On the Functional Convergence of Pragmatic Markers in Arizona Spanish

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article contributes to the literature on discourse markers in bilingual communities. It also addresses the question of the function of tag questions. I think that this paper could be strengthened in two ways. First, a clearer outline of the questions being addressed, including the function of tag questions, the role of other language-origin discourse markers in code switching, and the importance of position in the function of discourse markers, should be outlined and highlighted for readers to better see the theoretical importance of these findings and their generalizability. Second, I believe that the approach to the notion of grammaticalization needs to be refined or adjusted. The use of the term grammaticalization itself is not necessary, and any change made regarding this will not change the basic arguments or findings of this paper.

The introduction should include a list of research questions that will help guide the reader through the text. For instance, is one of the goals of the study to discover whether the English origin DMs trigger code switching? It would be helpful to know the main goals of the study.

It does not seem correct to call these DMs cases of grammaticalization. Grammaticalization has to do with the formation of grammar, which is embedded within the syntax. As the author notes several times throughout the paper, PMs do not participate in the syntax. It would be most appropriate to call this discursivization or pragmaticalization. This does not change the main arguments about the changes that take place within these processes, but they cannot rightly be called grammaticalization processes. Similar processes (bleaching, increased frequency) also occur in lexical changes, which have nothing to do with grammaticalization. See, for example, the book by Traugott and Dasher, Regularity in semantic change. See also Ocampo’s article, “Movement toward discourse is not grammaticalization,” which provides a very clear explanation with an example of the development of a DM in Spanish. If the author would like to argue that the PMs studied here have in fact grammaticalized, what grammatical (not pragmatic or discourse) function do they have?

The introduction should include a very clear definition of grammaticalization or any other term that is used if this one is replaced. The DMs being studied here do not fit into the traditional definition of grammaticalization, so the use of this term (or any other) must be explained and justified.

In lines 134 to 135, the author claims that only invariant forms appear as tags in Spanish. However, there is phonetic reduction in some forms of Spanish as well, such as verdad being reduced to veá.

How were information/confirmation-seeking tokens in the addressee-oriented category distinguished from discursive/alignment tokens in the exchange-oriented category? Examples of each coded function would be helpful.

Given the statistical significance of position, it would be good to provide examples of how position affects function for the DMs being studied.

 

If the authors insist on continuing to call this grammaticalization, could Kern’s work, mentioned lines 421 to 423, be helpful in justifying this decision?

Author Response

See attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Differentiating tags and pragmatic markers in Arizona Spanish”

 

The manuscript “Differentiating tags and pragmatic markers in Arizona Spanish” is an analysis of the use of the connectors “you know” and “(tú) sabes” and the tags “no” and “qué no” in Arizona Spanish. The results of the study suggest that while there are differences in the use of these pragmatic markers according to utterance position, self-reported gender, and length of residence there is not a significant difference in their discourse functions, providing quantitative evidence that connectors and tags do indeed belong in the same category of pragmatic markers that fulfill similar functions. The manuscript also provides compelling qualitative data on the use of “you know” alongside “(tú) sabes” in this variety. 

 

My recommendation is for the manuscript to be revised and resubmitted with precise attention given to the contributions outlined above. The discussion of the grammaticalization or development of these pragmatic markers is outside of the scope of the study because there is not longitudinal data or data in apparent time to support it. There is also increasing compelling evidence that pragmatic markers have not developed through grammaticalization, so it would be best to avoid this term altogether. 

 

I have provided additional comments organized by each section of the manuscript below.

 

Title

 

Since the overall conclusion of the analysis is that tags and connectors fulfill similar discourse functions in Arizona Spanish, I would suggest a title change, since the current title suggests that they are different. Tags are also pragmatic markers and the title as written suggests that they are not.

 

Abstract

 

“Tags as compared to other types of pragmatic markers (PMs) are typically considered separate if related phenomena, and are usually differentiated by their syntactic positions and discourse functions, among other factors.”

A citation is needed here. 

 

“Therefore, we interpret this finding as an indication that functional differences between these two pragmatic resources have been levelled through grammaticalization.”

It is debatable whether this is grammaticalization, so I would suggest eliminating this reference. I am also unsure what is meant by “levelled” in this context. The contributions outlined above can go here instead. 

 

Introduction

 

“Pragmatic markers (PMs) are common in spoken language, with functions and frequency of use determined at the community-level (Childs, 2021). Past studies have established several key features of PMs: (i) They are the result of grammaticalization, where PMs lose referential meaning, and take on discursive functions (Martín Zorraquino & Portolés Lázaro, 1999); (ii) There is a potential variability of form, a side-effect of grammaticalization (Martín Zorraquino & Portolés Lázaro, 1999; Silva-Corvalán & Enrique-Arias, 2017)”

 

I would suggest eliminating grammaticalization from these points: i. they fulfill discursive functions; ii. There is variability of form.

