The syntax of confirmationals

part 4

ECCs: a grammar of their own?

The syntax of confirmationals A neo-performative analysis Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim University of British Columbia

This paper explores the form, function and distribution of certain discourse markers which seem to occur outside traditional clause boundaries and are used to request confirmation. These ‘confirmationals’ differ according to what is expected to be confirmed. Some confirmationals trigger a response from the addressee to confirm that the proposition is true; others require a response to confirm that the addressee knows that the proposition is true. This variation is reminiscent of scope effects and suggests that confirmationals should be analysed in syntactic terms despite their peripheral position. For our analysis, we adopt the Universal Spine Hypothesis (Wiltschko 2014), which promotes a hierarchically organized series of core functional projections. We propose that the highest functional projection of a clause is dedicated to a ‘grounding’ layer, which in turn consists of a speaker-oriented and an addressee-oriented structure. The topmost layer is dedicated to regulate response and consists of a position that encodes the call on the addressee. Our analysis of speech act structure is an updated version of Ross’ (1970) performative hypothesis. We explore the predictions and implications of this hypothesis for the syntax-pragmatics interface.

1.  Introduction In this paper we explore the syntax of a class of sentence-peripheral particles, namely those that are sometimes classified as invariant tags (Columbus 2010). A typical example of these particles is eh as in (1), which has similar functions as the full tag in (2).1

.  eh is often characterized as a genuinely Canadian particle (Avis 1957; Woods 1980). However, it occurs in other dialects of English as well (e.g., Guernsey and New Zealand English) though its prosodic and distributional properties vary across different dialects (within and outside of Canada; Gold 2008). The function of eh reported in this paper reflects its use by speakers who grew up in Western Canada (Alberta and BC). This study is intended as a case-study and is meant to show what a possible system of confirmationals may look like

doi 10.1075/slcs.178.11wil © 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

(1) You have a new dog, eh? (2) You have a new dog, don’t you? We show that with the use of eh in (1) the speaker (henceforth S) requests that the addressee (henceforth A) confirm that the proposition expressed in the host sentence is true. To reflect this function of tags such as eh, we refer to them as confirmationals. The main goal of this paper is to explore the form and function of confirmationals and to propose a syntactic analysis of such particles within a generative framework. In particular, our goal is to illustrate how a generative syntactic approach can serve as a valuable heuristic in the exploration of discourse markers. It allows for in-depth analysis of the multi-functionality of confirmationals, which in turn can serve as the basis for the comparison of different confirmationals within and across languages. It may be surprising to approach the exploration of conformational particles from a syntactic point of view. After all, as sentence-peripheral particles, they do not seem to display much in the way of visible syntactic effects (they cannot be modified, moved, or coordinated, for example). However, there are several reasons why we think that a syntactic approach is justified. First, there is a long tradition of developing syntactic analyses for full tags (Ross, 1970; Culicover 1992; Sailor 2009) and, crucially, they have a similar function and distribution as particle (invariant) tags. On the assumption that particular hierarchical structures are associated with particular functions (as in Wiltschko’s 2014 Universal Spine Hypothesis) the functional similarity between full tags and invariant tags is an indicator of their syntactic similarity despite their difference in form. Second, it is generally acknowledged that full phrases (syntactic objects) can be replaced by simple words, namely in the form of pro-forms, which however are still analysable as syntactically complex (e.g. Postal 1969; Déchaine & Wiltschko 2002). While pro-forms are mostly explored in the nominal domain, pro-forms that replace clausal constituents have recently received attention. In particular, in Krifka (2013), response particles such as yes and no are analysed as propositional anaphors. In this context it is interesting to note that response particles such as yes and no in (3), just like confirmationals, have a syntactically complex counterpart in the form of echoverb constructions, as illustrated in (4) on the basis of Finnish (Holmberg 2016). (3) Q: Do you have a new dog. A: a. Yes (I do). b. No (I don’t) (4) Q: Tul-i-vat-ko lapset kotiin? come-pst-3pl-q children home ‘Did the children come home?’ A: Tul-i-vat. come-pst-3pl ‘Yes.’ (lit.: ‘They came.’)

Finnish

(Holmberg 2016, example 5)



The syntax of confirmationals 

We thus assume that a generative syntactic approach is justified as an analytical tool. In particular, given that syntax serves as the module that mediates between form and interpretation, we view it as an ideal analytical tool: it allows for an interesting way to understand the relation between the prosodic, semantic, and pragmatic properties of confirmationals. However, while the general tenets of generativism are readily adaptable to the exploration of confirmationals, we have to make some specific assumptions: namely that syntactic structure is not restricted to propositional sentences (henceforth p-structure) of the familiar type, but instead includes speech-act structure (henceforth SA-structure). This is consistent with the observation that speakers have clear judgments about the context of use of confirmationals suggesting that just like p-structure is part of a grammatical competence, so is SA-structure. We thus assume that speakers have knowledge about their use, which may be viewed as a conversation competence similar in nature to the competence readily assumed for standard syntactic phenomena. Hence, we argue for an updated version of Ross’ (1970) performative hypothesis, according to which p-structures (such as the sentence in Example 5) are dominated by a SA-structure. As illustrated in Figure 1, under Ross’ original performative hypothesis, SA-structure is comprised of a representation of S, A and a performative verb such as tell. To account for the fact that the sentence in (5) does not always manifest traces of SA-structure, Ross further argues that SA-structure undergoes a process of deletion (performative deletion). However, crucially as we will see, not all elements of SA-structure are deleted. Given the model that Ross assumes (Transformational Grammar), this analysis accounts for the fact that at the level of interpretation (Deep Structure) a sentence is complex in that it contains SA-structure (which is itself a higher order p-structure). This additional structure is responsible for associating the clause-type expressed in p-structure with its primary illocutionary force (assertion in Example 5). (5) I have a new dog. Deep Structure (interpretation)

Surface Structure (form)

S SAstructure I tell you that

Performative Deletion S

S

pstructure

pstructure

I have a dog

I have a dog

Figure 1.  Ross’ (1970) performative hypothesis

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

We argue here for an updated version of Ross’ original insight. In particular, following insights by Speas and Tenny (2003), we propose that the SA-structure consists of a functional architecture above the functional structure assumed in contemporary generative syntactic theories of the clause-structure. In particular, we argue that the function associated with this functional architecture is grounding (in the sense of Clark & Brennan 2009) and the Call on the Addressee (in the sense of Beyssade & Marandin 2006). Moreover, we argue that sentence-peripheral particles, such as confirmationals, are associated with this layer of structure and hence provide us with an ideal empirical domain to explore SA-structure. On this analysis, then, sentence-peripheral linguistic markers are regulated by the same type of syntactic operations as other elements that are uncontroversially assumed to appear inside the clause. This paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the core set of data that forms that basis of our analysis. We then turn to the question as to whether confirmationals are best viewed as occurring inside or outside the sentence (Section 3). In Section 4, we introduce the framework within which our analysis is couched. In Section 5, we introduce in more detail the analysis for confirmationals, as well as its predictions. In Section 6, we conclude.

2.  The form, function, and distribution of confirmationals Confirmationals are discourse markers (in the sense of Blakemore 2004; Fraser 2006) sometimes referred to as invariant tags (Columbus 2010). The latter term reflects the fact that they serve a similar function as tag questions such as those in (6). (6) a. I have a new dog, don’t I? b. You have a new dog, don’t you? c. She has a new dog, doesn’t she? In terms of their form, the defining feature of the tags we explore here is that they are invariant particles. That is, in contrast to the tag questions in (6), which vary according to the linguistic context, confirmationals such as eh in (7) do not change depending on the linguistic context. (7) a. I have a new dog, eh? b. You have a new dog, eh? c. She has a new dog, eh? Next we turn to the discourse function of confirmationals. What they all have in common is that they turn the host sentence into a request for confirmation. The particular confirmational illustrated in (7) may, however, differ in terms of what S is requesting A to confirm. Eh may be used to request confirmation for the truth of the ­proposition



The syntax of confirmationals 

(henceforth p) as shown in (8). In addition, eh may also be used to confirm S’s assumption that A knows that p is true, as shown in (9). Interestingly, in this context, huh, right, as well as full tags cannot be used. They can only be used to confirm the truth of p.

