How Discourse Particles Mean: The Gase of the Ewe “Terminal” Particles

Journal ofAfiican Languages and Linguistics 12: 143-170

How Discourse Particles Mean:The Gase of the Ewe "Terminal" Particles

FELIX AMEKA

The main claim of this paper is that particles have meanings and that thesemeanings can be discovered and stated in a linguisticalfy precise manner. Its aimis to show that discourse particles, in pardcular, have meanings in addiuon tothe syntactic, discourse and communicative functions in terms of which they areusualfy described. It is argued that the syntactic and discourse functional levelsshould be augmented by a semantic explicauon of ine particles in an illumi-nating way which would constitute a reliable guide to their usage. These Claimsare tested and supported through an analysis of the Ewe particles 1a and de.These particles have been characterised äs phrase and clause terminal particlesbecause they occur at the end of preposed dependent phrases and clauses andat the end of embedded relative clauses. It is the contention in this paper thatthe particles have a unitary function, viz., they mark a piece of discourse äsforming the conceptual background to the rest, or pari of the rest, of anutterance or discourse. Furthennore, semantic representations couched in aNatural Semantic Metalanguage of hypothetical universal primitives areproposedfor the various senses of the particles which can explain the similarities anddifferences in their ränge ofuse. The paper concludes with a discussion of somecross-linguistic analoges of the Ewe particles.

1. INTRODUCTION*

Three centuries or so ago, Locke ([1690] 1959:99) complained about theinadequate treatment of particles in grammars in these words:

This pari of grammar has been perhaps äs much neglected äs some others over-diligently cultivated. It is easy for men to write, one after another, of cases andgenders, moods and tenses, gerunds and supines: in these and the like there has beengreat diligence used; and particles themselves, in some languages have been, withgreat show of exactness ranked into their several Orders ... yet he who would showthe right use of particles, and what significance and force they have, must take alittle more pains enter into his own thoughts, and observe nicely the several posturesof his mind in discoursing.

* The basic ideas expressed in this paper were presented in a talk to the LinguisticCircle of Accra, Ghana, in November 1987. I would like to acknowledge the helpfulcomments of L.A. Boadi, AS. Duthie, E.Y. Egblewogbe and J.H. McDowell during thattalk. I would also like to thank Nick Evans, Cliff Goddard and Patrick McConvell for thestimulating discussions I had with them on aspects of the topic during a seminar onDiscourse Analysis at the University of the Northern Territory, Darwin, Australia. I amalso grateful to Chris Collins, Anna Wierzbicka and two anonymous referees of JALL fortheir valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier Version of this paper. Theinvestigation of the topic reported on here was carried out while the author was a ResearchScholar at the Australien National University, Canberra.

JALL Vol. 12 (1990/1991) 143-170, 0167-6164/90/91 12-2/$ 02.75Copyright © by Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin Madison Libraries 330 Memorial LibraryAuthenticated | 128.104.1.219

Download Date | 9/22/12 7:06 PM

144

By the term particle, Locke meant not only prepositions and conjunctionsäs is sometimes implied when the term is used pretheoretically, butalso—and in fact, above all—what would now be called illocutionary ormodal (including discourse) particles. It should be pointed out thatparticles have received great attention in the linguistic literature in thepast twenty years or so, But Locke's words are still appropriate,especially in terms of how far analysts have accounted for the force andmeaning of particles. For many African languages, however, the wordsare perversely pertinent.

TTiis paper is about how the meanings of particles can be discoveredand stated in a linguistically precise manner. It seeks to show thatparticles have meanings in addition to the syntactic, discourse andcommunicative functions in terms of which they are usually described.It is argued that the syntactic and discourse functional levels should beaugmented by a semantic explication of the illocutionary significance ofthe particles in an illuminating way. To illustrate these Claims, thesyntactic uses, the discourse functions and the meanings of two Eweparticles lä and c|e are described.1 The study can also be viewed äs anapplication of a general method of semantic analysis to discourse framingparticles, i.e. those "little" words that are used äs Information packagingdevices and which indicate the Status of Information units.

The general outline of the paper is äs follows: section 2 is anoverview of the Ewe particles lä and (Je. This is accompanied by a briefbut critical summary of previous work on the particles. In section 3,some observations are made on the linguistic description of particles.

1. Ewe is a language of the Gbe sub-group of the (New) Kwa branch of Niger-Congo.It is spoken in the south eastern corner of Ghana across southern Togo äs far äs and justacross the Togo-Benin border into Benin. The normal orthography based on the Africanalphabet is used throughout the paper with the following modifications: i) all high tonesare marked in addition to the customarily marked low tones; ii) is used for / iii) u isthe form for the phonetic ß; iv) hyphens are introduced to show morpheme boundarieswhere relevant.

The following abbreviations are used in the paper:

ADD addressive particleAP adverbial phrase COND conditional DBF definite articleDEM Demonstrative aFOC argument focus marker FUT futureHAB habitual INGR ingressive LOG logophoric pronounNEG negative NER nominaliser NP nominal phrasepFOC predicate focus PL plural marker poss possessive connectivePROG progressive Q question REL relative markerSG Singular SBJV subjunctive TP terminal particlel first person 2 second person 3 third person(*x) unacceptable if included *(x) unacceptable if omitted



145

The method of analysis employed in this study is also outlined. Section4 provides arguments for the discourse function and the semanticrepresentations suggested for the particles. The paper concludes with anumber of questions that deserve further investigation.

2. THE EWE TERMINAL PARTICLES: LA AND €>

2.1. An overview

It is assumed in this study that there are three related functions of thelä form in Ewe: lä may function äs a definite article äs in (la), or anominaliser äs in (Ib-d), or äs a "terminal" particle äs the examples in(2) illustrate.2 Two related (|e forms are also recognised: an utterance-medial or "terminal" particle äs exemplified in (3) and an utterance-finalparticle that has a question function äs in (4a), or an addressive functionäs in (4b).

(1) a. nyonu lä dzo. b. ade- läwomanDEF leave game NER'The woman left.' 'hunter'

c. dzi- lä d. \- abear a child NER white NER'parent' 'the white one'

The "terminal" lä particle has a wide distribution. It occurs at the endof preposed adverbial and nominal phrases äs shown in (2a) and (2b)respectively.

(2) a. egbe la tsi dza.today TP water fallToday, it rained.'

b. (|evi ä- wo /a, rjutsu mä wo.child DEF PL TP man DEM beat 3PL'The children, that man beat them.'

2. The conditions of alternation between la and a are not clear. This applies to thethree functions. In some contexts, they are in free Variation, in others they seem to bemorphologically conditioned. In plural NPs ä is always used to indicate definiteness.Similarly, adjectives are always nominalised by ä. It appears that la is preferred at the endof embedded clauses. Apart from these contexts, the two forms seem to be in free Variation.More work is needed to establish conclusively the conditioning factor of their alternation.