 

“This study provides a comprehensive analysis proposing the possible convergence of tags with PMs generally, alongside compelling evidence of their grammaticalization path.”

I suggest eliminating “alongside compelling evidence of their grammaticalization path.”

 

Pragmatic Markers and Tags

 

“That is, while they are both the result of grammaticalization processes which over time reduces their referentiality and causes them to take on pragmatic features…”

While they have “developed” over time, sometimes reducing their referentiality and fulfilling pragmatic functions…

 

“However, several authors have analyzed the cline of grammaticalization of tags which allows them to take on other discourse functions, as well as migrate to other syntactic positions within the clause (Palacios Martínez, 2014; Pichler, 2013; Among others), making them more PM-like over time.”

Several authors have analyzed the “development” of tags…

 

Pragmatic Markers: A Synopsis

 

“As in many instances of variation driving change (Bybee, 2015), PM development can be attributed to grammaticalization, small changes occurring in repeated usage over time (Bybee, 2011)”

…PM development is the result of small changes occurring in repeated usage over time.

 

“Furthermore, PMs along the cline of grammaticalization exhibit functional change, gaining functions non-conducive to a response”

Furthermore, PMs exhibit functional change…

 

In the paragraph starting “This is possible due to the core features…,” I think it may be appropriate to cite that some studies have referred to the development of pragmatic markers as the result of grammaticalization for the reasons given in the paragraph (semantic bleaching, etc.) alongside the studies that question whether it is grammaticalization. Once again, since there is not longitudinal data or an analysis in apparent time in the present study, the question of development lies outside of the scope of this study.

 

Tag Questions: A Misnomer?

 

“In English, due to grammaticalization, they range from full-form variant tags such as isn’t it”

In English, they range from full-form…

 

“In their grammaticalization cline from lexical items to PMs, tags become multifunctional”

Tags are multifunctional…

 

Pragmatic Systems in Contact

 

In the paragraph that begins “Looking first at U.S. Spanish…” I would suggest adding a topic sentence to introduce the paragraph. Several pragmatic markers have been analyzed in U.S. Spanish. Aaron (2004) and Torres and Potowski (2008)… Additionally, the Carvalho and Kern study does not fit in this paragraph because it does not analyze pragmatic markers in U.S. Spanish, so I would eliminate it. 

 

The remaining two paragraphs in this section need to be restructured with topic sentences. There is a lack of unity in the paragraphs and the main points are difficult to follow. Once again, grammaticalization should be eliminated here since it is outside of the scope of this study.

 

Coding

 

The font/typeface/capitalization in the discussion of broad and narrow discourse functions is not consistent. I do not think they need to be capitalized. 

 

The summary of first predictor of discourse functions in not clear. I cannot follow it and therefore have no idea what was submitted in the analysis. Perhaps a flow chart might be the most effective way to present this information clearly. If the basic distinction is conducive vs. non-conducive (as in Carvalho and Kern), I am only aware of this analysis being applied to tags, not connectors. If this analysis was applied to “(tú) sabes” and “you know,” this should be highlighted as a contribution, and examples should be provided of “(tú) sabes” and “you know” fulfilling conducive and non-conducive functions in addition to “no” and “qué no.” It would probably be best to include these examples in the Results and Discussion section. 

 

There are several paragraphs discussing the first predictor, and it would be easiest to follow the summary of each of the four predictors if the information on discourse function could be summarized in one paragraph and an accompanying chart before moving on to the next three predictors each in three separate paragraphs.

 

Results and Discussion

 

I may be missing something, but a percentage breakdown of 35%/65% is closer to a ratio of 1:3 (instead of 1:2).

 

I would suggest adding examples from the corpus when discussing discourse function and utterance position to bring in some qualitative analysis to complement the quantitative analysis. This is the contribution of the study and needs to be highlighted and expanded. 

 

Once again, I would caution any discussion of grammaticalization and use “develop/development” instead and hedge any discussion of development liberally because there is not longitudinal data or data in apparent time. The idea of development from outside the clause to inside of it originally comes from D’Arcy’s (2005) dissertation on “like,” not from Kern (2019). A distinction is that “like” moved from the left periphery to the within the clause, whereas connectors and tags would be moving from the right periphery to within the clause. 

 

Discourse Function Revisited

I would suggest adding examples here to include the qualitative analysis along with the quantitative analysis. Once again, I believe that this qualitative analysis, especially of “(tú) sabes” and “you know” is a much more important contribution than any discussion of development/grammaticalization. 

 

You Know and Language Environment

 

I really like this analysis. The time-being and long-term possibilities need to be hedged strongly at the end because of the lack of longitudinal data and the low number of tokens used by fewer participants. 

 

Conclusions and Further Study

 

The “reduced to insignificance” statement regarding discourse function mirrors the “leveling” statement in the abstract. The contribution here that needs to be highlighted throughout, beginning in the title, is that these connectors and tags are fulfilling similar discourse functions and belong in the same category of pragmatic markers. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf