Cover not available
Part of
Pragmatic Markers, Discourse Markers and Modal Particles: New perspectives
Edited by Chiara Fedriani and Andrea Sansó
[Studies in Language Companion Series 186] 2017
► pp. 289–304

Chapter 10
Paths of development of English DMs

(Inter)subjectification, deontic reversal and other stories

 | University of Innsbruck
Starting from notions of conversational dominance as a locus for face-work, and of the crucial role of specific language items in managing conflict and (dis)agreement in dialogue, the paper will look at some case studies in the development and pragmaticalization stages of various English Discourse Markers (such as now, pray, please, I’m afraid, and well). Beginning with the source forms, the paper will discuss the gradual emergence of subjective and intersubjective meanings, as well as the phenomenon of layering and the tendency toward the development of deontic meanings that some English discourse markers show, possibly indicating a form of cyclical development of functions. The specific case studies presented include both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective.
Keywords: intersubjectivity, politeness, reversal, face-threat, mitigation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Common trends in the development of English DMs
  • 3.Two case studies
  • 4.Further evidence
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.186.11maz
References (39)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers. A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Barron, Anne. 2008. The structure of requests in Irish English and English English. In Variational Pragmatics. A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 178], Klaus P. Schneider & Anne Barron (eds), 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey N., Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolly, Catherine & Degand, Liesbeth. 2013. Have you seen what I mean? From verbal constructions to discourse markers. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14(2): 210–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions [Topics in English Linguistics 19]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development [Studies in English Language]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Discourse markers. In Handbook of Pragmatics: Historical Pragmatics [HoPS8], Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 285–317. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia & Arnovick, Leslie. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and Discursisation. In Handbook of Pragmatics: Historical Pragmatics [HoPS8], Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 165–192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Costăchescu, Adriana. 2014. On disagreement markers in French and Romanian Dialogue. In Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages [Oxford Studies in Diachronic & Historical Linguistics 9], Chiara Ghezzi & Piera Molinelli (eds), 41–60. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offense. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Defour, Tine. 2008. The speaker’s voice: A diachronic study on the use of well and now as pragmatic markers. English Text Construction 1(1): 62–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1): 50–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2006. Towards a theory of discourse markers. In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 189–204. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara. 2014. The development of discourse and pragmatic markers. In Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages [Oxford Studies in Diachronic & Historical Linguistics 9], Chiara Ghezzi & Piera Molinelli (eds), 10–26. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara & Molinelli, Piera. 2014a. Deverbal pragmatic markers from Latin to Italian (Lat. QUAESO and It. prego): The cyclic nature of functional developments. In Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages [Oxford Studies in Diachronic & Historical Linguistics 9], Chiara Ghezzi & Piera Molinelli (eds), 61–85. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b. Discourse and pragmatic markers from Latin to the Romance Languages: New insights. In Discourse and pragmatic markers from Latin to the Romance Languages [Oxford Studies in Diachronic & Historical Linguistics 9], Chiara Ghezzi & Piera Molinelli (eds), 1–9. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2013. On discourse markers. Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization or something else? Linguistics 51(6): 1205–1247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itakura, Hiroko. 2001. Describing conversational dominance. Journal of Pragmatics 33(12): 1859–1880. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and Other Languages. København: A. F. Høst & Søn.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 2010. Data in historical pragmatics. In Handbook of Pragmatics: Historical Pragmatics [HoPS8], Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 33–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26(1): 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Livescu, Michaela. 2014. Mă rog: A pragmatic marker in Romanian. In Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages [Oxford Studies in Diachronic & Historical Linguistics 9], Chiara Ghezzi & Piera Molinelli (eds), 86–108. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. 2004. Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Handbook of Pragmatics: Historical Pragmatics [HoPS8], Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 127–163. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lutzky, Ursula. 2012. Discourse Markers in Early Modern English [Pragmatics & beyond New Series 227]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lutzky, Ursula & Demmen, Jane. 2013. ‘Pray’ in early modern English drama. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14(2): 263–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzon, Gabriella. 2012a. I’m afraid I’ll have to stop now… Your time is up, I’m afraid. Corpus studies and the development of attitudinal markers. In Developing Corpus Methodology for Historical Pragmatics [Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English Volume 11], Carla Suhr & Irma Taavitsainen (eds). Available (20 Feb 2015) at: <[URL]>
. 2012b. Now what? The analysis of Middle English discourse markers and advances in historical dialogue studies. In The Use and Development of Middle English [Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 38], Richard Dance & Laura Wright (eds), 61–86. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Murphy, James. 2014. Apologies in the Discourse of Politicians: A Pragmatic Approach. PhD Thesis, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
. 2015. How politicians use ‘I’m sorry’ to position themselves as not being sorry. Paper given at the 14th IPrA Conference, Antwerp, 26–31 July 2015.
Nevala, Minna. 2010. Politeness. In Handbook of Pragmatics: Historical Pragmatics [HoPS8], Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 419–450. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Perspectives on Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 24], Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds), 245–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeh Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. Grammaticalization. In Handbook of Pragmatics: Historical Pragmatics [HoPS8], Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 97–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97]. Cambridge: CUPGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs & König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, 2 Vols, [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 189–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johann. 2009. The Jespersen Cycles. In Cyclical Change [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 146], Elly van Gelderen (ed.), 35–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Dendenne, Boudjemaa
2023. “Shut up! Don’t say that! You’ve got to say ḤASHĀKEM!” The pragmatics of Ḥashāk and its variants in colloquial Algerian Arabic. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 19:1 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Ping & Huiying Liu
2023. “So What Are You, a Telephone?”: Emotion Management in Complaint Responses in BELF Phone Interactions. In Advancing (Im)politeness Studies [Advances in (Im)politeness Studies, ], ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Mazzon, Gabriella
2019. Variation in the expression of stance across varieties of English. World Englishes 38:4 ► pp. 593 ff. DOI logo
Fedriani, Chiara
2017.  Quapropter, quaeso? ‘Why, for pity’s sake?’. In Pragmatic Approaches to Latin and Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series, 190], ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 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.