146

La also occurs at the end of various kinds of initial dependent clauses,for example conditionals äs in (3a), and at the end of embedded relativeclauses äs in (3b):

(3) a. ne tsi dza nyuie la, ä- bo.if water fall well TP food FUT abound'If it rains well, there will be enough food/

b. ga si ne- <jo (Je- m la vä kämoney REL 2so send to ISG TP come touchasi- nye.band ISG<rThe money which you sent (to me) got to me.'

In addition, la also marks off some connectors äs shown in (4).

(4) emegbe /a, mia- nu le e- qu.afterwards TP IPL beat mouth at 3so side'Afterwards, we shall talk about it.'

The distribution of the utterance-medial (|e parallels that of lä. It thusoccurs at the end of preposed nominal and adverbial phrases äs in (5a)and (5b) respectively, and at the end of preposed dependent clauses andembedded relative clauses.3 (See examples (5c) and (5d) below).

(5) a. nya ga <#?, akple ga- e wo- nye <|evi kä nä- ä?word big TP dumpling big aroc 3SG be child cut HAB Q'An important case, is it a big dumpling that a child can handle?'

b. le qdo me <#?, nuka wo ge nfe- le?at afternoon in TP what do INGR 2SG be'In the afternoon, what are you going to do?'

c. esi ne- de lome <#?, e- kpo nu- siä- nuwhen 2SG go Lome TP 2sG see thing every thingsi ne- di lä- ä?REL 2sG seek TP Q'When you went to Lome, did you get everything you wanted?'

3 This <|e particle should be distinguished from a mid tone form 4e which occurs insome dialects and is isofunctional with lä. The description of 4e falls outside the scope ofthis paper. It should also be distinguished from a low tone 4e which occurs at the beginingof predications and indicates that the predicate is in focus.



147

(5) d. (Jevi si du vä yi $, ameka vi-child REL strike town come go TP who childe wo nye?aroc 3so be'The child who ran past, whose child is it?'

The particle also occurs with some connectors äs shown in (6).

(6) ...gake<#?, wo nonome ha nyo- ä?but TP 2so character too good Q

"... but is your character good äs well?'

When the final main clause is elided, the high tone of c|e becomes afalling tone at the end of the dependent clause äs in (7).

(7) ne im- ä vä yi & ...?if vehicle DEF come go already TP

the car has passed already ...?'

Another (je form occurs at the end of utterances consisting of phrases,conjunctives or declaratives to mark them äs questions äs shown in (8)below:

(8) a. kofi 4e?K. Q'Where is/How is/What about Kofi?'

b. emegbe <ie?afterwards Q'Afterwards, what?'

c. le qdo me 4.e?at afternoon in Q'How about in the afternoon?'

d. e- me ko ^e?3so in clear Q'Is it clear?/It is clear, isn't it?'

•De may also be used on imperatives or exclamatives to mitigate theirillocutionary force. This use is exemplifled in (9a) and (9b).

(9) a. vä faä c|e! b. ao 4,e!come freely ADD no ADDTeel free to come!' 'No!'



148

The relationship between the various functions of the forms lä and (|ewhich have been outlined in this section will be alluded to in theconcluding section. The focus of the rest of this paper is on the lä andc|e terminal particles whose structural properties have been describedquite extensively with various degrees of accuracy in the literature. (SeeAmeka 1986:125-40, 197-200 for an analysis of the utterance-final (Jeparticle.)

22 Previous anafyses

Westermann (1930:66) considers each occurrence of lä äs an instance ofthe definite article. This analysis may have some appeal from a historicalperspective.4 At least, it attempts to relate the forms to one source.However, it does not seem to represent the facts of the synchronicgrammar. For, if all the occurrences of lä are instances of the definitearticle, it is not clear why adverbials, conjunctions or dependent andembedded clauses should be terminally marked for definiteness.Furthermore, it would seem redundant for items that are inherentlydefinite—proper names, pronouns and defining relative clauses which canbe marked with lä, to be marked again for definiteness. It appears thatin these cases we are dealing with a function other than definiteness.

Other descriptions lack any clear articulation of the function of theterminal particles. Ansre (1966:242) is not sure of the exact function oflä. Clements (1972:126) describes lä äs a "sentence medial pausemarker". Both authors are silent on (Je. Warburton et al. (1968:97, 100)comment that it is a general characteristic of Ewe for initial dependentclauses to end in the particles and thus they are subordinate clausemarkers. Similarly, Dzameshie (1983:77) observes that "the CFM [clausefinal marker, i.e., terminal particle F.A.] la [sie] functions äs a clause-boundary marker signalling the end of a subordinate clause."

4. Heine and Reh (1984:64-5, 109) were probably inspired by Westermann's analysisin their account of the evolution of lä. They suggest that "the definite marker lä underwentExpansion and developed into a marker of sentence theme [i.e. terminal particle, P.A.]".They explain in a footnote that "[TJhis development was probably due to the fact that sincethematic constituents are likely to be definite, lä became an obligatory marker of thesentence theme" (ibid: 64 fn3). One problem with this viewpoint is that it assumes thatthematic elements tend to be definite. There is a wealth of evidence now to show thatdefiniteness is neither necessary nor sufficient for topicality. It appears that definiteness isa small part of identifiability or referentiality. Definiteness markers tend to develop fromreferential elements. I take the view that the definite marker in Ewe developed from thebackground Information marking function of the terminal particle. The nominaliser thendeveloped from the definite article.



149

It is generally acknowledged (e.g., Clements ibid.; Dzameshie ibid.)that there may or may not be a pause after the particle. It does notseem appropriate therefore to ascribe a pause marking function to it.Besides, it would appear that even if it marks a pause, it must be usedto achieve a communicative effect and this has to be described.

Duthie (1988, in press) has attempted a functional explanation forthe "terminal" particles. He suggests that there are two sets of forms:phrase topic markers lä and (je äs in examples (2a), (2b), and (Sb)respectively, and clause terminal particles äs in (3a) and (3b) and (5c)and (5d). He also notes that the clause terminal particles mark the endof Information units in discourse (Duthie 1984:72). Needless to say, sucha role is implicit in the topic marking function assigned to the phraseterminal particles. This analysis is incomplete, I think, in at least tworespects. First, it does not account for the use of the forms with connectives.Second, it fails to relate the two sets of particles in terms of discoursefunctions because it is only the phrase terminal particles which have beenassigned a discourse function. The clause terminal particles have not beenexplicitly given any discourse function. It will be desirable if they were alsoassigned some discourse function. Above all, it will be desirable if a unitaiyfunction could be found for both the phrasal and clausal terminal particlesin accordance with the parsimony prindple (i.e., Ockham's razor).

