Enclitic Presuppositional Triggers in Bengali: The particles /-o/ and /-i/

Arko Chakraborty, PhD Research fellow, Dept. of Linguistics, University of Calcutta, India. [ June, 2011] email: arko1208@gmail.com

Abstract
This article would start off with a very brief introduction in Section 1 (for those who are new to these concepts, others may very well skip Section 1) on the twin concepts of Presupposition and Discourse/ Text Analysis and their interrelatedness, which is to be followed in Section 2 by an overview of the arguments placed by various scholars on certain particular presuppositional triggers iterative and/or additive or emphatic morphemes which act as triggers in the worlds languages. The last section would deal with the possibilities of application of the same arguments on the structure of Bangla/ Bengali language and examining the fact as to whether and how far the same are applicable and thereby discovering if any idiosyncratic patterns are found to exist in the Bengali language (a New Indo-Aryan language spoken originally in the eastern provinces of India, but now its speakers and communities are spread all over the world).

1. Presupposition and Discourse

A presupposition, as a common concept held by several scholars, is a pragmatic inference drawn from the proposition of a statement. This inference is in itself a distinct proposition but it is, in most cases, not the prime focused proposition, rather the original statement asserts (or negates) with a prime focus some other proposition B for the validity of which the presupposed proposition A is a necessary pre-condition. In terms of truth-conditionality, the presupposition A of a statement must always be true irrespective of whether the proposition B of the original statement is true. Scholars like Karttunen, Frege, Strawson et al studied and found that such presuppositions are possible when certain particular linguistic elements belonging to various categories like verbs, proper nouns, adjectives of comparison, etc. are present in the structure of the statement under consideration. These linguistic elements are usually morphological and sometimes even syntactic (phrasal) and/or prosodic in nature and these were named as presuppositional triggers. Hence, these triggers or markers generate presuppositions. On the other hand, while studying the structural and semantic relations both intra- and intersententially we come across several discourse markers, or to be more specific the so-called cohesive markers, which define and link up the abovesaid relations in a text or spoken discourse. Often it is

found that some discourse markers happen to be presuppositional triggers too and perform their characteristic functions independently but simultaneously. The article here deals with some such linguistic elements in Bengali which have both a presuppositional and a discourse function.

2. An overview of works in this regard

In their article Obligatory Presuppositions in Discourse Amsili & Beyssade (2010) deal with the additive or emphatic particles or morphemes like too and its classmates like still, also, again, anymore, indeed quoting some examples from Zeevat (2002, 2003) and adding some of their own pertaining to the French language. Amsili & Beyssade (2010), in keeping with the observations of Green (1968) and Kaplan (1984), justify the presence and/or use of such additive particles that do not apparently seem to add any further lexical content/ information and thereby seem to create redundancy. However, this redundancy is maintained as a price for the presuppositional behavior of such additive particles most or all of which also act as anaphoric cohesive markers. Usually the second clause of a sentence (or the later part of a paragraph in a longer text) contains an additive particle that holds a contrastive relation to some other element mentioned earlier. Thus, following Kaplan, one of the major obligations for the use of particles like too is to uphold the similarity between two contrastive topics. In quite a similar tune, Krifka (1999) upholds the utility of prosodic stress accent on the additive particle (giving examples from German and English) and also upholds the function of differentiation and contrast as a major reason for the obligatory presence of additive particles like too. Sb (2004) puts several objections to Krifkas proposals but Amsili & Beyssade (2010) uphold the validity of the propositions of all the abovesaid scholars. Zeevat (2002) however shifts his emphasis from the importance of the presuppositional function to the discourse function saying that the latter is more crucial for the obligatory presence of such additive particles. Amsili & Beyssade (2010) strive towards classifying and grouping together a set of presuppositional triggers and non-presuppositional discourse markers on the basis of three parameters: (i) obligatoriness, (ii) minimal meaning with no further lexical content added, and (iii) that they give rise to an accessibility anomaly. By accessibility Amsili & Beyssade mean the access or anaphoric co-reference of such a particle/ marker to its antecedent. Amsili & Beyssade (2010) have included the following in their class of triggers (from French), however, the exemplary statements that they provide to substantiate the argument do not necessarily abide by all the above three properties: Pure additive items aussi (also), ne...plus (not anymore). Aspectual items re-, encore (still), de nouveau (again), ne...plus (not anymore). Cleft and intonation Some factive verbs savoir (to know)+ que/si, ignorer (not to know)+ que/si, vrifier +que/si,