(8) John knows that Mary would like to have a new dog. He hasn’t seen her in a long time. And he keeps wondering whether she got a new dog. One day he runs into her while she’s walking a new puppy. John utters: You have a new dog, {eh/huh/right}? = Confirm that p is true

(9) Mary is walking her new dog when she runs into John. She is expecting that he would congratulate her on the new dog, but he’s not mentioning it. She isn’t sure anymore whether he actually realizes that she has a new dog. So she utters: I have a new dog, {eh/*huh/*right}? = Confirm that you know that p is true Finally, in terms of their distribution, we observe that confirmationals occur in sentenceperipheral positions. In particular, in English, confirmationals have to appear at the right periphery, i.e., they are found at the end of a sentence (see the preceding examples). They cannot be used sentence-internally (10) or sentence-initially (10), unless they are associated with the intonational contour of an independent utterance. That is, confirmationals can also be used as stand-alone utterances, in which case they are associated with different discourse functions, as indicated by the follow-up utterances in (11). (10) a. *You {eh, huh, right} have a new dog2 b. *{Eh, huh, right} you have a new dog (11) A: I have a new dog. B: a. Eh? – Can you repeat what you just said? I didn’t understand you. b. Huh? – I thought you were allergic to dogs. c. Right! – You were telling me that you would get one.

.  An anonymous reviewer points out that Dutch may have an instance of a sentence-­ internal conformational in the form of the particle toch. i) Jij heb-t toch een nieuwe hond? 2sg have-2sg part indef new dog ‘You have a new dog, don’t you?’ However, the use of toch does not itself trigger the confirmational reading. Instead, it indicates that the Addressee should know this. The request for confirmation is triggered by the rising intonation on the sentence (i.e., it functions as a rising declarative in the sense of Gunlogson 2003). See Thoma (forthc.) for an analysis of sentence-medial discourse particles in terms of the syntactic framework developed here.

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

3.  Are confirmationals inside the clause? We propose a syntactic analysis for confirmationals. Assuming that the domain of analysis of syntax is the sentence, this would imply that confirmationals are in fact part of the sentence and hence are governed by familiar syntactic operations. In other words, we suggest that confirmationals are in fact inside the clause.3 But how do we diagnose clause-internal elements? In this section we address this issue. First we discuss some empirical issues pertaining to this question (Section 3.1) and then we move to some more theoretical considerations (Section 3.2).

3.1  Empirical considerations Based on the distributional properties of confirmationals alone, it is in fact hard to tell whether confirmationals appear inside or outside the clause. Firstly, consider word order. In English, confirmationals can only appear sentence-finally, but this in itself does not really tell us much about the question as to whether they are part of the sentence proper. The fact that confirmationals occur sentence-finally is not a sufficient criterion to suggest that they occur outside the clause.

3.1.1  Prosodic considerations The intonational contours associated with confirmationals suggest that they are tightly integrated with the sentence proper. That is, confirmationals form a prosodic unit with the sentence. Unlike sentence-initial confirmationals, which have to form an independent prosodic unit if they are to be well-formed, not all sentence-final confirmationals are well-formed as independent prosodic units.4

.  For the purpose of this paper, we use the terms sentence and clause interchangeably. This is justified because confirmationals are restricted to root-clauses and hence the distinction between sentence and clause is irrelevant: to say that they appear inside the clause amounts to saying that they appear inside the sentence. .  An anonymous reviewer points out that the following dialogue is well-formed despite the fact that right here is separated from the host clause by the grumbling of the interlocutor and hence cannot be prosodically integrated. Context: A and B are staring at a computer screen, scanning through a spreadsheet of newly acquired data. A: The results look promising.    [B grumbles ambiguously] A: Right? B: They could be better. The standard deviation’s a little worrying… However, right is multi-functional in ways that other confirmationals are not. That is, we would not classify right as a conformational here.



The syntax of confirmationals 

(12) You have a new dog. {*Eh?/*Huh?/Right?}? Moreover, note that the ill-formedness of prosodically integrated sentence-initial confirmationals is a language-specific property. In particular, some German confirmationals can appear sentence-initially, and in this context they can either be prosodically integrated or form an independent prosodic unit. Note that in the latter case, the conformational obligatorily relates to a preceding sentence. The examples below are from Swabian German, spoken in the South of Germany (see Heim 2015, for a detailed discussion of this particle and its intonational patterns). (13) a. Gell du hoscht an naia Hond. Confirm you have a new dog. ‘You have a new dog, eh?’ b. Gell? Du hoscht an naia Hond. Confirm you have a new dog. ‘Confirm! You have a new dog.’ Assuming that sentences define independent prosodic units, this pattern suggests that confirmationals can be part of the sentence. However, the distributional properties of German confirmationals suggest that confirmationals may indeed be outside of the sentence.

3.1.2  Confirmationals occur outside the German Verbalklammer German word-order differs significantly from word-order in English. While English is a strict Subj(ect)-(Aux[iliary])-V(erb)-Obje(ect) language (at least in declarative clauses), German is not. Descriptively, German declarative sentences may be Subj-VObj as in example (14)a, but this is not always the case. In the presence of an auxiliary as in example (14)b, word order has to switch from V-Obj to Obj-V; and given the right discourse context, German also allows for Obj-Aux-Subj-V as in example (14)c. (14) German word order a. Du hast einen Hund. ‘You have a dog.’

Subj V Obj

b. Du hast einen Hund gehabt you aux a dog have.part ‘You have had a new dog.’

Subj Aux Obj V

c. Einen Hund hast du gehabt. A dog aux you have.part ‘You have had a new dog.’

Obj Aux Subj V

The descriptive generalization that captures this pattern of seemingly free word order in German is as follows: in matrix clauses the inflected verb always appears in second position; it is only preceded by a single constituent, but this constituent can either be the subject or the object (or any other constituent for that matter). Thus in the absence

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

of an auxiliary, the main verb inflects and appears in 2nd position (hence German is known as a V2nd language); however, in the presence of an auxiliary, it is the auxiliary that inflects and hence appears in 2nd position. The occurrence of the main verb in final position in this case suggests that German is underlyingly Obj-V. This is confirmed by the fact that the Obj-V order is also observed independently of the absence or presence of an auxiliary. (15) a. weil du einen Hund hast since you a dog have b. weil du einen Hund gehabt hast  since you a dog have.part aux

COMP Subj Obj V COMP Subj Obj V Aux

The word order patterns of German define the so called Verbalklammer (‘verbal bracket’), as shown in (16). (16) XP [Vfin … O… V] Thus, the distributional properties of German are such that we can identify clear indicators of sentence boundaries: at the left edge (i.e., sentence-initially), there can only be one constituent (XP) preceding the finite verb, while at the right edge (i.e., sentence-finally) the final verb defines a sentence boundary. Crucially, the distributional properties of confirmationals in German suggest that they appear outside of the sentential domain. At the left edge, they appear to the left of the initial constituent, resulting in what would appear to be a V3rd constellation, while at the right edge they follow the verb in final position. (17) a. Gell, du hast einen Hund gehabt.5  conf you had a dog have.part You had a dog, right.’

Conf Subj Aux Obj V

b. Du hast einen Hund gehabt, gell  you aux a dog have.part conf ‘You have had a new dog.’

Subj Aux Obj V Conf

Crucially, elements that are clearly part of the p-structure (such as adverbs for example) cannot occur outside of the verbal bracket.6

.  The confirmational gell is a spoken language phenomenon and hence different dialects use different variants. Gell is meant to be an approximation in Standard German and is here used for reasons of exposition. .  There is an exception to the generalization that the verb has to appear in S-final position: clausal constituents may appear at the right edge. This phenomenon is known as extraposition.



The syntax of confirmationals 

(18) a. *Gestern, du hast einen Hund gehabt  ‘Yesterday, you had a dog.’

Adv Subj Aux Obj V

b. *Du hast einen Hund gehabt, gestern  you aux a dog have.part yesterday ‘You have had a dog yesterday.’

Subj Aux Obj V Adv

Regarding the question as to whether confirmationals are best analysed as being inside or outside the clause, we have now encountered two contradictory diagnostics. Sentence prosody suggests that confirmationals may appear inside the clause, while word order considerations in German suggest that they appear outside the clause. In the next subsection we discuss the problem from a theoretical point of view, and we argue that the notion of a clause has to be relativized.

3.2  Theoretical considerations To answer the question as to whether confirmationals occur inside or outside the clause, it is essential to define the very notion of a clause. While we have an intuitive understanding of what it means to be a clause, it is not fully straightforward to provide a precise definition. As we will see, what constitutes a complete clause depends in part on the linguistic context. As a first approximation we could define a clause as the linguistic unit that minimally contains a subject and a predicate and expresses a proposition. This definition is necessary to capture the properties of all sentences, but it is not sufficient. Consider the example in (19). We observe that in some contexts the subject precedes a bare verb which in turn precedes the direct object. This is known as a small clause precisely because it constitutes a minimal sentence (19). In structural terms, small clauses can be analysed as bare VPs as in Figure 2. (19) I saw [John walk his dog] VP V′

NPSubj John V walk

NPObj his dog

Figure 2.  Small clause structure

In terms of their distribution, small clauses are limited to certain embedded contexts, however. For example, in (19) it occurs with a verb of perception. In most contexts, the verb has to be inflected for tense and agreement, as shown in

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

(20)a. A small clause cannot serve as a matrix clause, as shown in (20)b, which is ill-formed.7 (20) a. John walks his dog. b. *John walk his dog In terms of their structure, matrix clauses with an inflected verb are analysed as clauses where the bare predicate argument structure (the VP) is dominated by functional architecture. (The amount of structure assumed for such clauses differs across different frameworks; see for example Cinque [1996] for the most articulated structure above VP). This functional architecture is responsible for hosting the required inflectional categories (Pollock 1989). IP I′

NPSubj John

VP

I TENSE walks NPSubj John

V′ V walk

NPObj his dog

Figure 3.  Matrix clause with inflected verb

Finally, in embedded contexts, some verbs require a sentence introduced by a complementizer, as shown in (21)a. In this context, neither a small clause structure nor a clause with an inflected verb but without a complementizer are well-formed (21)b/c, at least not for all speakers of English. (21) a. I regret that John walks his dog. b. *I regret John walk his dog. c. *I regret John walks his dog. In terms of their structure, clauses introduced by a complementizer are assumed to be dominated by even more functional architecture, namely a CP (where C stands for complementizer; Chomsky 1986).

.  We use the term ‘ill-formed’ to refer to examples that are unattested and judged as bad. It is important to note that in some cases, ill-formedness is relativized to a particular context and hence may rather be labelled as infelicitous. However, since the line between ungrammatical and infelicitous is not always easy to draw, we will consistently use the term ill-formed.



The syntax of confirmationals  CP C′ IP

C that

I′

NPSubj John

VP

I TENSE walks NPSubj John

V′ V walk

NPObj his dog

Figure 4.  Embedded clause preceded by complementizer

This establishes that sentences may grow depending on the immediate linguistic context. Within the generative tradition, the size of a sentence correlates with the complexity of the functional architecture dominating the bare predicate-argument-structure (VP). Consequently, the definition of a sentence is not as straightforward as it may seem at first sight. The definition of a sentence as consisting of a subject and a predicate is not sufficient. Rather we can approximate the definition of a clause as in (22). (22) A clause is the maximal projection of the highest functional category associated with a small clause. Under verbs of perception, a VP suffices; an IP is required for matrix declarative clauses; and certain verbs embed a CP. This is illustrated in Figure 5. complement clause

CP

finite clause

IP VP

small clause

Figure 5.  Growing clause-structure

What is relevant for our purposes then is that the size of a clause may vary: it differs depending on the linguistic context. If so, it is not straightforward to determine whether or not confirmationals are inside or outside the clause. If we assume that

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

clauses can grow with the linguistic context, then the conclusion we have to draw is as follows: given what we have seen above, confirmationals definitely occur outside of small clauses or matrix finite clauses, but at the same time, we now know that clauses can grow. So in this way we can say that there might be contexts in which the clause grows to include structure that hosts confirmationals. That is, in certain contexts, most notably in conversations, confirmationals (or other forms that serve to modify the speech act) are obligatory elements of the clauses in which they are contained. Consider the examples in (23): in this context it would be awkward for Mary to simply utter an assertion in the form of a declarative clause with falling intonation as in ­example (23)a. But the sentence can be modified in various ways to become wellformed. It can either be uttered with a different intonational contour (a surprise intonation 23b), it can be followed by an epistemic marker (23)c, an evidential marker (23) d, or it can be followed by the conformational eh (23)e.8 (23) Mary runs into John who is walking his new dog. She didn’t know that John has a new dog, so she utters:

a. b. c. d. e.

#You have a new dog. You have a new dog! You have a new dog, it seems. You have a new dog, I see. You have a new dog, eh?

Thus, in certain contexts, speech act modifiers such as confirmationals are obligatory and hence we may conclude that there may be further functional structure dominating the clause. This is precisely the line of analysis we pursue in this paper. In particular, we side with Ross (1970) in assuming that p-structure is dominated by a functional architecture which is responsible for encoding the way the speaker relates to the utterance, how the speaker thinks the addressee relates to the utterance, and finally what the speaker wants the addressee to do with the utterance. For now, we simply label this structure FP (for functional phrase) and suggest that this type of clause corresponds to a conversational clause as in Figure 6. A more detailed analysis will be presented in Sections 4 and 5. In sum, there is no a priori reason to think that units of language (UoLs) that express these relations should be considered outside of the sentence. This is effectively expressed in the following quote: “What if we make the prototype sentence one in which the bulk of the information is about the relationship between the interlocutors? (Richard A. Rhodes, facebook, emphasis added).

.  We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for pointing out the relevance of the evidential and epistemic markers in this context.



The syntax of confirmationals  conversation clause

FP

complement clause

CP

finite clause

IP VP

small clause

Figure 6.  Growing clause-structure

What about the assumption that elements that are taken to be outside of the clause proper are outside of ordinary sentence grammar? In this context it is important to observe that even with what is considered to be the sentence proper, different domains have different grammatical properties. The VP is the domain of argument-structure; this is where predicates are saturated by their arguments. The IP is the domain of caseand grammatical role assignment and the target domain for A-movement. CP is the domain of topic/focus structure and the target for A′-movement. A′-syntax focus structure

CP

A-syntax case structure

IP VP

theta-syntax argument-structure

Figure 7.  Syntax across different domains

Since each of these syntactic domains that are considered to be inside the sentence proper is associated with different syntactic properties, it should not come as surprise that another (higher) domain should also be associated with different grammatical properties. In the next section, we discuss a framework that will give us the means to include the grammatical properties of those sentences that are embed in conversations.

4.  A framework for analysis The goal of this paper is to develop an explanatory model for confirmationals which not only accounts for their empirical properties, but which also allows us to set the stage for cross-linguistic comparison.

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

The existing literature on these elements focuses mainly on socio-linguistic aspects (Meyerhoff 1992; Stubbe & Holmes 1995; Cheshire & Williams 2002; Gregg 2004), but has nothing to say about the range of variation of confirmationals within a language, let  alone across languages. Most treatments of confirmationals describe their different functions without attempting to correlate formal, functional, and distributional properties. As a consequence, we find analyses that postulate up to sixteen functions of eh (e.g., Columbus 2010). Formal syntactic approaches towards eh are almost non-existent (with the notable exception of Gibson 1976). In this paper, we adopt the Universal Spine Hypothesis (Wiltschko 2014) to develop a formal syntactic analyses of confirmationals. One of the key assumptions of this framework is that the syntactic domains identified in Figure 7 are associated with core abstract functions (­Section 4.1). Given that we assume that confirmationals are associated with the highest functional architecture, which defines the conversation clause, we have to identify the core functions of this domain. In order to do so, we introduce some recent advances in the analysis of speech acts (Section 4.2).