It is evident that previous descriptions of these particles have notsatisfactorily elucidated their significance. It is hoped that this paper willmake a modest contribution towards providing a unified account of theterminal particles.

2.3. Towards a unified account of the terminal particles

The main Claim of this paper is that the terminal particles inEwe—whether phrasal or clausal—mark a piece of discourse äs formingthe conceptual background to the rest, or pari of the rest, of anutterance or discourse. Although the two particles have a similar functionthey carry it out with slightly different implications. The contrast betweenthe two particles in terms of their orienting function in discourse can bestated äs follows: lä marks a unit of discourse äs the domain ofreferentiality within which the rest of the utterance should be understoodor about which the rest of the utterance provides, or requests Informa-tion or directs an addressee to act. De, on the other hand, marks a pieceof discourse äs that part of the universe (of discourse) within which orabout which a Speaker requests some Information. Before embarking onthe analysis of these forms, some remarks on the semantic description ofparticles are in order.



150

3. REMARKS ON THE LINGUISTIC DESCRIPTION OF PARTICLES

The usefulness of several approaches that have emerged for the descrip-tion of particles is vitiated by two major problems. First, many of themodels are not comprehensive enough to be able to account for allcategories of particles. Second, very few analysts have attempted to gobeyond catalogues of usage and abstract functional labels to providesemantic representations for the particles. Fewer still have proposeddefinitions for the particles which are not couched in obscure terms.(See Ameka (1986:27ff) and Wierzbicka (1986a) for an overview of someof the approaches and an elaboration on these shortcomings.)

These inadequacies can be redressed, in my view, if one draws on theinsights provided by Locke and Leibniz on particles. The latter proposedthe following guidelines for the description of any kind of particle. Hewrote:

For a proper explanation of the particles it is not sufficient to make an abstractexplication (...) but we must proceed to a paraphrase which may be substituted inits place, äs the definition may be put in the place of the thing defmed. When wehave striven to seek and to determine these witable paraphrases in all the particlesso far äs they are susceptible of them, we shall have regulated their significance.(Leibniz [1704] 1949:366-367, emphasis in original) .

The main theoretical point of this paper is to show that such para-phrases which would capture the illocutionary or communicative meaningof particles can be formulated even for those particles that havediscourse functions. The method of semantic analysis employed inachieving this purpose is the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM)approach espoused by Anna Wierzbicka (1976, 1980, 1986a, 1986b and1988, among others). It is rooted in the Lockian and Leibnizian approachto particles.

Essentially this method of analysis involves paraphrasing the linguisticitem being defmed in a non-arbitrary metalanguage based on naturallanguage. The metalanguage comprises a hypothetical set of universalindeflnables—semantic primitives such äs /, you, think of, want, say, notwant, something, place, know, do, can, good, bad, happen, time, like, öfter,because etc. These elements have their own language-independent syntax,i.e. combinatorial properties. It is assumed that the meanings of complexlexical äs well äs grammatical items can be defined in terms of theseelements. Furthermore, the primes are universal, that is an isomorphicset of these indefinables can be drawn for every language (see Ameka1991 for an Ewe version of the metalanguage). It is required that theparaphrases, i.e., the explications or definitions, should be substitutablefor the item, i.e., the particle, in all possible contexts salva significatione,that is, without changing the sense. This is the test of the adequacy of



151

the definitions. (For a discussion of the principles of the methodologyand the primitives, see Bogusiawski 1970; Goddard 1989a, 1989b;Wierzbicka 1988, 1989, 1991, and in press, among others.)

There are several reasons why this method is favoured in this study.First, for a general semantic description, one needs explications couchedin a natural language metalanguage rather than in a formal language.Second, the method is a comprehensive and general one which isapplicable to all parts of a natural language—lexicon, grammar and evenphonology (see the works by Wierzbicka, op. cit, and Deakin 1981,among others). It is not an ad hoc approach for any specific part oflanguage.

Natural language explications of the kind advocated in this paper arecrucial for the description of particles for several reasons. First, it isonly through such definitions that one can display the kind of semanticcontent that particles have. Thus the paraphrases help to expose thefallacy of the traditional widespread view that particles are meaninglessand have only grammatical function. Second, the definitions help to showthe insufficiency of translation equivalents and the inadequacy of abstractfunctional labels in characterising the force and significance of particles.Descriptive labels are useful for classificatory purposes but they are notopen to intersubjective verification.

Third, the similarities and differences between related particles whichcould be thought of äs performing similar syntactic, communicative ordiscourse functions are revealed through a comparison of their semanticrepresentations. Above all the definitions have predictive power, that is thevarious uses of the particles can be predicted from their semantic formulae.

As far äs particles are concerned the method has already been shownto be fruitful. It has been used in the analysis of different types ofillocutionary particles (e.g. Wierzbicka 1976; Goddard 1979; Ameka 1986;Harkins 1986; Wilkins 1986), scalar particles (e.g. Goddard 1986;Wierzbicka 1986b), and pragmatic connectives (e.g. Wierzbicka 1976;Goddard 1986). The present study is a further application of themethodology to another category of particles—background information-marking particles.

4. THE ANALYSIS

4. L Preliminary observations

From the overview of the terminal particles in section 2.1 their distri-bution can be summarised äs follows: First, they occur with dependentclauses, nominal and adverbial phrases äs well äs connectives which are



152

preposed to main clauses, and second, they are tagged on to embeddedclauses which are postposed to the nominal heads.

I want to Claim that these constructions marked by lä and <|e typicallycarry Information that a Speaker wants an addressee to assume in orderfor him/her to process the rest of the discourse more easily. Conse-quently, the particles function äs guideposts and mark the relevant pieceof Information äs the conceptual basis of the rest of the utterance. Thefact that the elements in the first category occur preposed to the mainclause to which they are related is instructive. Available psycholinguisticevidence suggests that the linear ordering of constituents in a sentencetends to be influenced by and follows the cognitive principle of present-ing assumed or presupposed Information before the main or focalInformation (see Townsend and Bever 1977, and Allan 1986:81ff amongothers).

The background Status of relative clauses is even more evident. Theprincipal function of a relative clause is to provide elaborative Informa-tion that will enable the addressee to uniquely identify the nominal head.Thus in example (5d) above who ran past is extra Information added tohelp the addressee identify the particular boy being talked about.Schachter (1973) has argued convincingly, in my view, that in a nominalhead plus relative construction the nominal head is the foreground, i.e.,the salient piece of Information, while the relative clause is the back-ground.

It may be concluded therefore that the invariant function of theterminal particles is to mark background Information. This claim issupported below with different pieces of evidence. The key points whichapply mutatis mutandis to both particles are first discussed with respectto lä. Then the two particles are compared in the section on «Je.