In the third section of the article Amsili & Beyssade (2010) explain their argument in terms of conversational and scalar implicatures following Gricean notions as well as the theories of Hawkins (1978) and Heim (1991). So far as the conversational implicatures are concerned, Amsili & Beyssade, in line with Krifka, state that assertion of the condition or state of affairs of some entity x implicates that no other entity shares the same set of conditions or state of affairs which belong solely to x and thus now if any other entity y is stated to share the same then it leads to an anomaly or contradiction whereby the existing implicatures gets nullified upon further information as in the dialogue (borrowed from the same artile) below. Then to maintain the truthfulness and validity of the assertions regarding both the entities x & y such additive particles like too are required. A: What did Peter and Pia eat?_________ (Peter = x and Pia = y ) B: Peter ate pasta. _____________________ (implicates Pia didnt eat pasta, only Peter did) C: Peter ate pasta, and Pia ate pasta________ (further information makes C contradict with B) Solution: i) C: Peter ate pasta, and Pia ate pasta too.______(saves all implicatures) ii) C: Peter and Pia ate pasta._________( Grices maxim of manner followed) In the fourth and final section of their article Amsili & Beyssade (2010) talk of the connection between the obligatoriness of such additive particles or presuppositional triggers on one hand and discourse relations (in a text) on the other hand. Their argument is that if the cohesion of structure and coherence of meaning (jointly called the discourse relation) between successive parts of a text is already clear prior to the use of such a particle/ trigger, then the use of the trigger becomes optional but nevertheless not forbidden. The following example (showing wider discourse context) quoted from the article explains this. (1) Jean est malade, Marie est malade, Paul est malade, tout le monde est malade alors! John is sick, Marie is sick, Paul is sick, everybody is sick then! The above example does not have such particles or triggers because through a system of enumeration or counting a discourse relation becomes evident in the entire text which shows that the presuppositions of the individual parts implicate each time that no one else is sick but when we reach the end of the text we find that multiple counting leads to the fact that every single person as well as every other person is sick. This is actually a case of projection problem and defeasibility of presuppositions in wider discourse contexts (Levinson,1983; et al) which Amsili & Beyssade (2010) do not refer to here. As an alternative, they say that the same statement above can be equally wellformed if the particles/triggers are used, as follows: (2) Jean est malade, Marie aussi, Paul aussi, tout le monde est malade alors! John is sick, Marie too, Paul too, everybody is sick then! Also what they didnt point out in their article is that the word sick itself acts (contextually) as a cohesive marker since it prevails as an unchanged predicate or link and provides a continuity of the state of affairs for each individual. If different predicates were used then the additive particle too cannot be used, e.g.

(3) John was sick. Mary was happy. Paul was sad. This sentence (3) cannot be replaced with an alternative statement using too or else it would futile and unacceptable as in 3a. (3a) !!! John was sick. Mary was happy too. Paul was sad too. Therefore 3a upholds what others have argued that additive particles like too cannot be used unless each connected phrase/clause deals with the same topic/ predicate. At the same time one cannot say that there exists no semantic relation or coherence between each clause/ simplex sentence in 3. Momentarily it might be assumed and in a still wider context as given below the discourse relations might become more obvious. Thus we can assume (4) from (3) by inserting the omitted/ elided cohesive markers. (4) John was sick, so Mary was happy, but Paul was sad. Even without using the above discourse markers we can deduce the same coherent relations very easily from a wider context, as in 5 below. (5) Mary always kept John in her bad books. Once John didnt go office for several days. He was sick . Johns younger brother, Paul, went to report this at the office. When Paul told Mary about this he found that she was happy. She clapped her hands and told Paul to tell John that he is fired. Paul was sad after all this. The point that I am making here is that whether a discourse relation is present in a small or a large text due to the presence of overt cohesive markers or due to the sequence of events (abiding by the Gricean notion of maxim of manner), the additive particles or presuppositional triggers like too, still, again, etc. do not have a discrete optionality of occurrence. So, it goes against the proposition of Amsili & Beyssade (2010) that such particles or triggers remain optional and are not barred from occurring, rather as we see in the examples (3,4 and 5) above, such triggers can be barred. This argument can be extended to one more step when we find that instead of using identical or totally different predicates, if synonymous or hyponymous predicates are used then the predicates of the successive clauses can be replaced with too, as in (6) and (7) below. Even this factor was not considered in the article of Amsili & Beyssade (2010). (6a) John is sick, Marie is down with fever, Paul has a backache, everybody is sick then! (6b) John is sick, Marie too, Paul too, everybody is sick then! ____________ (hyponymy) (7a) John is joyous, Marie is merry, Paul is cheerful, everybody is happy then! (7b) John is joyous, Marie too, Paul too, everybody is happy then! ____ (near-synonymy)

3. The perspective of Bengali

In this section we shall explore the functioning of the bound emphatic particles /-o/ and /-i/ which are added to any kind of base in Bengali but obligatorily as the ultimate or final suffix. Morphopsyntactic analyses of these particles can be found in Dasgupta (1984), Bayer & Lahiri (1990), Bhattacharya (1993) and in works of several other linguists. A very interesting and apt argument raised by Bayer & Lahiri is that the emphatic particle or clitic is not necessarily an enclitic, i.e. not necessarily the final suffix in a word, rather in some verbal forms it can be infixed, giving a binary choice in the language structure whereby the particle can be placed either immediately after some unaffixed verbal stems (rare) or word-finally after all other affixes have been attached (most regular use). However, here we shall not look into these morphosyntactic peculiarities of these particles, rather we shall examine the semantic and pragmatic aspects as to how these particles act as presuppositional triggers and have diverse roles, and how they complement or supplement other triggers in Bengali which tend to generate similar types of presupposition.

3.1

The emphatic particle /-o/

Although Bengali has its own conjunctions or additive discourse markers pertaining to English and = [ar ~ ebo], these sometimes do and sometimes do not function like presuppositional triggers, as distinguished in (8) and (9) below: (8a) John khelche ar Peter mai kache John playing and Peter soil digging ____ [ar] is additive cohesive marker John is playing and Peter is tilling/ digging the soil John okhane ar jabe na John there again go-fut not__________ [ar] is a presuppositional trigger here. John will not go there again.

(8b)

Thus both in 8a and 8b the additive discourse marker [ar] has its lexical content of and, further, in addition to, besides but in 8b (unlike 8a) it simultaneously functions equally well as an iterative presuppositional trigger and presupposes 8c: (8c) John had gone there earlier

So it is redundant and impertinent to think of the two morphemes [ar] in 8a and 8b as two distinct disparate morphs when they are semantically and structurally so similar. Its just the context and morphosyntactic environment which determines which of the two functions would be relevant.

The other additive discourse marker [ebo] cannot be used as an iterative or additive or as any kind of presuppositional trigger whatsoever; lets try that in 9 below. That is how the structure of Bengali works. (9a) John khelche ebo Peter mai kache John playing and Peter soil digging___ [ebo] is additive cohesive marker John is playing and Peter is tilling/ digging the soil *John okhane ebo jabe na John there and go-fut not__________ [ebo] is not a presuppositional trigger. *John will not go there and

(9b)

However, apart from these free morph markers, Bengali has an emphatic inclusive particle or clitic {-o} which is suffixed to any kind of base morpheme irrespective of the grammatical category of the base. This particle is indisputably at once an additive discourse marker as well as a presuppositional trigger and it performs both these functions simultaneously as shown below in (10).