4.1  The Universal Spine Hypothesis The Universal Spine Hypothesis (henceforth USH) was developed to provide a framework for discovery and comparison of language-specific categories. The motivation for the USH is rooted in the tension between generative assumptions and typological findings. That is, the main tenet of generative grammar (Chomsky 1965) has it that the human language faculty is innate and, consequently, that the languages of the world share some core properties. This is known as Universal Grammar (UG). Relevant for our purpose is the assumption that the building blocks of any sentence, no matter which language, can be characterized in terms of the functional categories that comprise the architecture in Figure 7. Under this conceptualization of UG, at least some linguistic categories are assumed to be innate. According to many typologists, this assumption is in stark contrast with their findings as illustrated by the following quote from Haspelmath (2007: 119): “almost every newly described language presents us with some ‘crazy’ new category that hardly fits existing taxonomies.” The USH is designed to be a framework that comes to terms with this tension in that it seeks to provide a tool to analyze the types of “‘crazy’ new categories” Haspelmath refers to. Confirmationals may be classified as such a “‘crazy’ new category” because their properties do not fit into existing taxonomies. First, there are no existing taxonomies for word-classes that seem to occur outside the clause. And second, confirmationals even display some unexpected formal properties that are independent of their distribution. For example, confirmationals might be classified as particles, if only because they do not fit the profile of any other type of word class. The problem with this classification is, however, that particles are usually considered to be not inflectable. But



The syntax of confirmationals 

confirmationals in Austrian German may be inflected. In particular, the form of the confirmational goi differs depending on whether the relation between the speaker and the addressee is informal (the proper address is du) or formal (the proper address is Sie).9 In the former case the confirmational appears in its bare form goi (24)a whereas in the latter case the confirmational is suffixed by -ns (24)b. Finally, some speakers of Upper Austrian German also make use of a special form for plural addressees (24)c. (24) a. Ea hot an neichn Hund, goi He has a new dog, conf.2informal b. Ea hot an neichn Hund, goi-ns He has a new dog, conf-2formal c.

Ea hot an neichn Hund, goi-ts He has a new dog, conf-2pl

Thus confirmationals comprise a word-class that is not typically considered in formal syntactic theories. Given their properties, it is not immediately clear how they should be treated. This is precisely the type of methodological problem the USH seeks to address. The core assumption of the USH is that the functional architecture dominating small clauses does not consist of pre-defined categories (such as tense or comp) but rather that these categories are constructed on a language-specific basis. In particular, Wiltschko (2014) argues that grammatical categories (c) are constructed by means of language-specific UoLs and a universal syntactic spine, which is itself comprised of a series of abstract categories (κ). (25) c = κ + UoL Thus UG is not to be considered as a repository of universal categories. Instead under this conceptualization, UG restricts categorization patterns. Thus, the way to approach “‘crazy’ new categories” (such as confirmationals) in a way that makes them amenable to comparative analyses is to determine where and how they associate with the spine. The crucial assumption about the spine that is relevant for our purposes is that each layer comes with a particular abstract function, which may in turn be based on general cognitive functions (see Ramchand & Svenonius 2014, for a similar view). This contrasts with most current analyses of clausal architecture,

.  For this reason, an anonymous reviewer suggests that the Upper Austrian German confirmationals are more appropriately termed variant tags. However, variant tags typically refer to tag questions of the form ‘doesn’t he; isn’t it,’ etc. which involve the copying (or addition) of an auxiliary and the subject. This differs from the inflected confirmationals of Upper Austrian German in that we are still dealing with a particle, however, one that can be suffixed with an appropriate agreement ending. Crucially, this agreement suffix does not agree with an argument of the host clause, but instead with a speech-act participant.

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

which assume that the labels of the categories are defined by their substantive content (such as Inner Aspect, Outer Aspect, and Tense). According to the USH, such categories are defined by the core function of the spine and language specific UoLs which provide the substantive content. As schematized in Figure 8, the first layer serves to classify the event; if this classification is based on temporal content like telicity, then the resulting category is inner Aspect (IAsp; also known as Aktionsart). The second layer serves to introduce a point of view, and thus to add a perspective relative to which the event is viewed; if this point of view is based on time (i.e., a reference time), then the resulting category is (outer) Aspect (OAsp). The third layer serves to anchor the event to the utterance; if anchoring is based on time (when relative to the utterance did the event take place?), then the resulting category is tense (TP). TP

Anchoring utterance OAspP

Perspectivizing

IAspP

point of view Classification event

Figure 8.  Correlating the spine with language specific categories

Analysing a given UoL in terms of the USH involves (among other things) determining where on the spine it associates with. This involves not only determining its relative hierarchical position within sentence structure, but also its absolute position. Assuming that the linear order of UoLs tells us something about their hierarchical position (Kayne, 1995) we can (in part) glean their relative position from linear ordering effects. However, to determine their absolute position, the function of UoLs has to be taken into consideration. In this way the USH serves to solve the tension between universalist theories (according to which languages share a core inventory) and typological claims (according to which the inventory of languages differs beyond comparison). On the one hand, according to the USH, grammatical categories are always language-specific, precisely because they are construed with language-specific UoLs; but at the same time, these categories have much in common because their construction is constrained by the universal spine. The USH is thus a well-suited framework to investigate “‘crazy’ new categories” including confirmationals.



The syntax of confirmationals 

As we have seen in Section 2, the distribution of confirmationals suggests that they occur above the conventionally assumed clausal architecture, i.e., above the anchoring category.10 This suggests that the spine must be extended; and given the discourse function of confirmationals, this function relates to how the proposition encoded in the bare sentence is integrated into the conversation. That is, if we assume with Hinzen (2014) that the spine corresponds to our language of thought, it doesn’t come as a surprise that part of the spine is dedicated to the communicative aspect of language, i.e., how we package our thoughts to relate them to others. In Heim et al. (2014), it is argued that there are in fact two functions that play a role here. One of these layers is dedicated to relating the speaker’s attitude towards the proposition. We refer to this as the grounding layer. The second (higher) layer is dedicated to letting the addressee know what the speaker wants them to do with the utterance, i.e., the Call on the Addressee (in the sense of Beyssade & Marandin 2006). We refer to this as the responding layer. This is illustrated in Figure 9, where S represents the traditional clausal architecture. RespP CoA responding GroundP propositional attitude S

“sentence” Figure 9.  Extending the spine

In the next subsection, we provide some independent motivation for the postulation of these two functions based on recent work within speech-act theory as well as conversation- and discourse-analyses.

.  This structure differs from the fine-grained structure of the left periphery as proposed in Rizzi 1997. The latter is meant to capture the distribution of force, and information-structural notions such as topic and focus whereas the SA-structure we explore here is meant to encode conversational structure.

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

4.2  The complexity of speech acts The goal of this section is to establish that in the context of a conversation, speech acts are more complex than assumed in the traditional speech act analysis (Searle 1969). The speech act structure assumed in Ross’ (1970) performative hypothesis reflects the following discourse conditions, which have been commonly assumed to be associated with assertions. These are given in (26): (26) Discourse conditions for assertions i) S believes p ii) S wants A to believe p

(adapted from Bach & Harnish 1979)

Under normal conditions, the utterance of a declarative clause-type is associated with the primary illocutionary force of assertion, which is only well-formed if the conditions in (26) hold. Hence, Ross’ (1970) performative hypothesis has it that the SAstructure above the p-structure can be translated into another p-structure of the form S gives p to A. This can be schematized as in Figure 10 where S believes p (Bel [p]), asserts p, and as a consequence A believes p. Speaker Bel (p)

Addressee p

Bel (p)

Figure 10.  What happens when S asserts p (preliminary version)

More recent analyses of speech acts, however, highlight the fact that their dialogical aspect is more complex. In particular, in current theories of speech acts and conversations, researchers have introduced the concept of a ‘table’ (Farkas & Bruce 2009) – an (imaginary) space in the dialogical field on which one can place proposed additions to the common ground (Stalnaker 1978). Introducing the table is a way to model the idea that assertions do not change the common ground, they merely propose a change (see also Clark & Schaefer 1989; Clark 1992; Ginzburg 1996, 2012; ­Malamud & ­Stephenson 2006). Accordingly, an assertion doesn’t simply transfer p from S to A, but instead the assumption is that S puts p on the table. It can be viewed as an intermediate stage in which S request that A adopts p into their set of beliefs. Clark and Schaefer (1989) refer to this stage in the conversation as the presentation phase. We can illustrate this as in Figure 11a. S believes p and by asserting p communicates that s/he believes p. At this point S can at least assume that A believes that S believes p. But S does not know whether A also adopts p into their set of beliefs. This is where the acceptance phase,



The syntax of confirmationals 

illustrated in Figure 11b comes in. In this phase, A indicates that s/he believes p. Only at this point will S know that A believes p, and hence that the communicative goal of the assertion is achieved.   a. Presentation phase Speaker Bel (p)

Addressee Bel (S,p)

Bel (S,p)

  b. Acceptance phase Speaker Bel (p) Bel (A,p)

Addressee Bel (A,p)

Bel (S,p) Bel (p)

Figure 11.  What happens when S asserts p (still preliminary)

Thus, any version of the performative hypothesis that wants to do justice to the complexity of speech acts embedded in conversations has to encode more than “S gives p to A.” By putting the assertion that S believes p on the table, S requests A to also believe p. Thus, conversational moves consist of putting a proposition on the table AND asking A to do something with it. The latter aspect of the conversation situation is known as the Call on Addressee (CoA; Beyssade & Marandin 2006). Accordingly, an assertion is a complex conversational move: it consists of a proposition (27)a, the speaker’s attitude towards it (27)b and some instructions for A about what to do with p (27)c. In (27) pa stands for propositional attitude. (27) Ingredients of an Assertion a. p b. (pa [S, p]) c. Req (pa [A,p]) The claim that speech acts may be complex is explicitly put forth in Beyssade & Marandin (2006: 1): “We claim that utterances impact dialogue in two ways that we describe in terms of update. On the one hand, Speaker commits herself to some content: uttering amounts to update Speaker’s commitments. On the other hand, Speaker calls on Addressee for him to change his own commitments.” Hence we have to modify the presentation phase of a typical assertion to include the CoA. What is on the table is not only S’s attitude towards p, but also what S wants A to do with p. Thus, the presentation phase of a well-formed utterance can be represented as in Figure 12.

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

      Presentation phase Speaker Bel (p)

Addressee Req (Bel(A,p)) Bel (S,p)

Bel (S,p)

Figure 12.  What happens when S asserts p (final version)

4.3  Matching complex speech acts onto complex sentences The complexity of dialogical sentence structure proposed in Section 4.1 matches the complexity of speech acts. p is expressed in the familiar p-structure. Above p ­ -structure, we postulate a layer dedicated to encoding the speaker’s attitude towards p.11 We refer to this as the grounding layer (see also Thoma, forthc.). The term grounding is used in Clark & Brennan (1991) to capture the conversational moves introduced in ­Section 4.2: “For whatever we say, our goal is to reach the grounding criterion: that we and our addressees mutually believe that they have understood what we meant well enough for current purposes. This is the process we have called grounding” Clark & Brennan (1991: 147). And finally, the highest layer, which we refer to as the response layer is dedicated to encoding what S wants A to do with p (CoA).12 Thus, to incorporate the complex conversational moves discussed thus far, we assume that the spine is extended as in Figure 13. In sum, the proposed framework is an updated version of the performative hypothesis. It has in common with Ross’ original proposal that p-structure is dominated by SA-structure, it differs in that the SA-structure is not itself a form of ­p-structure (which it is in Ross’ original analysis). In particular, S and A are not represented as participant roles but instead they are indirectly encoded by virtue of representing the commitment towards the utterance in GroundP. This commitment can be S-oriented and A-oriented, though the latter is always mediated through S’s perspective (Heim et al. 2014, Thoma forthcoming.)

.  As we shall see in Section 5, there is evidence that the grounding layer is in fact more articulated such that it can be divided into two separate layers: one for encoding S’s attitude towards p, and one for encoding (what S believes to be) A’s attitude towards p (Lam 2015; Wiltschko 2015; Thoma, forthc.). .  Another related function associated with this layer is to encode that the utterance serves as a response to a previous conversational move. Thus, the UoLs that serve to acknowledge that the tabled proposition has made it into A’s set of beliefs, UoLs that serve to answer questions or to backchannel are assumed to associate to this domain (Wiltschko, forthc.).



The syntax of confirmationals  RespP

Req (pa (A,p)) GroundP

pa (S,p) S

p Figure 13.  Matching the ingredients of speech acts onto the spine

The same holds for RespP, which may also be relativized to either A (requesting that A respond) or to S (asserting that S’s utterance is to be interpreted as a response; cf. Wiltschko in press). As for Ross’ (1970) claim that SA-structure contains a feature bundle corresponding to a performative verb, this claim is recast in terms of a complex functional structure representing grounding and responding as the main spinal functions (in the sense of Wiltschko 2014). In what follows we show that confirmationals lend support to the claim that speech acts are complex and that their complexity has a structural correlate. That is, given that there are UoLs that target the different functions we have identified (grounding and CoA), we may conclude – following Ginzburg (2012) – that these interactive functions are built into the grammar.

5.  Towards a syntax of confirmationals A structural account of confirmationals needs to integrate their complex conversational properties, which come with different levels of speech act modification. This section discusses the role of syntax as a mediator between form and interpretation in order to reflect the place of speech acts within the universal spine. The complex structure resulting from this discussion will host a layer dedicated to the different speech act roles and the CoA to reflect that confirmationals always come with a request about the believe, and not only about the truth of p.

5.1  The discourse function of confirmationals As we saw in Section 2, confirmationals are used to modify speech acts. To see this, consider the data in (28). A declarative sentence like You have a new dog is typically

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

associated with the primary illocutionary force of assertion. As we have seen above, typical assertions are complex conversational moves that involve presenting S’s attitude towards p: Bel (S,p); and a second move involves S’s request for A to adopt the same attitude towards p: Req (Bel[A,p]). For this to be a well-formed conversational move, S has to assume that A does not already believe p, otherwise S’s request would be redundant. The context in (28) provides the appropriate discourse conditions for the assertion to be well-formed. Crucially, in this context the use of a confirmational is ill-formed. (28) Mary has long known that John wants a new dog, but that he needs a little push to actually make the decision. Mary has a friend who works at the animal shelter and one day she asks Mary whether she knows anyone who may be able to take an abandoned dog who is in desperate need of a good home. Without hesitating, Mary picks up the dog, and brings him over to John’s place. As he opens the door, she tells him: a. Surprise! You have a new dog. b. #Surprise! You have a new dog, {eh/huh/right}? There is however nothing intrinsic about the declarative ‘You have a new dog.’ that would make it incompatible with a confirmational. It is just that the particular context in (28) is incompatible with the discourse function of confirmationals. To see this, consider the data in (29). Here the declarative can be modified with a confirmational. If the declarative is not followed by a confirmational, it has to be uttered with a different intonational contour than the declarative in (28). This is indicated by the exclamation mark. (29) Mary has long known that John wants a new dog, but she doesn’t know whether he has gotten one yet. One day, she runs into John while he is walking a puppy. She concludes that he must have finally gotten a new dog and utters: a. You have a new dog! b. You have a new dog, {eh/huh/right}? Let us start by exploring the discourse function of the confirmationals in (29)b. They modify the typical assertion in two ways. First, they modify S’s commitment towards p. In this context, S is not certain that the proposition expressed in the declarative is in fact true, though they have some good reason to believe that it might be true. We can express this attitude of uncertainty towards p by placing both Bel (p) and Bel (¬p) into S’s set of beliefs joined by a disjunction operator, as in Figure 14. We indicate the bias towards Bel(p) by underlining it. Aside from modifying S’s attitude towards p, confirmationals also change the CoA. Whereas in regular assertions S requests for A to believe p, a confirmational requests for A to respond to S’s utterance. In the context given in (29), where S is unsure about the truth of p, and where S knows that A is the



The syntax of confirmationals 

source of the truth of p (in the sense of Gunlogson, 2003) the use of the confirmational results in a speech act whereby S requests confirmation for the truth of p. As illustrated in Figure 14 the presentation phase includes a biased attitude towards p and a request for response. In the subsequent acceptance phase A confirms the truth of p, by providing an appropriate response (such as yes).13 Once A has confirmed the truth of p, S can replace the disjunctive belief with the positive belief. Speaker

Addressee

Bel (p) ∨ Bel (¬p)

Req (Resp (A,p)) Bel (p) ∨ Bel (¬p)

Bel (p) Bel (S,p) ∨ Bel (S,¬p)

Speaker

Addressee

Bel (p) Bel (A,p)

Bel (p) Bel (S,p) ∨ Bel (S,¬p)

Bel (p)

Figure 14.  Modifying declaratives with a confirmational

Thus, what differentiates the two contexts in (28) and (29) has to do with the propositional attitude of S towards p (belief or uncertainty) as well as with what S wants A to do with the utterance (adopting the same pa or responding to clarify which pa is appropriate). Thus, by adding a confirmational to a declarative clause, the speech act changes from an assertion to a request for confirmation. This is summarized in Table 1. Table 1.  Modifying speech acts Unmarked declarative

Declarative+confirmational

What S believes

Bel (p)

Bel (p) ∨ Bel (¬p)

What S wants A to do

Req (Bel [A,p])

Req (Resp [A,p])

Speech act

Informative assertion

Request for confirmation

.  This is not to say that A has to respond with an assertion; it merely constitutes one of the possible responses that will make this a felicitous conversation. If, on the other hand, A doesn’t have the relevant information to confirm, s/he may respond with a statement such as I have no idea. While this will not resolve the Question under Discussion tabled by S, it will be a wellformed response nevertheless.

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

With this analysis, we can account for the distribution of speech acts in (28)–(29). The context in (28) is such that S wants A to inform about p. Hence only assertions are well-formed; the confirmational is ill-formed. In contrast, the context in (29) is such that S is not quite sure about the truth of p, but has reason to belief that A will be able to verify. Thus, in this context, the confirmational is well-formed. The question remains, however, why the declarative is also well-formed. As mentioned above, in this context, the declarative is marked by a special intonational contour, like for example a surprise intonation.14 Thus, a regular declarative can but need not be interpreted as an informative assertion. As we shall see, the syntactic analysis for confirmationals we develop below is able to capture the ambiguity of unmarked declaratives.

5.2  Associating confirmationals with the spine In this subsection, we argue that confirmationals associate with the spine. We show that there is evidence that confirmationals are in fact complex, consisting of the form ‘eh’ and the intonational contour associated with it. Each of these UoLs serves a different function. We first introduce the syntactic analysis in more detail (5.2.1). Then we provide independent evidence for the decomposition of ‘eh’ into its components (5.2.2); and finally we discuss the issue of non-informative assertions.

5.2.1  The analysis As we saw above, with the addition of a confirmational to a declarative, two things are being modified: S’s attitude towards p and what S wants A to do with p. The result is a request for confirmation, which can be viewed as a biased question. Recall that one of the core assumptions of the syntactic framework we adopt (the USH) is that syntactic layers can be identified by their core function. Thus, if a particular UoL fulfills a particular function, we can conclude that it associates with the corresponding syntactic layer. Hence we are lead to conclude that confirmationals simultaneously associate with the grounding layer, where S’s propositional attitude is encoded, and the response layer, where CoA is encoded.15 This is schematized in Figure 15.16

.  The nature of this contour, the range of contours possible in this context, and the question as to whether a regular assertive contour is felicitous has to be further explored. .  An anonymous reviewer asks whether confirmationals may be analysed as bi-clausal structures involving both an ASSERT operator and a QUEST(ion) operator. This would certainly capture the interpretation of confirmationals. It is however less economic than the present proposal in that it would require an obligatory process of deleting the complement of one of the operators because only one of the two p-structures that would have to be postulated can be spelled out. .  Confirmationals typically appear in sentence peripheral position. Sometimes right-­ peripheral (as in English), sometimes left-peripheral (possible in German). The peripheral



The syntax of confirmationals  RespP

CoA GroundP propositional attitude

co nfi rm at io na l

S

p Figure 15.  Associating confirmationals with the spine

However, there is evidence that confirmationals are in fact complex: they consist of the lexical form (e.g., eh) and a rising contour. Heim et al. (2014) show that each of these components of the confirmational eh is associated with a distinct position.17 In particular, the lexical form (eh) associates with the grounding layer, whereas the rising contour is associated with the response layer, as illustrated in Figure 16 where ‘/’ represents a rising intonation. RespP

CoA /

GroundP propositional attitude eh

S

p Figure 16.  Decomposing confirmationals

position indicates that they associate with the spine in a hierarchically high position. Whether this position is to the right (head-final) or to the left (head-initial with subsequent movement) is a question we do not address in this paper. .  For a discussion of the differences between eh and other confirmationals see Heim et al. (2014).

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

A few remarks are in order in support of this analysis. First, the assumption that intonational contours can serve as UoLs goes back to Gussenhoven (1984; see also Pierrehumbert & Hirschberg 1990). Moreover, the claim that these intonational morphemes associate with syntactic structures, just like other UoLs has been proposed in Truckenbrodt (2012). At the same time however, it has been argued that intonational contours operate over speech acts (Trinh & Crnič, 2011). Our analysis of confirmationals in F ­ igure 16 is able to capture these insights: speech act structure is part of the syntactic spine, and hence intonational contours operate over speech act structure by virtue of associating with the syntactic spine. On this view, syntax is a module that serves as the interface between form and interpretation – a view that is at the heart of the generative model. Ever since the Principles and Parameters framework initiated in Lectures on Government and Binding (Chomsky 1981), syntactic computation has been viewed as mediating the form/meaning relation without a direct link between the module that computes sound (read off of phonetic form – PF) and the module that computes meaning (read off of logical form – LF). This is illustrated in Figure 17, which represents the standard model of grammar within the generative tradition (Chomksy 1995, and subsequent work). LF (interpretation) syntax

PF (form) Figure 17.  The Y-model of grammar

In what follows, we present evidence for the syntactic decomposition of confirmationals that our analysis rests upon.

5.2.2  Evidence for the decomposition (intonation) If indeed confirmationals consist of two UoLs (the lexical form and the intonational contour), which correlate with the two functions they have (modifying S’s commitment and CoA), we predict that each of these UoLs may also have a life of its own. This is indeed the case, as we now show. First, eh can associate with a different intonation, which correlates with a difference in CoA. Consider the following example taken from a popular website on the use of Canadian eh.



The syntax of confirmationals 

(30) A different type of eh  “So I go to this shrink, eh, and he goes like I don’t have no confidence, eh. I go, ‘No way, man.’ He goes I should take assertiveness training. Weird, eh? Like I’m always supposed to be seeking approval, eh, from, you know, other people? I felt like he could kiss my Royal Canadian, eh? But, sayin’ it wouldabeen too pushy. Dyuh think?”  〈http://www.billcasselman.com/casselmania/mania_eh.htm〉 There are several examples of eh which are not followed by a question mark, which is a way of indicating that there is no rising intonation and consequently these instances of eh do not require A to respond. This instance of eh is known as narrative eh. First consider its intonational properties. According to Dombrowski & Niebuhr (2005, 2010) there are two different sentence final rises, each associated with a different communicative function. A convex final rise is interpreted as questioning, while a concave final rise is interpreted as progredient (i.e., signaling continuation). This is consistent with our findings: confirmational eh (associated with a convex rise [Figure 18; left hand side]) requires a response (i.e., is interpreted as questioning) while narrative eh (with a concave rise; Figure 18 right hand side) does not require a response, in fact its characteristic function is to be used in story-telling where it can serve as an indicator of continuing the story telling (i.e., it is interpreted as progredient).