4.2.1. La and initial constituents.

There are exceptions to the Statement that the terminal particles markinitial nominal and adverbial phrases, dependent clauses and connectives.Content question phrases marked by ka 'WH* and nene *how many/much', preposed vocative nominals and assertive attitudinal adverbialsnever occur with these particles. The nature and communicative importof these constituents furnish excellent clues to an understanding of thefunction and meaning of the terminal particles.

Content question phrases usually denote unknown Information fromthe speaker's point of view. They constitute the most salient piece ofInformation that the Speaker wants the addressee to attend to. Because



153

of this and because they are topical in the sense of what the utterancethey occur in is about, they are usually clause initial. Not surprisingly,in Ewe clause initial constituent question phrases are obligatorily markedby the focus particle -e. Consider the examples in (10).

(10) a. ameka- e /*lä vä di- m?person WH aroc TP come seek ISG*Who came to look for me?'

b. kofi- e /*lä(vä di wo).K. apoc TP come seek 2so'It was Kofi (who came to look for you).'

c. "kofi lä, <|e- wo- vä di wo.K TP pFOC 3so come seek 2so'Kofi, he did come to look for you.'

Observe that lä is ungrammatical when it occurs with the question word(lOa) äs well äs on the answer (lOb). The questioned element äs well ästhe answer represent the most important pieces of information for boththe Speaker and the addressee, hence they are marked for focus. Itshould be observed that (lOc) is infelicitous äs a response to (lOa)because the way the information is presented does not complement thequestion. The question requires an argument to be provided to completethe proposition. This element should be the focus of the answer.However, in (lOc) it is the presupposed part of the question which isforegrounded and the questioned item is presented äs backgroundinformation. The utterance in (lOc) is nonetheless acceptable äs ananswer to a question like 'What did Kofi do?' in (Ha). Such a questionrequires a proposition äs an answer and in (llb) this part of theanswer—a predication—is marked with the predicate focus marker cje. Inthis case 'Kofi' becomes a frame of reference for the answer required,and äs should be expected, it is marked with the lä particle. It isnoteworthy that in this context the Kofi NP cannot be focus marked, andit can be omitted altogether in the answer. Thus (llb) is an appropriateanswer to (lla) but (llc) is not.

(11) a. nuka- € kofi wo?what aFOC K do'What did Kofi do?'

b. kofi lä, 4e- wo- siK. TP ppoc 3SG escape'Kofi, he escaped.'

c. ??kofi- e, 4 - wo- siK. aFOC pFOC 3SG escape



154

It can be deduced from the discussion so far that lä marks a constituentäs the domain within which the rest of the predication should beinterpreted. E and 4<e by contrast mark the most salient piece ofInformation in a predication.

There is a further difference between lä and -e marked phrases whichis instructive for their respective functions. A comparison of (lOb) and(lOc) reveals the following observation (assuming for the presentpurposes that they are both acceptable in appropriate contexts): The emarked phrase in (lOb) bears a grammatical äs well äs a semanticrelation to the nucleus of the predication, the verb. It is the subject andthe agent of the predicate. The lä marked phrase in (lOc), on the otherband, has no such semantic or grammatical relation with the verb. In(lOc) the subject and the agent of the verb is represented by thepronoun wo. Notice that si 'escape' is a one place predicate, hence theacceptability of (llb). The lä marked phrase is not a subcategorisedargument of the verb. It is peripheral to it.

Although the lä phrase is semantically and grammatically unrelatedto the main predication, it nevertheless bears a discourse-pragmaticrelation to it. They are contextually bound. This is borne out by theanaphoric pronoun in the main predication which is coreferential with'Kofi* in the lä marked phrase. Notice that there is no such explicitlinguistic relation between the lä marked phrase and the main predica-tion unless the former is coreferential with a core argument of the latter.Thus temporal and locative NPs, and APs which occur with lä may nothave any anaphoric pronouns coreferential with them in the mainpredication (cf. example (2a)).

In sum, lä marks initial constituents which are contextually bound tothe following predication. I believe the signiflcance of lä in this contextis that it cues the addressee to observe that the preceding Informationshould be kept in mind when processing the message. I propose thefollowing semantic representation for the use of the particle in thiscontext:

X lä (X = NP, AP or a dependent clause; and= main predication)

I am thinking about XI want you to think about XI want to say something about XI want you to know that I say this about XI think you now know thisI say:



155

The first person formal used in the formula is meant to reflect the ideathat it is the Speaker who presents the Information äs background towhat s/he is saying. It may not necessarily be judged äs background fromthe addressee's point of view. The adequacy of this formula can beverified by substituting it for lä in (llb), for example:

I am thinking about KofiI want you to think about KofiI want to say something about KofiI want you to know that I say this about KofiI think you now know thisI say: he escaped

There are other pieces of evidence which support this analysis. Nominalspreposed to the main predication which are used vocatively do not takethe terminal particle äs illustrated in (12).

(12) vi- nye (*lä), xexe- ä- me trochild ISG TP world DBF in change now'My child, the world has changed now.'

Vocatives are used by Speakers to get the attention of their addressees.They are independent, in a sense, of the information that follows.Vocatives cannot be said to constitute a setting for the rest of theutterance. Because of this, they are not marked by the terminal particles.This confirms the view that the terminal particles mark backgroundinformation in a clause.

Similarly, assertive attitudinal adverbials such äs vävä 'really' andnyatefö 'truly' which may occur utterance-initially are never marked bythe particles (see example 13).

(13) vävä (*lä), rjuse- to- lä- e tsi- ä agbe.indeed TP strength NER DBF aFOC remain HAB life'Indeed, it is the powerful ones that survive.'

Attitudinal adverbials represent a speaker's comment on a proposition.They do not create scenes for the Interpretation of the proposition inthe same way that temporal, locative and manner adverbials do. Itappears that a speaker's comment of the kind denoted by assertiveattitudinal adverbials is an important piece of information. It is not justadded to facilitate the processing of the rest of the information, ratherit is an assertion in itself that the Speaker wants the addressee to payattention to. One can paraphrase the illocutionary force of such



156

adverbials very roughly äs follows: "I want you to know that I think of(= the proposition) like this: X (=attitudinal adverb). I want you to

think of it." This meaning is not compatible with that of lä above. Forthis reason, I suggest, the terminal particles do not collocate withassertive attitudinal adverbials.

Additional evidence for the background Information marking functionof the terminal particles is provided by the fact that counterfactualconditional clauses always precede their main clauses and are marked bythe terminal particles. The ungrammaticality of (14b) is the result of thecounterfactual conditional clause occuring postposed to the main clause.Many dependent clauses, however, can occur either pre- or post-posed tothe main clause. Observe that hypothetical conditionals, for example, canoccur before or after the main clause äs exemplified in (15).