(10) A:

ami skul-e jabo na I school-loc go-fut not. I will not go to school ami- o I too ( = Me too in colloquial English). I too ami- o jabo na I too go-fut not Even I wont go / I will also not go

B:

C:

This {-o} not only functions as an additive marker thereby adding upon or including the latter speaker B to the same state of affairs in which A is involved and thereupon adding C to the same state of affairs in which A and B are involved, but also performs the optional cohesive function of substitution whereby the Verb Phrase [skule jabo na] is not repeated but elided and is substituted by the particle or bound suffix {-o} in B while in C it is partially [only skule is omitted] substituted. However, [ami], the first personal pronoun, being the focal element in each statement cannot be deleted and it is the focal element only that takes the additive marker. In other words, a word that takes the emphatic particle becomes the most prominent (semantically) or focal element in the statement.

Now, lets look at the statements of B or C whenever a native speaker of Bengali would find the presence of such an additive marker like {-o} s/he would presume or presuppose that apart from the current speaker who addresses her-/ himself as [ami + o] there is some other participant who is equally involved in the concerned action or state of affairs. Thus this presupposition of the involvement of at least another participant is triggered by the presence of the bound suffix {-o}. Now, if this inclusion or addition or participation of at least one more object besides the one under prime focus is to be represented logically through first order predicate logic, it might be formulated as below in 11a:

[ when an argument or individual y takes up an additive particle like too, while x is the original individual for which a predicate P holds ], we get:
(11a). y(P(y) & x (P(x))). there is at least one y for which it is true that y is P and for every y there exists at least one x such that x is also P. (11b). x (P(x)) is the presupposition of y (P(y)).

Thus the presupposition falls within the scope of the original statement. Thus if individual arguments in 10 above are represented as a for A, b for B and c for C, then the statement of speaker B in 10B can be logically represented as: (12a).
~J(a,s)). b will not go to school and there exists another individual a who will also not go to school. J = [jabo]Verb go , s = [skul] school.

(~J(b,s) &

(12b). ~J(a,s) is the presupposition of ~J(b,s). In other words, any statement S with an additive particle i.e. S+too presupposes the original statement without the additive particle, i.e. S.

We shall return to the analysis of /-o/ but to understand it in a better way we have to now look at the functioning of the other emphatic particle /-i/ in the following section.

3.2

The emphatic particle /-i/

Bayer & Lahiri (1990), Dasgupta (1984), Bhattacharya (1993) and several other scholars have considered the function of the particle /-i/ to be analogous to the particle /-o/ and the function being that of emphasis and nothing more. There is no doubt that the particle /-i/ adds a considerable amount of certainty, definiteness to the meaning of the base to which it is attached. However, the same particle /-i/ plays another important pragmatic role which stands in contrast to the particle /-o/. While we find that both /-o/ and /-i/ are clitics, while we find that both /-o/ and /-i/ are emphatic particles that emphasize the meanings of their hosts or bases, we also find that whereas the clitic /o-/ gives a sense of inclusion of some participant, event, place, time etc. the clitic /-i/ gives a sense or meaning of exclusion of any other participant, event, place, time etc. except the one under consideration. Thus but y + -o = y + at least one other entity x i.e. y and others = x and y too y + -i = y + no other entity x i.e. y and none else = y and y only.

Let us consider the following simple sentences in 13 which would suffice to explain the difference in meanings arising due to the differential use of the particular emphatic clitic.

