ‘do not infer anything more’, triggering the development of reduced is all toward a discourse–pragmatic marker.

This chapter aims to analyze the variation in use and functions of a broad bottom–up selection of discourse markers across four languages from different typological families, namely French and Spanish (Romance), English (Germanic), and Polish (Slavic). Such an endeavor requires that we not only overcome issues of definition and delimitation of the discourse marker category but also design an annotation model encompassing their full functional spectrum, in the perspective of spoken discourse analysis. Our study follows a corpus–based multilingual annotation scheme for functions of (spoken) discourse markers. The functional taxonomy distinguishes between four domains that may be combined with fifteen functions. This taxonomy with two independent levels has been applied to spoken unplanned dialogues in the four languages. The annotations were extracted for contrastive analyses of distribution and variation of discourse markers and their functions. The results indicate that the multilingual annotation scheme may be applied validly to the four different languages. This makes it possible to uncover both similarities and divergences in the functional and semantic distribution of discourse markers. This multidimensional and multilingual approach to discourse markers offers a fine–grained portrait of the variation and of the polyfunctionality of this category across typological families.

This chapter presents a quantitative analysis of the frequency and function of you know among L1 speakers of Irish and Australian English and L2 speakers of Polish and Chinese background, residing in Ireland. Results show no significant differences in the frequency of you know in Irish as compared to Australian English. However, you know was highly correlated with I mean in Australian English only. Among the L2 speakers, you know was significantly more frequent among the Polish group as compared to both the Chinese group and the L1 group. Proficiency in English and length of residence were not found to be significant predictors of this trend, although Poles with lower levels of education were found to use more you know. Both L1 groups used more interpersonal functions of you know as compared to the L2 groups, who favored its coherence functions. The findings indicate that the prevalence of you know may contribute to its rapid adoption by L2 speakers, but more close analysis reveals potential challenges for L2 speakers to acquire the full range of functions of discourse–pragmatic markers in spoken discourse. The study shows the importance of examining both frequency and function of discourse–pragmatic markers in language contact situations.

The present chapter strives to elaborate simple heuristics that might further the elaboration of p-solutions or p-resolutions of p-inconsistencies. We will take Moravcsik’s () typology of the treatment of conflicts as our starting point and we will attempt to integrate it into the p-model. After the brief Introduction (), inwe will present the examples given in Moravcsik (). Starting from her analyses, we will re-analyse the examples with the help of the p-model’s categories and will provide a new approach to the resolution strategies. Finally, in , we will summarise the main components of the heuristics we have revealed.

After we have seen how the p-model works, this chapter evaluates the p-model’s methodology with respect to current tendencies in the history and philosophy of science.sketches four interrelated processes. First, the fall of the analytical philosophy of science was accompanied by the historical turn that yielded the emergence of the discipline ‘the history and philosophy of science’. Second, as opposed to the earlier programme of unified science, by now the philosophy of science has acknowledged the pluralism of scientific inquiry. Third, there is also a process that has led to the simultaneous presence of the general philosophy of science and the discipline-specific histories and philosophies of science. Finally, there is a pluralism of the specific histories and philosophies of science within the discipline as well. The p-model fits into these processes.reflects on the basic method applied by the history and philosophy of science, namely, case studies. It outlines the p-model’s answer to the question of why the results of single case studies may be generalised and how they can be selected without bias.is devoted to the question of whether our results can be applied to other fields of linguistic research than those mainstream grammatical approaches that the case studies have focused on.

The present chapter applies the p-model to two stages of the development of German phonology in order to exemplify the role of inconsistency in theory change. It focuses on a detailed case study on the Basic Inconsistency of German Affricates. After the problem and its subproblems have been raised in , in , our analyses will show why Wurzel’s () eclectic framework, applying both terms of structuralist phonology and of Chomsky and Halle’s The Sound Pattern of English, yields a p-inconsistency without an acceptable p-resolution. In , we will examine whether Prinz and Wiese’s () CV phonology could avoid the shortcomings of this approach. In , we will draw conclusions from the case study that suggest generalisable methodological guidelines for the future treatment of inconsistency in linguistic theorising. Finally, in , we will answer the question of how the permanent interplay of the emergence and the resolution of inconsistencies shapes the development of linguistic inquiry.

This chapter overviews those contexts in which in theoretical linguistics the problem of inconsistency has been touched on. After the problem has been raised in ,summarises the main tenets of the standard view of linguistic data (SVLD), which will serve as a reference point in delineating recent trends related to the emergence and the treatment of inconsistencies in linguistic theorising. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 will be devoted to two case studies each of which analyses a particular controversy focusing on the acceptability of introspective and corpus data. We will try to reveal the close relationship between (SVLD) and the standard view of inconsistency (SVI) as presented inand show how giving up elements of (SVLD) leads to an at least partial break with (SVI) in these two controversies. In , we will discuss approaches to the nature of ‘exceptions’, which are commonly thought to be the most frequent manifestations of inconsistencies in linguistic theorising. Then,will summarise the tendencies thus revealed.