Figure 18.  Two different intonational contours

Moreover, according to our analysis, the lexical form (without the intonation) is associated with the grounding layer, and this should not be affected by the change in intonation. This assumption is consistent with the data: with the use of narrative eh S indicates that s/he assumes that p is in the common ground after the time of utterance. If so, this suggests that eh by itself simply indicates that S believes p; it is only the requesting function of the rising intonation associated with confirmational eh that is responsible for the effect that S is not sure about the truth of p. The second piece of evidence for the decomposition of eh into a lexical form and an intonational contour stems from the fact that the intonational contour can be used without the confirmational, i.e., a (convex) rise can be associated with unmarked

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

declaratives as well, giving rise to so called ‘rising declaratives’ as in (31) (see G ­ unlogson 2008, for an extensive discussion). (31) John runs into his friend Mary. Mary’s old dog has recently passed away and she was so sad that she told John that she would never get a dog again. It’s just too hard to lose a pet. One day, John runs into Mary who is walking a young puppy. So he utters: You have a new dog? According to our analysis, rising declaratives then would be characterized by rising intonation alone, without any material associating with the grounding layer, as schematized in Figure 19. RespP

CoA /

S p

Figure 19.  The syntax of rising declaratives

Hence our syntactic analysis captures Gunlogson’s (2003, 2008) insight that rising declaratives, like interrogatives, fail to commit S to the content of their utterance. As a consequence, rising declaratives are compatible with two different discourse conditions as schematized in Figure 20. At the time of utterance, S may either consider p without associating an explicit propositional attitude with it (as in i) or else S may actively believe ¬p (as in ii). Speaker i) p ii) Bel(¬p)

Addressee Req (Resp(A,p))p

Figure 20.  Two discourse conditions for rising declaratives

Thus what characterizes a rising declarative is that something in the immediate context (verbal or non-verbal) triggers S to consider at least the possibility that p, even though p was not in her previous set of beliefs or even contradicts one of her beliefs.



The syntax of confirmationals 

Conversely, rising declaratives are not compatible with a discourse context in which S believes p (Bel[p]). A final piece of evidence for the syntactic decomposition of confirmational eh into its lexical form and its intonation comes from the fact that in some languages these two functions are associated with two separate particles (see Heim et al. 2014 for a more extensive discussion). For instance, in Medumba (Grassfields’ Bamiléké Bantu) the sentence-initial particle kʉla serves to mark the propositional attitude of S towards p (hence we assume it associates with the grounding layer) while the sentence-final particle a serves to mark the CoA: S wants A to respond (hence we assume it associates with the Response layer). Thus the example in (32) can be analysed as in Figure 21. (32) kʉla u ɣʉ ʙʉ swə a? part 2sg have dog new q ‘You have a new dog, eh?’ RespP

CoA a

GroundP

kula

propositional attitude S

p Figure 21.  2 particles to express a request for confirmation

We have now seen that eh can associate with a different type of intonation (i.e., progredient intonation) and furthermore that the questioning intonation on confirmational eh may also directly associate with p-structure, giving rise to rising declaratives. This supports the syntactic decomposition of eh we assume here. Furthermore, the fact that the same type of intonation may associate with unmarked declarative sentences as well as with sentence-peripheral confirmationals is consistent with our claim that confirmationals are “inside the clause.” In particular, sentence-intonation is clearly part of a sentence and hence has to be analysed as being part of the clause. Consequently, we can conclude that confirmationals, which can be associated with sentence-intonation have to also be part of the clause. We model this assumption by associating both confirmationals and sentence-intonation with the syntactic spine.

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

5.3  Confirmationals that target A’s set of Beliefs According to the analysis developed thus far, confirmationals modify the speech act at the layer of the commitment: they activate the function of the grounding layer. Thus, we argue that confirmationals do not simply seek to confirm the truth of p, but instead they seek to confirm the propositional attitude towards p. These two alternatives (confirming truth versus confirming belief) cannot be distinguished from each other. However, there is clear evidence that (at least some) confirmationals do indeed target the grounding layer. In particular, consider again the contrast between (8) and (9), repeated below as (33) and (34). It indicates that confirmationals differ in the target of confirmation. While all three confirmationals considered (eh, huh, right) are compatible with confirming that p is true, only eh can be used to confirm that A knows p.18 (33) John knows that Mary would like to have a new dog. He hasn’t seen her in a long time. And he keeps wondering whether she got a new dog. One day he runs into her while she’s walking a new puppy. John utters: You have a new dog, {eh/huh/right}? = Confirm that p is true (34) Mary is walking her new dog when she runs into John. She is expecting that he would congratulate her on the new dog, but he’s not mentioning it. She isn’t sure anymore whether he actually realizes that she got a new dog. So she utters: I have a new dog, {eh/*huh/*right}? = Confirm that you know that p is true Thus the discourse conditions for the use of eh in (34) differ from those of the examples analysed thus far. S doesn’t need confirmation for the truth of p, or for her belief that p because in this context S is the expert. Since Mary is the dog-owner, she knows that p is true. Nevertheless, the use of eh introduces a request for confirmation, but in this case it requests confirmation that A knows p. Thus, the proposition that is under discussion is not the truth of p (and thus S’s belief that p) but instead S’s belief that A believes p (Bel [A,p]). Thus, we have on the table the biased, but uncertain belief that A believes p (modeled like above by means of a disjunction with the negative belief). This suggests that at least the confirmational eh does indeed target the grounding layer, rather than the propositional structure. Following Lam (2015), Thoma (forthc.),

.  This generalization holds for speakers which use eh. However, there are (esp. younger) speakers for which right has taken on all of the functions of eh (see Wiltschko & d’Arcy 2015; D’Arcy, Denis & Wiltschko, forthcoming for discussion). For such speakers, right can also perform the narrative function.



The syntax of confirmationals  Speaker

Addressee

Bel (S(Bel (A,p))) ∨ Bel (S(¬Bel (A,p)))

Req (Resp(Bel(A,p))) ∨ ¬Bel (A,p)

Figure 22.  Two discourse conditions for “confirm-that-you-know-eh”

and Wiltschko (2015), we suggest that the grounding layer is best analysed as a more articulated layer of structure, as schematized in Figure 23:. In particular, the first layer (GroundP) is dedicated to encode S’s propositional attitude towards p (Ground-S) whereas the second layer (groundP) is dedicated to encode A’s propositional attitude towards p (Ground-A). For evidence that A-oriented groundP is structurally higher than S-oriented GroundP see Lam 2015 and Thoma, forthc.19 RespP CoA responding GroundP

Ground-A GroundP

Ground-S CP propositional structure Figure 23.  The articulated grounding layer

.  The fact that there is syntactic evidence to the effect that GroundA is higher than GroundS may come as a surprise: one might expect that S’s attitude towards p would outscope A’s attitude towards p because how A relates to p must be conceived of via S’s point of view. However, one can make sense of this state of affairs if we assume that the mere act of assertion itself will suffice to relativize GrondA to the speaker’s belief. The direct encoding of S’s attitude towards p is independent of S’s actual assertion of p.

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim

Hence we assume that eh may associate with A-oriented groundP, while right and huh can only associate with S-oriented GroundP.20

6.  Conclusion The goal of this paper was to show that there is a correlation between the complexity of speech acts and their structural representation. We have explored a class of seemingly sentence-peripheral particles, confirmationals, which serve to modify speech acts. That is, they turn a formally declarative clause, which typically is interpreted with assertive force, into a request for confirmation. We have based the analysis on the Universal Spine Hypothesis (Wiltschko 2014), according to which each structural layer that makes up sentences is defined by its function. Since confirmationals modify two separate functions (grounding and the call on addressee), we proposed that sentential structure includes two layers of structure that are dedicated to these functions (GroundP and RespP). According to our analysis, then ‘confirmationals’ are constructed: they consist of two UoLs (eh and rising intonation). In addition, the syntactic context into which they are inserted also contributes to their interpretation.21 On our analysis, confirmationals are thus considered to be inside the clause, but we have also shown that the notion of a ‘clause’ has to be relativized because clauses come in different sizes depending on their context. The advantage of considering these modifiers to be clause-internal is that properties that correspond to the properties of constituents within the traditional sentence boundaries can be analyzed with e­ xisting means.

.  An anonymous reviewer points out that with the right prosody (not provided by the reviewer), confirmationals can co-occur with tag questions, as in (i) and (ii)

(i) (ii)

You’re coming back, arent’ you, right? You’re coming back, right, aren’t you?