(13a). John- o Peter-ke mer-eche John too Peter-acc kill-perf John too has killed Peter / Even John has killed Peter (13b). John- i Peter-ke mer-eche John only Peter-acc kill-perf It is certainly John (and John only and none else) who has killed Peter (13c). John Peter-ke- o1 mer-eche John Peter-acc- too kill-perf John has killed Peter too / also (13d). John Peter-ke- mer-eche John Peter-acc- only kill-perf It is certainly Peter (and Peter only and none else) whom John has killed. However, in addition to or in lieu of the particle /-i/, native speakers of Bengali have other devices like the use of free morphemes like [ udhu], [ mattro], [ udhu mattro] only, just etc. to single-handedly express and/or augment the sense of exclusion as evident in 13e and 13f. (13e). John udhu Peter-ke- mer-eche John only Peter-acc- only kill-perf It is certainly Peter (and Peter only and none else) whom John has killed.

When occurring after a vowel peak within the same syllable boundary, the vowel cluster forms a falling diphthong, the full vowel of the emphatic particle turns into a semi-vowel like [ o ] or [ ].

(13f). John udhu Peter-ke mer-eche John only Peter-acc kill-perf John has killed only Peter. Although the free morpheme udhu denotes the sense of exclusion it does not warranty (on the part of the speaker) the certainty of an event while the particle /-i/ gives both this certainty or emphasis as well as creates an exclusion of a certain item or entity from all other eligible contenders. In other words, the use of the particle /-i/ indicates that the speaker holds responsibility for the truth of the proposition of her/his statement and guarantees the same. So the epistemic knowledge and belief of the speaker about whatever s/he is saying is certified and emphasized when the particle /-i/ is used, but not so when simply the morphemes like udhu are used. So it is not just the sense of exclusion but also the certainty which is required to trigger a presupposition.

Returning back to our discussion on what presuppositions are triggered by both the emphatic clitics /-o/ and /-i/, we find that 13a and 13b form a group in a sense that the clitics are added to the nominal subject NP John. Similarly, 13c and 13d form another group whereby the object NP Peter is the base to which the clitics are added. Thus, both the emphatic particles /-o/ and /-i/ give rise to cleft constructions2 and make the host or base (to which it is added) the focal element or topic (see Halvorsen, 1978; Levinson, 1983). Accordingly, the presuppositions also change. Irrespective of the type of clitic, if we consider only the emphasis which is the basis of clefting or topicalization we find that since the emphasis falls on John in 13a and 13b, so the presupposition comes out as in 14a, while for 13c and 13d with Peter as the focal element we find the presupposition as in 14b. (14a). Someone has killed Peter. (14b). John has killed someone. Nevertheless, the individual particles based upon their characteristic meanings also give rise to distinct presuppositions beyond the general ones in 14a and 14b. The presence of the particle /-o/ in 13a and 13c gives rise to two additional presuppositions, one for each, respectively as in 15 and 16 below. (15a). (15b). (15c). (15d). Assertion: Entailment: Presupposition P1: Presupposition P2: John too has killed Peter. Peter is dead. ( this is true iff 15a is true) Someone killed Peter. (as per 14a). Someone else also killed Peter = more than one agent did it.

This second presupposition P2 (pertaining to 13a) arises not due to clefting, not due to emphasis but due to the characteristic semantic value or pragmatic function of the particle /-o/ viz. that of enhancing the number of participants in a situation or state of affairs. The same can be verified for 13c as in 16 below.
2

These cleft sentences are not implicit cleft constructions like English where due to acute accent stressed constituents become focal elements. Although the Bengali particles /-o/ and /-i/ attract the principal stress accent or emphatic stress (see Bhattacharya, 1988) of the whole statement, their very own presence shows that they are explicit cleft markers.

(16a). (16b). (16c). (16d).

Assertion: Entailment: Presupposition P3: Presupposition P4:

John has killed Peter too. Peter is dead. ( this is true iff 16a is true) John has killed someone. (as per 14b). John has killed someone else also = more than one patient.