(14) a. 4? tsi dza egbe- ä lä, ne xexe- ä- mefä.COND water fall today DBF TP then world DBF in cool'Had it rained today the weather would have been cool.'

b. *ne xexe- ä me fä (je tsi dza egbe.then world DBF in cool COND water fall today

(15) a. netsi me- dza o lä do a- to.if water NEG fall NEG TP famine SBJV set-inTf it does not rain, there will be famine.'

b. do a- to, ne tsi me- dza o (*lä).famine SBJV set-in if water NEG fall NEG TP'There will be famine if it does not rain.'

When dependent clauses are postposed to the main clause they are notmarked by the terminal particles, äs illustrated in (15b). This behaviourcan be explained in terms of markedness. Ewe is an SVO language. Insuch a language, the unmarked order of clauses in a complex sentenceis the main clause followed by the dependent clause (Davison 1979).The reverse order is marked. One can correlate linguistic markednesswith the clause order markedness: The unmarked order has zerolinguistic marking while the marked order has a linguistic mark, viz. theterminal particles.

The non-occurrence of the terminal particles with sentence-flnaldependent clauses can be further accounted for in terms of the differentroles that pre- and post-posed dependent clauses have in discourse. Thepreposed clauses set the scene for the Interpretation of the main clause.The postposed clauses, by contrast, provide clarifications or commentson the preceding main clause (cf. Givon 1982, 1987; Chafe 1984;



157

Thompson 1985; Geis 1986; and Halliday 1985 for similar views withrespect to English).

Some support for this claim comes from the inability of clausesintroduced by elabenä 'because' and negbe (Jeko 'except, unless' to occursentence initially (see examples 16 and 17). Observe that reason may beexpressed by esi ... ta clauses which can occur before or after the mainclause äs demonstrated in (18).

(16) a. xolowo mele e- si o,friend PL NEG be at 3so band NEGelabenä ga mele e- si o.because money NEG be at 3sG band NEG'He has no friends because he is not rieh.'

b. *elabenä ga mele esi o lä, xolowo mele esi o.'Because he is not rieh he has no friends/

(17) a. nye ma ko nu le nya lä dzi o.ISG NEG&SBJV lift mouth on word DEF top NEGnegbe c|eko wo- ä- wu- m häfi.unless SPL SBJV kill ISG before'I will not say a word about this matter unless I am killed.'

b. "negbe (Jeko woawum lä, nye mako nu le nya lä dzi o.'Unless I am killed, I will not say a word about this matter.'

(18) a. xolowo mele e- si ofriend PL NEG be at SSG band NEGesi ga mele e si o ta.when money NEG be at SSG band NEG since'He has no friends because he is not rieh.'

b. esi ga mele esi o ta lä, xolowo mele esi o.'Because he is not rieh he has no friends.'

It would appear that the restriction on elabenä clauses comes from thesemantics of elabenä itself. A detailed discussion of this matter cannotbe pursued here. Suffice it to say that elabenä clauses typically expressreasons which are not assumed to be presupposed. Hence it is moreappropriate that they occur in a position where they are presented äscomments on main predications rather than in a slot where they areframes of Interpretation for the main predication.

The unacceptability of (17b) can be explained in similar fashion.Indeed, exceptional clauses are semantically related to elabenä ones inthat the former specify the reason for the opposite of the Situation inthe main clause taking place. The exceptional clauses add the comment



158

that the contrary of the main clause predication could obtain onlybecause the Situation they describe could hold. (Note that they usuallycontain unlikely or absurd conditions äs in (17a). It seems intuitivelyreasonable that a clause which provides a reason for the contradictionof some proposition should come after that proposition has been stated.For this reason, the main clause precedes the exceptional clause. Be thatäs it may, the behaviour of these clauses is consistent with the Claimthat the terminal particles do not occur with postposed dependent clausesbecause they do not function äs background Information units in thatcontext.

To sum up so far, an explication has been proposed for the illocu-tionary meaning of lä when it occurs with initial nominal and adverbialphrases and dependent clauses. Explanations have been offered for thenon-occurrence of the form in various environments to support thesuggested discourse function of the particle. In the subsequent sections,it will be shown that when lä occurs at the end of relative clauses anddiscourse connectives, it carries this same background-informationmarking function. However, it has slightly different illocutionary meaningsin both contexts.

4.3. La and connectives

Examine the instances of lä in the excerpt from a narrative in (19):

(19) a. gbe cjekä Ia9 gbe- me- lä- wo bläday one TP bush- in- animal PL tie load

b. wo- be ame- si me- nyo o laSPL say person REL NEG good NEG TP

c. eya- e a- tso ye- wo- agba sia,SSG aroc FUT carry LOG PL poss load DEM

d. tete la, kese wo avi...then TP monkey split cryOne day, animals put together some baggage. They said thatthe one who is bad is the one who will carry their baggage,then the monkey burst into a cry straight away ...'

The terminal particles occur with conjunctive äs well äs adverbialconnectives äs in (19d). The main function of these connectives is tolink the following Information to the preceding text. Typically theterminal particles occur with connectives that indicate a spatio-temporalrelation such äs tete 'then' (äs in 19d), or a contrastive relation, for



159

example, ke bog 'rather', kura 'even' and the conjunction gake 'but'. Theadditive and alternative conjunctions eye 'and' and alo Or' can alsocollocate with the particles. The forms for the relations of conclusion,causality and consequence may also occur with the terminal particles.Such forms are: eyata 'therefore', esiata 'hence', ta 'so, on account ofand ekemä 'then'.

It should be stressed that the terminal particles occur only withconjunctions which are true connectors, that is with forms that link onepiece of Information to another. Some support for this view comes fromthe fact that clause introducing conjunctions never occur with theterminal particles. Thus forms like 'had', ne 4if and esi *when' whichintroduce counterfactual, conditional and temporal clauses respectivelycannot be immediately followed by the terminal particles. Consider theforms in (20):

(20) a. mie- ß esi (*lä) rju ke.IPL wake-up when TP day open'We got up when it was day break.'

b. esi (*lä) qu ke lä, mie- ß.when TP day open TP IPL wake-up'At day break, we got up.'

Another common feature of the connectives with which lä can occur isthat they provide a kind of setting—be it temporal, contrastive orcausal—against which the subsequent piece of Information should beunderstood. I maintain that in this context also lä is a Signal to theaddressee to keep the created scene in mind when processing thefollowing discourse unit.

The force and significance of lä in this context could be paraphrasedthus:

Z X lä ( Z = preceding discourse unit, X = a connective,= predication)I am thinking of the thing we said before now; Z

think you can think of Zwant to say something more about it;think is like Z in this way: Xwant you to think of it in the same waysay :



160

4 . La and relative clauses

The point has already been made that relative clauses constitutebackground Information to their nominal heads. Thus in (19b) the clausesi me nyo o *who is not good' only serves to describe the nominal ame'person'. The Claim is that lä marks the clause to indicate that theInformation it contains is meant to help the addressee identify the head.

