The role of discourse strategies in the grammaticalization of the Japanese discourse marker dakara
The present study examines the diachronic development of the Japanese discourse marker dakara ‘so’ from the perspective of grammaticalization with a special focus on the role of discursive strategy in its semantic-pragmatic meaning change. Stemming from the adverbial phrase soredakara ‘because it is so’, dakara originally emerged as a causal connective that introduces a consequence. Subsequently, it gained several non-causal uses, i.e. the point-making use that refers back to what has been said or inferable in the discourse to stress the point that the speaker has been trying to make, the point-clarification use that points out that the preceding interlocutor’s statements need more elaboration, and the point-denying use that indicates the speaker’s opposition to the interlocutor’s claim. Among the new non-causal uses, it is found that the point-making use emerged from the retrospective use of causality as a result of employing the discourse strategy of justification in argumentative discourse, while the point-clarification and the point-denying uses arose due to its use as a device for delaying disagreement. It is argued that these new uses developed because the expression was repeatedly used for these two discourse strategies and over time the readings associated with these contexts became conventionalized and turned into the expression’s encoded meaning. This low-level generalization seems to better explain the process of grammaticalization than the high-level generalization of (inter)subjectivity for the developments of dakara.
Article outline
-
1.Introduction
- 2.Research data
- 3.The diachronic distribution of the four categories of use
- 4.Diachronic analysis: Explaining the change from the grammaticalization perspective
- 4.1Form change
- 4.1.1Morphophonological erosion
- 4.1.2Decategorialization and paradigmaticization
- 4.2Meaning change
- 4.2.1Extension to the Retrospective Causal use
- 4.2.2Extension to the Point-making use
- 4.2.3Extension to the Intersubjective use
- 4.2.4Summary of the semantic-pragmatic context expansions of DAKARA
- 5.Discussion and conclusion
- Notes
- Abbreviations
-
Data source list
-
References
References (109)
Data source list
Published book
A. Nakano, Mitsutoshi & Maeda, Ai & Jibō, Kazuya (eds.). 2000. Sharebon, kokkeibon, nijōbon [Pleasure-quarter stories, humorous stories, and sentimental stories]. Tokyo: Shōgakukan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Digital archives
B. Aozora bunko [Blue sky library]: [URL] (Last accessed 2016-07-22.)
C. Denshi bungei-kan [The Japan P.E.N. club digital library]: [URL] (Last accessed 2016-07-22.)
References
Altenberg, Bengt. 1984. Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica 38(1). 20–69. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Altenberg, Bengt. 2002. Concessive connectors in English and Swedish. In Hasselgård, Hilde & Johansson, Stig & Behrens, Bergljot & Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 21–43. Amsterdam: Rodopi. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, Mira. 1988. Retrieving propositions from context: Why and how. Journal of Pragmatics 12(5–6). 567–600. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility in text and text processing. In Sanders, Ted & Schilperoord, Joost & Spooren, Wilbert (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baba, Toshiomi. 2005. Gyakusetsu no setsuzokushi/setsuzoku goku [On the adversative connectives]. In The National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (ed.), Zasshi “Taiyō” ni yoru kakuritsuki gendaigo no kenkyū [Research on the formative era of contemporary Japanese based on the Taiyo Corpus], 173–191. Tokyo: Hakubunkan Shinsha.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne. 2000. Usage based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cook, Haruko Minegishi. 1990. An indexical account of the Japanese sentence-final particle no
. Discourse Processes 13(4). 401–439. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Detges, Ulrich. 2006. From speaker to subject: The obligatorization of the Old French subject pronouns. In Andersen, Hanne Leth & Birkelund, Merete & Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (eds.), La linguistique au coeur. Valence verbale, grammaticalisation et corpus: Mélanges offerts à Lene Schøsler à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire [Linguistics in the heart. Verbal valence, grammaticalization and corpus: A collection of papers in honor of Lene Schøsler on the occasion of her 60th birthday] (University of Southern Denmark Studies in Literature 48), 75–103. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Diessel, Holger. 2014. Usage-based linguistics. Oxford University Press. ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-12-24.) ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Diessel, Holger & Hetterle, Katja. 2011. Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning, and use. In Siemund, Peter (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation, 23–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Doi, Yōichi. 1984. -keredomo [but]. In Matsumura, Akira (ed.), Kotengo/gendaigo joshi jodōshi shōsetsu [Classical/Modern Japanese summary of particles and auxiliaries], 5th edn., 415–420. Tokyo: Gakutōsha.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies 6(4). 427–448. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ford, Cecilia E. 2000. The treatment of contrasts in interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 283–311. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gohl, Christine. 2000. Causal relations in spoken discourse: Asyndetic constructions as a means for giving reason. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 83–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Günthner, Susanne. 2000. From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 439–468. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Habein, Yaeko Sato. 1984. The history of the Japanese written language. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hasunuma, Akiko. 1991. Taiwa ni okeru “dakara” no kinō. Himeji Dokkyō Daigaku Gaikokugo Gakubu Kiyō [The Journal of the College of Foreign Languages Himeji Dokkyo University] 41. 137–153.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko. 2010. Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 401–423. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John. 1988. Explanations as accounts: A conversational analytic perspective. In Antaki, Charles (ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods, 127–144. London: SAGE.