Thus P4 arises only because of the particle /-o/ attached to the object NP Peter which hints or presupposes that there are definitely some other persons or at least one person or entity other than Peter upon whom or upon which the action took place, i.e. whom/which John has killed. Do these secondary presuppositions like P2 or P4 arise or survive for the statements in 13b and 13d? No, they dont. So far as the epistemic domain of the speaker of a statement extends, it is a fact or valid truth as per the epistemic knowledge or view of the speaker that in 13b there is no other participant save John in the role of Agent who performs the act of killing ; and in 13d there is no other participant save Peter in the role of Patient/ Theme who gets acted upon in the act of killing. Therefore, secondary presuppositions like P2 or P4 simply do not arise as the very presence of the particle /-i/ pre-empts the possibility of any other entity being involved in the concerned state of affairs except for the host entity or focal element to which /-i/ is suffixed. Thus we find a difference in the presuppositional behavior of /-o/ and /-i/. So far we have dealt with affirmative sentences or statements, now in the following let us see whether this inclusion-exclusion contrast holds for negative sentences as well. (17a). k on ae ni one person come-perf not one person has not come (17b). k on- o ae ni one person too come-perf not even one person has not come = none has come (17c). k on- i ae ni one person only come-perf not only one person has not come = all but one have come In 17a no emphatic particle has been used and it is a very common and natural statement acceptable to any native speaker of Bengali. In 17b and 17c emphasis is introduced by the use of the particles /-o/ and /-i/ respectively. The literal meaning of 17b and 17c are somewhere eddying around the literal meaning of 17a, but these two have more descriptive content than 17a and this requires analysis. 17b gives the literal sense not even one person is included in the list of those who have come. 17c gives the literal sense only one (and no other) person is excluded from the list of those who have come.

17a is different from 17c in a way that there remains a possibility for 17a that there might be other people (more than one) who have not come, but this possibility is not present for 17c where the range of persons who have not come is restricted only to one individual. If we are to represent these in terms of formal semantics and quantifiers3, we would get the formulations below as in 18a,b,c each corresponding to 17a,b,c respectively. For A = [ a- ] Verb to come

(18a). x ( ~ A(x) ) there is at least one x for which it is true that x is not A, i.e. x has not come. (18b). ~ x ( A(x) )

there is not even one x for which it is true that x is A, i.e. no x has come.

(18c). x ( ~ A(x) & ~ y ( A(y) )) there is at least one entity x for which it is true that x is not A, i.e. x has not come, and there is no other entity y such that y is A, i.e. no y has come. 18c might be represented in a different way in 18d without using quantifiers (18d). if [ P(x) ] = T ( true) then [ P (y) T, for (x,y) P

Thus 18d is to be read as: for any predicate P if x is P is true, then y is (also) P is not true, for all x and y being elements of P. Thus, x and only x (and no other entity y) is P.

3.3

The discourse behavior of the enclitics

We had begun discussing this article alluding the interrelatedness of presuppositional behavior and discourse function. So we need to clarify as to whether the enclitic particles discussed so far have any discourse function besides having presuppositional functions.

3.3.1

Substitution and Elision

In 3.1 pertaining to the example in 10, the point has already been raised that in 10B ami-o and to be more precise, the particle /-o/ can perform the discourse function of substitution (and hence elision) of a major part of the original statement 10A. Let us find out if the same holds true for the other enclitic /-i/ as in the dialogue in 19 below:

A different account of quantifier raising in association with the emphatic clitics /-o/ and /-i/ can be found in Bayer & Lahiri (1990).

19A.

tomader moddhe John ke ______ raised intonation for question You-plu-gen amongst John who? Who out of you all is John? ami- ______________________ diphthong formed, hence semi-vowel [] I only I certainly/ indeed I (am)

19B.