The meaning conveyed by lä in this environment may be paraphrasedäs follows:

Z X lä (where Z is the head of a relative clause X)I am speaking of ZI want you to be able to think of itI say X because of thisI think you can think of Z because of this[I think you now know this Z]

The most striking difference between this formula and the previous onesis that this one does not have the component "I say: Y". This com-ponent indicates that a predication follows the lä construction which isnot a necessary nor invariant feature of the particle in this usage fortwo reasons: First structurally, relative clauses in Ewe follow their heads.Thus the element to which the relative clause is contextually boundprecedes it. A second piece of evidence is that lä occurs on sen-tence-final relative clauses äs exemplified in (21) (frorn Nyomi 1980:28).

(21) nyametsolä lä bu fo nyonu rjuualäarbiter DBF judge guilt woman jealous onesi tro zu qkugbagbato lä.REL change become blind person TP'The arbiter declared the jealous woman, who had become blind,guilty.'

Recall that sentence-final dependent clauses are not marked with lä.This difference has to be captured. This particular property of lä withsentence-final relative clauses points to the inadequacy of the pausemarking explanation usually given for the non-occurrence of lä withpostposed dependent clauses (cf. Heine and Reh 1984:109). If lä doesnot mark sentence-final dependent clauses because a füll pause followsand the pause marker is redundant in that context, the same argumentshould hold for sentence-final relative clauses. However the empiricalevidence is not consistent with this contention.

In fact, the use of lä with relative clauses also argues against assigninga unitary topic function to the terminal particles. Topics have been



161

variously defined in the linguistic literature. Structurally, they are the firstelements in a clause; "the point of departure of the message" (Halliday1985:39). As a frame, the topic specifies "the relevant universe ofdiscourse (...) of its comment" (Barry 1975:3; cf. Chafe 1976:42 and Dik1978:230). In terms of "aboutness" one can follow Gundel (1985:86) andsay that "[A]n entity, E, is the pragmatic topic of a sentence, S, iff S isintended to increase the addressee's Knowledge about, request Informationabout or otherwise get the addressee to act with respect to E".

These definitions seem applicable to the use of lä with preposedphrases, clauses and connectives. It is rather hard to relate any of thedefinitions to its use with relative clauses. The topic in a relative clauseis the relativised constituent, i.e., the relative marker (van der Auwera1987). Lä does not occur on si—the relative clause introducer—in thesame way that it does not mark intraclausal conjunctions (see 4.2.2).Note that these conjunctions could be viewed, Structurally at least, ästopical elements. It can be concluded that lä occurs with some elementswhich satisfy the characterisations of topics. It does not occur with otherswhich could also be topical, yet it occurs in other contexts which cannotstrictly speaking be identified äs topical. The unifying feature of theenvironments in which the terminal particles occur is that they containbackground Information. Hence the unitary function of the particles isthat they mark background Information.

The analysis so far shows that the particle lä has a set of relatedmeanings which have been described relative to the syntactic environ-ments in which it occurs. Particles indeed have meanings. However, likeother grammatical and morphological items they do not have meaningsindependent of the syntactic environments in which they occur. For thisreason, their meanings have to be described in relation to specific typesof contexts. Nevertheless, it is possible to extract a core meaning, partially atleast, of the particle from the set of related meanings that a particularparticle may have. Perhaps the partial invariant of lä is the following:

I am thinking about somethingI want you to (be able to) think of it

4.5. The # particle.

The arguments advanced so far to support the discourse function of läapply tout court to c|e. The essential difference between the two particlesis that the predication which follows (|e must be a question. As for lä,it can be followed by any speech act. Thus lä has a wider applicabilitythan <)e· Consider the examples in (22).



162

(22) a. rjko sia l /(*<le), vlo- do- ame- qko-name DEM TP TP shame put person namee wo- nye.apoc SSG be'This name, it is a shameful name.'

b. qko sia la/^e vlo- do- ame-name DEM TPTP shame put personqko- e wo- nye- a?name apoc 3so be Q'This name, is it a shameful name?'

Note that (22a) is unacceptable if 4e is used. Observe also that eitherl or <|e can be used in (22b). One could think of (je s a marker whichis used to achieve mood agreement between the background informationunit and the following question. The parallelism in distribution betweenthe particles should be reflected in their semantics.

4.6. -De and initial constituents

•De marks preposed phrases and clauses s the universe of discourseabout which something is unknown. The specific thing which is notknown is conveyed in the question which follows. Thus in (23), thetemporal AP *in the evening' specifies the domain with respect to whichthe ensuing question is valid. The (Je particle guides the addressee tounderstand that the question is about the identified setting.

(23) le fie me $, nuka mi - φι?at evening in TP what IPL eatΊη the evening , what shall we eat?'

One can paraphrase the meaning of the particle in this context sfollows:

X 4.e Υ ( X = NP/ AP/ a dependent clause, Υ = a question)I am thinking about XI do not know something about X

want to know itthink you know some things about Xwant you to think about Xwant to say the kind of thing about X that I don't knowsay : Υ



163

The formula reflects the interrogative s well s the scene-setting natureof the particle. Thus there are components which characterise itsignorative aspects: Ί do not know something about Χ', Ί want to knowit'. and «I think you know some things about X'. Other componentsaccount for its orienting function: Ί am thinking about Χ', Ί want youto think about X', and Ί want to say something about X'. Note thatthere is no interrogative dictum, Ί want you to say something that willcause me to know something about X if you can', in the formula. Thereason for this is that the cje constituent by itself does not constitute aquestion.

4,7. -De and connectives.

The main point about the particle in this context is that the Speakeruses it to Signal that s/he wants to know something about the nature ofthe relationship between what was said before and something eise to bespecified. Consider example (24) and the explication proposed for theparticle in this context below.

(24) eyata $, ame a<|eke m- a- kpecjetherefore TP person none NEG SBJV add torju nye o- ?side ISG NEG Q'So, is there nobody to help me?'

Z X 4 . e Y ( Z = a preceding discourse unit, X = a connector andΥ = a question)

am thinking of what we said before now; Zdo not know something about itwant to know itthink you might knowwant to say the thing about it that I don't know; Υthink Υ is like Z in this way: Xwant you to think of it in the same waythink you can now think of itsay : Υ

4.8. -De and relative clauses

There is one difference between l and (|e in this environment, v/z, 3$does not occur at the end of sentence-final relative clauses s l does.