These are interesting examples, which need to be explored. An informal survey suggests that the right prosody is such that the second tag serves as an in dependent utterance and that the discourse context for these utterances is one in which the speaker is second guessing themselves after uttering the first sentence. Though the precise prosody and discourse conditions have to be explored further. .  An anonymous reviewer suggests that the term confirmational is misleading due to their complexity. We are reluctant to do so for two reasons. First, we find the term useful for cross-linguistic comparison of such forms (note that not all sentence-final particles serve the conformational function). And second, the complexity of confirmationals is not in itself an argument against labelling them as such. Though a more accurate descriptor would be to refer to the confirmational function of ‘eh’ (as opposed to its narrative function).



The syntax of confirmationals 

Assuming that syntax serves to mediate between form and interpretation, it allows us to capture the relation between the proposition and the speech act. In this way, the revival of Ross’ (1970) performative hypothesis couched in a framework that assumes a universal spine presents us with a structural model that is ideal for a cross-linguistic comparison. As the general function of the grounding phrase has been established, different UoLs from different languages can be associated with this level. Across languages, we now have the tools to establish a link between a proposition and the interlocutors that contribute their knowledge to the conversation to which that proposition matters. The newly-established category of confirmationals invites us to further explore the formal properties of this category. In particular, we are interested in investigating the relationship between confirmationals and their host clauses. Possible areas of further research are selectional relations between particle and clause type, potential restrictions that hold between the grounding expression and a clause-internal constituent, and potential co-occurrence restrictions among different types of grounding elements. Beyond that, we still need to investigate linear ordering restrictions that help us to further establish the structural properties of confirmationals, prosodic properties that help us to tease apart the precise contribution of the intonation and the lexicalization patterns in order to understand the historical development of confirmationals and their usage. In brief, the research of confirmationals is still very much in its infancy, but the potential of breaking grounds in the structural analysis of speech act modification in this context is real and promising.

References Avis, Walter. 1957. Canadian English merits a dictionary. Culture XVIII: 245–256. Bach, Kent & Harnish, Robert. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Beyssade, Claire & Marandin, Jean-Marie. 2006. The speech act assignment problem revisited: Disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. In Selected papers of CSSP 2005, Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr (eds), 37–68. 〈http://www.cssp. cnrs.fr/eiss6/index_en.html〉 Blakemore, Diane. 2004. Discourse markers. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 221–240. Oxford: Blackwell. Cheshire, Jenny & Williams, Ann. 2002. Information structure in male and female adolescent talk. Journal of English Linguistics 30: 217–238.  doi: 10.1177/007242030002008 Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam. 1986 Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1996. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.

 Martina Wiltschko & Johannes Heim Clark, Herbert H. & Brennan, Susan E. 1991. Grounding in communication. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition 13: 127–149.  doi: 10.1037/10096-006 Clark, Herbert H. & Schaefer, Edward F. 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science 13(2): 259–294.  doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7 Clark, Herbert H. 1992. Arenas of Language Use. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Columbus, Georgie. 2010. A comparative analysis of invariant tags in three varieties of English. English World-Wide 31(3): 288–310.  doi: 10.1075/eww.31.3.03col Culicover, Peter W. 1992. English tag questions in universal grammar. Lingua 88(3): 193–226.  doi: 10.1016/0024-3841(92)90042-H Déchaine, Rose Marie & Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 409–442.  doi: 10.1162/002438902760168554 De Wolf, Galean Dodds, Fee, Margery, Gregg, Robert J. & McAlpine, Janice. 2004. The Survey of Vancouver English: A Sociolinguistic Study of Urban Canadian English (No. 5). Strathy Language Unit, Queen’s University. Dombrowski, Ernst & Niebuhr, Oiver. 2005. Acoustic patterns and communicative functions of phrase-final f0 rises in German: Activating and restricting contours. Phonetica 62: 176–195.  doi: 10.1159/000090097
 Dombrowski, Ernst & Niebuhr, Oliver. 2010. Shaping phrase-final rising intonation in German. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Speech Prosody, Chicago, USA. Farkas, Donka F. & Bruce, Kim B. 2009. On reacting to assertions and polar questions. Journal of Semantics 27: 81–118.  doi: 10.1093/jos/ffp010 Fraser, Bruce. 2006. Towards a theory of discourse markers. Approaches to Discourse Particles 1: 189–204. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The Interactive Stance. Oxford: OUP.

doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697922.001.0001

Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. Interrogatives: Questions, facts and dialogue. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed.), 385–422. Oxford: Blackwell. Gibson, Deborah Jean. 1976. A Thesis on eh. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia. Gold, Elaine. 2008. Which eh is the Canadian eh? Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 27: 73–85. Gunlogson Christine. 2008. A question of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 22: 101–136.  doi: 10.1075/bjl.22.06gun Gunlogson, Christine. 2003. True to Form: Rising and Falling Declaratives as Questions in ­English. London: Routledge. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.  doi: 10.1515/9783110859263 Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11: 119–132.  doi: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.011 Heim, Johannes, Keupdjio, Hermann, Lam, Zoe Wai-Man, Osa-Gomez, Adriana & Wiltschko, Martina. To appear in Proceedings of CLA. 〈http://syntaxofspeechacts.linguistics.ubc.ca/ wp-content/uploads/2014/02/heim-et-al-cla-2014-proceedings.pdf〉 Heim, Johannes. 2015. Expertise and common ground. Ms. UBC. Hinzen, Wolfram. 2014. Recursion and truth. In Recursion: Complexity in Cognition, Margaret Speas & Thomas Roeper (eds), 113–137. Dordrecht: Springer. Hirschberg, Julia & Ward, Gregory. 1995. The interpretation of the high-rise question contour in English. Journal of Pragmatics 24: 407–412.  doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00056-K



The syntax of confirmationals 

Lam, Zoe Wai-Man. 2014. A complex ForceP for speaker- and addressee-oriented discourse particles in Cantonese. Studies in Chinese Linguistics 35: 61–80. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Malamud, Sophia A. & Stephenson, Tamina C. 2011. Three ways to avoid commitments: Declarative force modifiers in the conversational scoreboard. Journal of Semantics 31: 1–37. Meyerhoff, Miriam. 1992. ‘We’ve all got to go one day, eh?’: Powerlessness and solidarity in the functions of a New Zealand tag. In Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Annual Berkeley Women and Language Conference, Kira Hall, Mary Bucholtz & Birch Moonwomon (eds), Berkeley CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. Pierrehumbert, Janet, & Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Intentions in Communication, Philip R. Cohen, Jerry ­Morgan & Martha E. Pollack (eds), 271–311. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Pollock, Jean Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–425. Postal, Paul. 1969. Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 205–239. Ramchand, Gillian & Svenonius, Peter. 2014. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language ­Sciences 46: 152–174.  doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013 Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 222–272. Waltham MA: Ginn & Co. Sailor, Craig. 2009. Tagged for Deletion: A Typological Approach to VP Ellipsis in Tag Questions. MA thesis, UCLA. Speas, Penny & Tenny, Carol. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. Asymmetry in Grammar 1: 315–345.  doi: 10.1075/la.57.15spe Stalnaker, Robert 1978. Assertion. In Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 315– 332. New York NY: Academic Press. Stubbe, Maria & Holmes, Janet. 1995. You know, eh and other exasperating ‘expressions’: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New ­Zealand English. Language and Communication 15: 63–88.  doi: 10.1016/0271-5309(94)00016-6 Thoma, Sonja. Forthcoming. Discourse particles in Bavarian German. Ph.D. dissertation, UBC. Trinh, Tue & Crnic, Luka. 2011. On the rise and fall of declaratives. Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung (SuB) 15: 645–660. Truckenbrodt, Harald. 2013. Satztyp, Prosodie und Intonation. In Satztypen des Deutschen, Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds), 570–601. Berlin: De Gruyter. Truckenbrodt, Harald. 2012. Semantics of intonation. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3, Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds), 2039–2969. Berlin: De Gruyter. Wiltschko, Martina. Forthcoming. Ergative constellations in the structure of speech acts. Wiltschko, Martina. 2014. The Universal Structure of Categories: Towards a Formal Typology. Cambridge: CUP.  doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139833899 Woods, Howard B. 1980. The Ottawa Survey of Canadian English. Kingston: Strathy Language Unit, Queen’s University.