However, in a similar discourse or dialogue as given above a native Bengali speaker would not usually utter 19B but would rather simply utter ami without any emphasis unless required to distinguish oneself from any other person named John in this particular discourse context. So let us reformulate in 20 the dialogue in 19 and expand the context (a receptionist R calling the names of candidates C1 , C2 etc. for an interview) to incorporate more naturalness and explore as to when and how the emphatics /-o/ and /-i/ are generally used. tomader moddhe John ke You-plu-gen amongst John who? Who out of you all is John? ami I I (am) ami- o I too I am also (John) John Smith ke John Smith who? Who (of you is) John Smith? ami- I only I certainly/ indeed I (am) and none else

20a.

R:

20b.

C1:

20c.

C2:

20d.

R:

20e.

C1:

Therefore from 20c and 20e we can infer that substitution along with elision is not the prerogative of only the emphatic particle /-o/ but even /-i/. Here in 20e the particle /-i/ substitutes the part [holam John Smith] am John Smith of the otherwise full expression [ami holam John Smith] I am John Smith. However, we find that unless there is a condition for the exclusion of other probable candidates, the enclitic /-i/ is not to be used at random (as in 19B).

3.3.2 Endophora Van der Sandt (1992) raises a very important argument in his paper Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution whereby he suggests that presuppositions behave like any other anaphoric expression and creates an antecedent in case discourse does not provide one.. This is where the role of the emphatic particles both as presuppositional triggers and as discourse markers comes into play. Since the particle /-o/ generates or triggers a secondary presupposition like P2 or P4 as described above in 3.2, whereby it includes the possibility of the participation of another individual in the state of affairs expressed by the predicate, it simultaneously compels the reader to search for that additional individual somewhere in the text or discourse under consideration. Thus the enclitic /-o/ leads to anaphora if a co-referential NP is present somewhere earlier in the text. If a piece of text begins with a statement containing a word-form suffixed with the enclitic /-o/ then the reader would find no chance of anaphoric resolution, but might sooner or later encounter the co-referential NP which would then lead to cataphora. However, this is rarer and less expected than anaphoric behaviour of words having the particle /-o/ in Bengali texts. These things are speculative and require thorough textual analysis for justification, giving which is beyond the scope of the current work. Whats worth noticing here is that the emphatic particle /-i/ however does not necessarily lead to endophoric relations. In contexts like those of 13b and 13d the reader would not immediately look out for any other plausible candidate other than John in 13b or Peter in 13d even if the contexts had been wider in each. However, the opposite is true for 13a and 13c. Nevertheless, in 20 we find that 20e has a kind of inherent semantic as well as structural relation to 20c not just because both are statements from the same speaker or interviewee C1 but because in 20e the emphatic particle /-i/ adds a considerable amount of emphasis or definiteness and hence enhances the truth or validity or factuality of the proposition of the statement in 20c. Thus according to various scholars the article the in English leads to such definiteness and hence is a presuppositional trigger a similar role is played by the emphatic particle /-i/. Therefore, only when the context (as in 20 and unlike that in 13) requires through the use of the particle /-i/ an overt distinction and exclusive selection of one out of multiple probable entities, such anaphora arises, otherwise no endophoric cohesive relation is established between the word suffixed with the particle /-i/ and other words or phrases without the clitic /-i/.

4.

Conclusion

In the above sections we have explored the differential functioning and behavior of the bound emphatic particles or clitics /-o/ and /-i/ and although they seem to exhibit similar pragmatic (presuppositional), semantic and discourse behavior they have their own subtle disparities. Another important morphosyntactic behavior of these particles which must have been recognized by scholars at large is that the two particles are mutually exclusive. The occurrence of one preempts the possibility of occurrence of the other in the same word or phrase boundary, but can allow its occurrence in another word or phrase in the same clause. This behavior arises only because of the semantico-pragmatic incompatibility of the two clitics one denotes inclusion while another denotes exclusion. Lastly, so far as cleft constructions and associated presuppositions are concerned, we find itclefts, wh-clefts and also stressed constituents all of which lead to the creation of a focal element, we find the same phenomenon here in Bengali, the role being played by the emphatic particles which carry both the emphatic accent or stress as well as the semantic emphasis.