164

This is perhaps dictated by the need to specify what is not known aboutthe nominal head and relative clause s a constituent. Thus in theformula there is a component which Signals that a question is to follow.The reader is invited to substitute the formula for the particle inexample (25).

(25) xo- wo si φ tsa va ghana (Je,friend 2so REL pay visit come Ghana TPe tro va <jo mia gbo- a?3so turn come reach 2PL side Q*Your friend who visited Ghana has he returned to your end?'

Z X (je Υ (Z is the head of a relative clause Χ. Υ = a question)I am speaking of ZI want you to be able to think of itI say X because of thisI think you can think of Z because of thisI do not know something about itI want to know itI think you might knowI want to say the thing about it that I don't knowI say : Υ

The meanings of the <|e particle have also been described relative toparticular constructions. The common core of these meanings can bestated s follows:

I am thinking about somethingI do not know something about itI want to know itI think you might know some things about itI want to say the thing about it that I don't knowI say: Υ

5. SUMMARY

In the foregoing an attempt has been made to show that the terminalparticles in Ewe have a discourse function of marking backgroundInformation units. In addition to this function the particles also havemeanings. These meanings have also been fairly rigorously described. Itis hoped that the definitions provided will serve s a reliable guide tothe usage of the particles. To facilitate a comparison of the particles,the definitions are reproduced below and grouped according to thevarious syntactic environments in which they occur.



165

5.1. The terminal particles and preposed phrases and clauses*

(26) dzogbe- νδε- toe l , wo- me- dzi- adestiny ^bad ly TP SPL NEG dear HABvi vo gb£- ηε ο.child bad refuse HAB:3so NEG'Unfortunately, one does not reject a bad child.'

X l Υ (X = NP, AP or a dependent clause; and Υ = mainpredication)

I am thinking about XI want you to think about XI want to say something about XI want you to know that I say this about XI think you now know thisI say: Υ

(27) fofo- wo (Je, agble ka- e wo- yi egbe?father 2SG TP farm WH aFOC 3sc go today'Your father, which farm did he go to today?'

X (je Υ (X = NP/ AP/ a dependent clause, Υ = a question)am thinking about Xdo not know something about Xwant to know itthink you know some things about Xwant you to think about Xwant to say the kind of thing about X that I don't knowsay: Υ

5.2 The terminal particles and connectives

(28) ma dze tugbe quto yaA. appear beauty much thoughgake l e- Φέ nonome me- nyo o.but TP 3sG poss behaviour NEG good NEG'Ama is very beautiful, but, her behaviour is not good.'



166

Z X l Y (Z = preceding discourse unit, X = a connective,Υ = predication)

I am thinking of the thing we said before now; ZI think you can think of ZI want to say something more about it; ΥI think Υ is like Z in this way: XI want you to think of it in the same wayI say: Υ

(29) ta tf, tsi- a ga- klo egbe ha ?so TP rain DBF again fade today also Q4So, the clouds have dispersed today s well?'

Z X $ Υ (Z = a preceding discourse unit, X = a connectorand Υ = a question)

I am thinking of what we said before now; ZI do not know something about itI want to know itI think you might knowI want to say the thing about it that I don't know; ΥI think Υ is like Z in this way: XI want you to think of it in the same wayI say: Υ

5.5. The terminal particles and relative clauses

(30) rjko sia qko si eue- - wo tso- n la gome-name every name REL Ewe DBF PL take HAB TP underse- se a<|e no- a e- si kokoko.hear hear INDEF be HAB 3so hand by-all-mean'Every name that the Ewes take has some meaning by all means.'

Z X l (where Z is the head of a relative clause X)I am speaking of ZI want you to be able to think of itI say X because of thisI think you can think of Z because of this[I think you now know this Z]



167

(31) ga si fofo- wo nä wo $, a de a?money REL father 2so give 2so TP SSG:FUT reach Q'The money your father gave you, will it be sufficient?'

Z X 4e (Z is the head of a relative clause . = aquestion)

I am speaking of ZI want you to be able to think of itI say X because of thisI think you can think of Z because of thisI do not know something about itI want to knowI think you might knowI want to say the thing about it that I don't knowI say:

At this stage, it has not been possible to demonstrate and validate theanalysis of the particles presented here from different discourse genres;narrative, expository, hortatory etc. The chaining of elements marked bythese particles has also not been touched upon. It has not been possibleto discuss the issues of particle ellipsis and the dialect variants of läeither. These problems, it is hoped, will be taken up in future investiga-tions.

6. CONCLUSION: LA AND BE IN CROSSLINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE

There appears to be particles with uses analogous to the Ewe terminalparticles in various languages. It seems that in Godie, a Kru languageof Cote d'Ivoire (Marchese 1977) and kä in Zulgo, a Chadic language ofCameroon (Haller and Watters 1984) function in the same way äs lä inEwe.

In other languages, one can discern formal affinities between definite-ness markers and what may loosely be called topic markers. ThisSituation is similar to the formal identity between the definite article läand the terminal particle lä in Ewe. Thus Akan, a Tano language ofGhana which is historically related to Ewe and also geographicallycontiguous to it, has the form no. This item marks left dislocatedelements and initial dependent clauses äs well äs definiteness. In addition,it is a third person Singular pronominal form (Christaller 1875; Osam,personal communication). The forms 1 and o in Ga and Dangmerespectively also function äs definiteness and topic markers (KroppDakubu, personal communication). Both languages are historically,



168

geographically and typologically related to Ewe. Similarly, in Baule, aTano language, and in Klao, a Kru language, both of Cote d'Ivoire, thereis formal equivalence between the markers of topicality and of definite-ness. The forms are ni and na respectively (Timyan 1979; Marchese1977).

Outside Africa, a similar phenomenon is found in Polish. Accordingto Tabakowska (1987) to functions äs a topic marker, a demonstrativeand äs a deictic personal pronoun. The Australian language Kungarrakanyuses the form ka to mark established topics in discourse äs well äsdefiniteness (Evans, personal communication).

The Thai particle nä has functions similar to that of Ewe lä. Itoptionally marks topical local or temporal adverbials äs well äs nominals.In addition, it marks the closure of topical relative clauses andconditional clauses. Another Thai particle lä would appear to havefunctions similar to the Ewe <Je particle (Tony Diller, personal com-munication).

In other languages, the same form tends to be employed in markingtopics and in expressing other illocutionary functions in a manner similarto that of <|<£ in Ewe. In Japanese, a form wa homonymous with thetopic marker occurs äs a sentence-flnal particle. The topic marker is alsoused to mark truncated questions (Hinds 1984; Hinds et al. 1987). Smith(1987) has described a particle tä in Waama, a Gur language of Benin,which appears to be isofunctional with Ewe «le-

in the light of the pervasive nature of the formal afBnities describedin the preceding paragraphs in the world's languages, there is an urgentneed for an investigation of their underlying motivations. A prerequisitefor such a research is the systematic documentation and analysis of thedata in the individual languages. It is hoped that the present study willprovoke some interest in this fascinating area.