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, John & Raymond, Geoffrey. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15–38. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Higashiizumi, Yuko. 2015. Periphery of utterances and (inter)subjectification in Modern Japanese: A case study of competing causal conjunctions and connective particles. In Smith, Andrew D. M. & Trousdale, Graeme & Waltereit, Richard (eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, 135–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization?: A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 11, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoye, Leo Francis. 2008. Evidentiality in discourse: A pragmatic and empirical account. In Romero-Trillo, Jesús (ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente, 151–174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Im, Jae-eun. 2011. The Korean discourse marker kulenikka: A panchronic study. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. (Doctoral dissertation.)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ito, Kiwako. 2002. The interaction of focus and lexical pitch accent in speech production and dialogue comprehension: Evidence from Japanese and Basque. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Doctoral dissertation.)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jackson, Sally & Jacobs, Scott. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(3). 251–265. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jacobs, Andreas & Jucker, Andreas H. 1995. The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English, 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kamio, Akio. 1994. The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 21(1). 67–100. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Karatsu, Mariko. 1995. A functional analysis of dewa, dakara, and shikashi in conversation. Japanese Discourse 11. 107–130.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Katō, Kaoru. 1995. “Gen’in/riyū” o ukenai “dakara”: “Dakara” no shutai-teki sokumen no tosshutsu [“Dakara” used as “cause/reason”: Prominence of the subjective aspect of “dakara”]. Waseda Nihongo Kenkyū [Waseda Japanese Language Study] 31. 14–31.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kim, Ahrim. 2015. Utterance-final -ketun in spoken Korean: A particle for managing information structure in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 881. 27–54. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kim, Alan Hyun-Oak. 2011. Rhetorical questions as catalyst in grammaticalization: Deriving Korean discourse marker KETUN from conditional connective. Journal of Pragmatics 43(4). 1023–1041. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kitahara, Yasuo. 2000. Nihon kokugo daijiten [The comprehensive dictionary of the Japanese language]. 2nd edn. Tokyo: Shogakukan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2000. Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 341–360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Konishi, Izumi. 2003. Kaiwa ni okeru “dakara” no kinō kakuchō: Bunpō kinō to danwa kinō no setten [The function extension of dakara in Japanese conversation]. Shakai Gengo Kagaku [The Japanese Journal of Language in Society] 6(1). 61–73.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kyōgoku, Okikazu & Matsui, Eiichi. 1972. Setsuzokushi no hensen [Change in conjunctions]. In Suzuki, Kazuhiko. & Hayashi, Ōki (eds.), Hinshibetsu Nihon bunpō kōza [Japanese grammar lecture on parts of speech], 89–136. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lang, Ewald. 2000. Adversative connectors on distinct levels of discourse: A re-examination of Eve Sweetser’s three-level approach. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 235–256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20(3). 303–319.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lewis, Diana M. 2003. Rhetorical motivations for the emergence of discourse particles, with special reference to English of course
. In van der Wouden, Ton & Foolen, Ad & Van de Craen, Piet (eds.), Particles (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16), 79–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
López-Couso, María José. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 127–163. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maekawa, Kikuko. 1997. Effects of focus on duration and vowel formant frequency in Japanese. In Sagisaka, Yoshinori & Campbell, Nick & Higuchi, Norio (eds.), Computing prosody: Computational models for processing spontaneous speech, 129–153. New York: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matsumoto, Yo. 1988. From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives. In Axmaker, Shelley & Jaisser, Annie & Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 340–351. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Matsumoto, Yo. 1998. Semantic change in the grammaticalization of verbs into postpositions in Japanese. In Ōhori, Toshio (ed.), Studies in Japanese grammaticalization: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 25–60. Tokyo: Kuroshio.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mauri, Caterina & Sansò, Andrea. 2011. How directive constructions emerge: Grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3489–3521. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maynard, Senko K. 1992. Cognitive and pragmatic messages of a syntactic choice: The case of the Japanese commentary predicate n(o) da
. Text 12(4). 563–613. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maynard, Senko K. 1996. Contrastive rhetoric: A case of nominalization in Japanese and English discourse. Language Sciences 18(3–4). 933–946. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mori, Junko. 1994. Functions of the connective datte in Japanese conversation. In Akatsuka, Noriko (ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 41, 147–163. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mori, Junko. 1996. Historical change of the Japanese connective datte: Its form and functions. In Akatsuka, Noriko & Iwasaki, Shoichi & Strauss, Susan (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 51, 201–218. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nakano, Mitsutoshi & Maeda, Ai & Jibō, Kazuya (eds.). 2000. Sharebon, kokkeibon, nijōbon [Pleasure-quarter stories, humorous stories, and sentimental stories]. Tokyo: Shōgakukan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Narrog, Heiko. 2015. (Inter)subjectification and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language Sciences 471. 148–160. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nihongo Kijutsu-bunpoo Kenkyuukai [Japanese Descriptive Grammar Research Group]. 2003. Gendai Nihongo bunpoo 7: Danwa/taigu hyogen [Modern Japanese grammar 7: Conversation/intersubjective expression]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Okamoto, Shin’ichirō & Tamon, Yasuyo. 1998. Danwa ni okeru dakara no shoyōhō [Uses of dakara in discourse]. Nihongo Kyōiku [Journal of Japanese Language Teaching] 981. 49–60.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ōtsuka, Mariko. 2007. Kochakugo ni okeru bun no bunpōka ni kansuru ichi kōsatsu: Nihongo/Kankokugo no riyū o arawasu setsuzokushi “dakara” “geureonikka” no imi keisei katei ni tsuite [Evolution of clause combining processes in agglutinative languages: A case of Japanese ‘dakara’ and Korean ‘geureonikka’ as causal conjunctions]. Nihon Ninchi Gengo Gakkai ronbunshū [Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association], vol. 71, 182–192. Tokyo: Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984a. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984b. Pursuing a response. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 152–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Raevaara, Liisa. 2011. Accounts at convenience stores: Doing dispreference and small talk. Journal of Pragmatics 43(2). 556–571. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ren, Li & Yi, Hu. 2010. Danwa no tenkai ni okeru “dakara” no kinō [Function of connective dakara in progressive discourse]. Kokusai Nihongogaku Ronsō [Journal of International Japanese Studies] 71. 47–85.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rhee, Seongha. 2015. On the emergence of Korean markers of agreement. Journal of Pragmatics 831. 10–26. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail & Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2). 361–382. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schwenter, Scott A. 1998. From hypothetical to factual and beyond: Refutational si-clauses in Spanish conversation. In Koenig, Jean-Pierre (ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, 423–435. Stanford: CSLI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schwenter, Scott A. & Waltereit, Richard. 2010. Presupposition accommodation and language change. In Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 66), 75–102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Smirnova, Elena. 2015. When secondary grammaticalization starts: A look from the constructional perspective. Language Sciences 471. 215–228. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. New York: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taavitsainen, Irma & Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2007. Historical pragmatics: What it is and how to do it. In Fitzmaurice, Susan & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Methods in historical pragmatics, 11–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taavitsainen, Irma & Jucker, Andreas H. 2010. Trends and developments in historical pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 3–30. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Takada, Hiroyuki & Shiina, Michi & Onodera, Noriko O. 2011. Rekishi goyōron no kiso chishiki [Basic knowledge for historical pragmatics]. In Takada, Hiroyuki & Shiina, Michi & Onodera, Noriko O. (eds.), Rekishi goyōron nyūmon: Kako no komyunikēshon o fukugen suru [Introduction to historical pragmatics], 5–44. Tokyo: Taishukan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tanizaki, Kazuyo. 1994. Danwa hyōshiki ni tsuite no kōsatsu: “Dakara” o chūshin ni [An analysis of the Japanese discourse marker dakara
]. Ōsaka Daigaku Gengobunkagaku [Osaka University Journal of Language and Culture] 31. 79–93.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. Subjectification in grammticalisation. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond, Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. “All that he endeavoured to prove was …”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. In Cooper, Robin & Kempson, Ruth (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010a. Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In Cloutier, Robert A. & Hamilton-Brehm, Anne Marie & Kretzschmar Jr., William A. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language V: Variation and change in English grammar and lexicon: Contemporary approaches, 11–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010b. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 66), 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Twine, Nanette. 1991. Language and the modern state: The reform of written Japanese. New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Dijk, Teun A. 1977. Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Dijk, Teun A. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3(5). 447–456. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
von Mengden, Ferdinand & Coussé, Evie. 2014. Introduction: The role of change in usage-based conceptions of language. In Coussé, Evie & von Mengden, Ferdinand (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change, 1–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Waltereit, Richard. 2006. The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 61–76. Amsterdam: Elsevier.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Waltereit, Richard & Detges, Ulrich. 2007. Different functions, different histories: Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 61. 61–80. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wang, Chueh-chen & Huang, Lillian M. 2006. Grammaticalization of connectives in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Language and Linguistics 7(4). 991–1016.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wang, Yan. 2007. A functional study of the final particle mono in Japanese conversational discourse. The Linguistics Journal 2(1). 162–183.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Yajima, Masahiro. 2011. Jikanteki/kūkanteki hikaku o jiku ni shita kinsei-go bunpōshi kenkyū: Soredakara-rui no goi-ka o rei to shite [A study of the Early Modern Japanese grammar based on time/space comparisons]. In Kanazawa, Hiroyuki & Yajima, Masahiro (eds.), Kinseigo kenkyū no pāsupekuthibu gengobunka o dō toraeru ka [Perspective of the early modern Japanese language: How to recognize our language and culture], 56–82. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Shan, Yi
2021.
Investigating the Interaction Between Prosody and Pragmatics Quantitatively: A Case Study of the Chinese Discourse Marker ni zhidao (“You Know”).
Frontiers in Psychology 12
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.