Appendix (list of abbreviations)

acc = accusative case (or objective case or dative case) recognized as oblique case in Bengali = future tense = genitive case (also oblique case) = locative case (also oblique) = Noun Phrase = perfective aspect = plural number

fut gen loc NP perf plu

References and Further Reading

Amsili, Pascal & Beyssade, Claire (2010), Obligatory presupposition in discourse. In Peter Khnlein, Anton Benz and Candace L. Sidner (eds.), Constraints in Discourse 2. V, 180. 105124. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides (1998), The semantics and pragmatics of presupposition. Journal of Semantics 15: 239299. Atlas, Jay and Stephen C. Levinson (1981), It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. Academic Press. New York. 1-61. Bayer, Josef & Aditi Lahiri (1990), Bengali emphatic clitics in the lexicon-syntax interface. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschtzky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and John R. Rennison, (eds.) Contemporary Morphology 49. Berlin, New York (De Gruyter Mouton). 3-16. Beaver, David (2001), Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Studies in Logic, Language and Information. CA: CSLI Publications. Stanford. Bhattacharya, Krishna (1988), Bengali Phonetic Reader. CIIL. Mysore. Reprint 2000. Bhattacharya, Krishna (1993), Bengali-Oriya Verb Morphology. Dasgupta & Co. Calcutta. Brown, Gillian & George Yule (1983), Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Cann, Ronnie (1993), Formal Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Chimombo, Moria P.F. & Robert L. Roseberry (1998), The Power of Discourse: An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc. New Jersey. Dasgupta, Probal. (1984), Bangla emphasizers and anchors. Indian Linguistics 45: 1-4. 102-117. Dijk, Teun A. van (1976), Text and Context: Exploration into the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. Longman. London. Gazdar Gerald. (1979), Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical form. Academic Press. New York. Green, Georgia M. (1968), On too and either, and not just too and either, either. In CLS (Chicago Linguistics Society) 4: 2239. Grice, Herbert P. (1975), Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, and J. Morgan, (eds.) Syntax and semantics 3. Academic Press. New York. Grice, Herbert P. (1981), Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics. Academic Press. New York. Grundy, Peter. (2000), Doing Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. London. Halliday, Michael A.K & Ruqaiya Hasan (1976), Cohesion in English. Longman. London. Halliday, Michael A.K & Ruqaiya Hasan (1991), Language Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Halvorsen, Per-Kristian (1978), The syntax and semantics of cleft constructions. Texas Linguistic Forum 11. University of Texas. Dept. Of Linguistics. Austin. Hawkins, John A. (1978), Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference And Grammaticality Production. Croom Helm. London. Heim, Irene (1991), Artikel und Definitheit. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch des zeitgenssischen Forschung. de Gruyter. Berlin. 487 535. Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle (1993), From Discourse to Logic. The Netherlands: Kluwer. Dordrecht. Kaplan, Jeffrey P. (1984), Obligatory too in English. Language 60(3): 510518. Karttunen, Lauri (1973), Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4. Krifka, Manfred (1999), Additive particles under stress. In Proceedings of SALT 8. Cornell. CLC Publications. 111128. Levinson, Stephen C. (1983), Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Lyons, John. (1979), Deixis and Anaphora. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh. Sb, Kjell J. (2004), Conversational contrast and conventional parallel: Topic implicatures and additive presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 21(2): 199217. Sandt, Rob A. van der (1992), Presupposition projection as anaphora resolution. Journal of Semantics 9: 333 378. Zeevat, Henk (2002), Explaining presupposition triggers. In K. van Deemter & R. Kibble (eds.), Information Sharing. CSLI Publications. 6187.

Zeevat, Henk (2003), Particles: Presupposition triggers, context markers or speech act markers. In R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. Palgrave-McMillan. London. 91 111.