REFERENCES

Allan, Keith. 1986. Linguistic meaning. Volume 2. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Ameka, Felix. 1986. The use and meaning of selected particles in Ewe. MA thesis,

Australian National University, Canberra.. 1987. Discourse particles: Are they merely functional or are they meaningful äs

well? Paper given at the 1987 International Conference on language particles, FreieUniversität, Berlin.

1991. Ewe: Its grammatical constructions and illocutionary devices. Ph.D. diss.,Australian National University, Canberra.

Ansre, Gilbert. 1966. The grammatical units of Ewe. Ph.D. diss., University of London.Barry, Roberta. 1975. Topic in Chinese: An overlap of meaning, grammar and discourse

function. In Papers from the parasession on functionalism, eds. R. Grossman et al., pp.1-10. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.



169

Boguslawski, Andrzej. 1970. On semantic primitives and meaningfulness. In Sign, language,culture, eds. A.J. Greimas, Roman Jakobson, and M.R. Mayenowa, pp. 143-52. TheHague: Mouton.

Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects and topics. In Subjectand topic, ed. C.N. Li, pp. 25-55. New York: Academic Press.

. 1984. How people use adverbial clauses. Proceedings ofthe Berkeley Linguistic Society10:437-49.

Christaller, J.G. 1875. A grammar of the Asante and Fante language called Tshi (Chwe, Twi).Basel.

Clements, George N. 1972. The verbal syntax of Ewe. Ph.D. diss., University of London.Davison, Alice. 1979. Some mysteries of Subordination. Staates in the Linguistic Sciences

9:105-28.. 1984. Syntactic markedness and the definition of sentence topic. Language

60:797-846.Deakin, Greg. 1981. Indirect speech acts and Intonation. MA thesis, Australian National

University, Canberra.Dik, Simon C. 1978. Functional grammar. Amsterdam: North Holland.Duthie, Alan S. 1984. Displaying the semantic structure of an Ewe text. Journal of West

African Languages 14:57-79.. 1988. Ewe. In The Languages of Ghana, ed. M.E. Kropp Dakubu, pp. 91-101.

London: Kegan and Paul International.-. In press. Introducing Ewe Linguistics. Accra: Ghana Universities Press.

Dzameshie, Alex. 1983. Relativization in Ewe. MA thesis. Indiana University, Bloomington.Geis, Michael L. 1986. Pragmatic determinants of adverb preposing. Proceedings of the

Chicago Linguistic Society 22:127-34.Givon, Talmy. 1982. Logic vs. pragmatics with human language äs the referee: Toward an

empirically viable epistemology. Journal of Pragmatics 6:81—133.. 1987. Beyond foreground and background. In Coherence and grounding in discourse,

ed. R. Tomlin, pp. 175-88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Goddard, Cliff. 1979. Particles and illocutionary semantics. Papers in Linguistics 9:185—227.

. 1986. The natural semantics of too. Journal of Pragmatics 10:635—43.

. 1989a. Issues in natural semantic metalanguage. Quademi di Semantica 10:51—64.

. 1989b. The goals and limits of semantic representation. Quademi di Semantica10:297-308.

Grimes, Joseph E. (ed.). 1986. Sentence initial devices. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute ofLinguistics.

Gundel, Jeanette K. 1985. Shared knowledge and topicality. Journal ofPragrnatics 9:83-107.Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 54:564-89.Haller, Beat, and John Watters. 1984. Topic in Zulgo. Studies in African Linguistics

15:27-46.Halliday, Michael A.K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward

Arnold.Harkins, Jean. 1986. Semantics and the language learner: Warlpiri particles. Journal of

Pragrnatics 10:559-74.Heine, Bernd, and Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanafysis in African

languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Hinds, John. 1984. Interrogativity in Japanese. In Interrogativity, ed. Chisholm W. Jr., pp.

145—88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Hinds, John et al. (eds.). 1987. Perspectives on topicalization: The case of Japanese wa.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Leibniz, Godfried W. [1704] 1949. New essays conceming human understanding. [Translated

by A.G. Langley.] La Salle, III: The Open Court Company.



170

Locke, John. [1690] 1959. An essay conceming human understanding. [Edited by A.C. Fräser.]New York: Dover.

Marchese, Lynell. 1977. Subordinate clauses äs topics in Godie. Studies inAfrican Linguistics,Supplement 7:157-64.

Nyomi, C. Kofi. 1980. rjuuaua [Jealousy]. Accra: Bureau of Ghana Languages.Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49:19-45.Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1985. A small sketch of Ewe. Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere

Sondernummer 1985.Smith, Jenny. 1987. Rhetorical questions in Waama. Paper read at the 17th Colloquium on

African languages and linguistics, University of Leiden.Tabakowska, Elzbieta. 1987. On pragmatic functions of the particle to in Polish. Paper given

at the 1987 International Conference on language particles, Freie Universität, Berlin.Timyan, Judith. 1975/1979. The definite particle ni in Baule. Journal of West African

Languages 10:179-88.Thompson, Sandra. 1985. Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purpose clauses

in English. Text 5:55-84.Townsend, David J., and Thomas G. Bever. 1977. Main and subordinate clauses: A study in

figure and ground. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club,van der Auwera, Johan. 1987. Relativised constituents are topics. Paper read at the XFVth

International Congress of Linguists, Berlin, DDR.Warburton, Irene et al. 1968. Ewe basic course. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics

Club.Westermann, Dietrich. 1930. A study of the Ewe Language. [Translated by A L. Blickford

Smith.] London: Oxford University Press.Wierzbicka, Anna. 1976. Particles and linguistic relativity. International Review of Slavic

Linguistics 1:267-307.. 1980. Lingua mentalis. Sydney: Academic Press.. 1986a. Introduction. Special issue on particles. Journal of Pragmatics 10:519-34.. 1986b. Precision in vagueness: The semantics of English approximatives. Journal of

Pragmatics 10:597-614.. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.. 1989a. Semantic primitives and lexical universals. Quademi di Semantica 10:103—21.. 1989b. Semantic primitives: the expanding set. Quademi di Semantica 10:133-57.. 1991. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter.. In press. Lexical universals and universals of grammar. In Meaning and grammar,

eds. Johan van der Auwera and Micheal Kefer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Wilkins, David. 1986. Particles/clitics for criticism and complaint in Mparntwe Arrernte

(Aranda). Journal of Pragmatics 10:575-96.

Dept. of African LinguisticsUniversity of Leiden



Date post:	11-Oct-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	felix
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

How Discourse Particles Mean: The Gase of the Ewe “Terminal” Particles

Documents