Cover not available
Part of
New Trends in Grammaticalization and Language Change
Edited by Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban and José Vicente Lozano
[Studies in Language Companion Series 202] 2018
► pp. 23–54

Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization?

| University of Cologne
Grammaticalization as a framework of linguistic analysis developed a fairly stable format in the course of the 1980s and 1990s (Lehmann 1982; Heine & Reh 1984; Traugott & Heine 1991a, 1991b; Heine et al. 1991; Hopper & Traugott 1993; Bybee et al. 1994; Haspelmath 1999). Around the turn of the century one of the basic principles of the framework, namely the unidirectionality hypothesis, was challenged (e.g., Newmeyer 1998), leading to refinements of the hypothesis (e.g., Norde 2009).
A more dramatic challenge arose when the framework was extended to the analysis of discourse markers and related discourse material, which suggests that grammaticalization approaches are hard-pressed when applied to such material. Two main kinds of solutions were proposed. On the one hand, it was argued that the grammaticalization framework is inadequate to account for the development of discourse markers. On the other hand, an expanded notion of grammaticalization was proposed (see Degand & Evers-Vermeul 2015 for an overview of this research). That there is need to distinguish two different approaches to grammaticalization is propounded in detail by Traugott and Trousdale (2013: 99–112).
The main concern of the present paper is to determine the status of grammaticalization studies in light of recent work on discourse markers. It is argued that the justification for distinguishing two kinds of approaches to grammaticalization is questionable. Drawing attention to the cognitive-communicative principle of cooptation, the paper suggests that the development of discourse markers and related metatextual material cannot be reduced to effects of grammaticalization of any kind.
Keywords: cooptation, discourse marker, grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, thetical, unidirectionality
Article outline
  • 1.Discourse markers: A problem for grammaticalization
  • 2.Two approaches to grammaticalization
    • 2.1Reduction vs. expansion
    • 2.2Problems with the GR/GE distinction
    • 2.3Conclusions
  • 3.Problematic features of discourse markers
    • 3.1Movement outside of the morphosyntax of a sentence
    • 3.2From prosodically integrated to non-integrated status
    • 3.3From meaning as part of a sentence to metatextual function
    • 3.4From restricted structural scope to scope beyond the sentence
    • 3.5Conclusion
  • 4.A two-stage scenario
    • 4.1Discourse markers as theticals
    • 4.2Grammaticalization
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.202.02hei
References (159)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think – an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen-Westvik (eds), 1–47. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arroyo, José Luis Blas. 2011. From politeness to discourse marking: The process of pragmaticalization of muy bien in vernacular Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 855–874.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter & Günthner, Susanne. 2005. Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen: Ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen [Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 9], Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmans & Sarah De Groodt (eds), 335–362. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backus, Angus. 1996. Two in One. Bilingual Speech of Turkisch Immigrants in the Netherlands. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Beijering, Karin. 2012. Expressions of Epistemic Modality in Mainland Scandinavian: A Study into the Lexicalization-grammaticalization-pragmaticalization Interface. PhD dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 99]. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blass, Regina 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special Reference to Sissala. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kerstin & Vincent, Nigel. 2011. Grammaticalization and directionality. In Narrog & Heine (eds), 162–176.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel & Walkden, George. 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3): 363–382.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88: 1–44.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
2001. From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2(2): 177–199.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. In Methods in Historical Pragmatics, Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 37–80. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2005. Parentheticals. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd edition, volume 9, 179–182. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Pagliuca, William. 1985. Cross linguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. In Historical Semantics – Historical Word-formation [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 29], Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 59–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William & Perkins, Revere Dale. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott & Heine (eds), Vol. 2, 17–58.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere Dale & Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chen, Jiajun 2015. The genesis and development of vio ka (‘don’t say’) in Shanghainese. Ms, Singapore.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia & Arnovick, Leslie. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discursisation. In Historical Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics 8], Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 165–192. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette G. 1991. Ways to go in Rama: A case study in polygrammaticalization. In Traugott & Heine (eds), Vol. 2, 455–492.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2003. Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1): 59–85.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Fagard, Benjamin. 2011. Alors between discourse and grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18(1): 29–56.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2011. Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics. 49(2): 287–294.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole 2014. Parentheticals in Spoken English: The Syntax-Prosody Relation. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Kavalova, Yordanka (eds). 2007. Parentheticals [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 106]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona. 2010. On the status of discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57(1): 3–28.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona & Marko, Alexandra. 2010. A pilot study of Hungarian discourse markers.Language and Speech 53(2): 135–180.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Waltereit, Richard. 2007. Different functions, different histories: Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 61–81.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011a. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Narrog & Heine (eds.), 450–461.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49(2): 365–390.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions [Functional Grammar Series 21]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Do-Hurinville, Thành & Hancil, Sylvie. 2015. La transcatégorialité à travers les langues. Ms, University of Rouen.Google Scholar
Dostie, Gaetane. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et Marqueurs Discursifs: Analyse Sémantique et Traitement Lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Discourse markers and regional variation in French: A lexico-semantic approach. In Sociolinguistic Variation in Contemporary French, Kate Beeching, Nigel Armstrong & Francoise Gadet (eds), 201–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba and you know . Studier i Modern Sprakvetenskap 10: 76–92.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67: 726–762.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2007. Morphosyntactic Change. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Flores-Ferrán, Nydia 2014. So pues entonces: An examination of bilingual discourse markers in Spanish oral narratives of personal experience of New York City-born Puerto Ricans. Sociolinguistic Studies 8(1): 57–83.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Approaches to Discourse Particles [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 395–413. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7): 931–952.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furkó, Bálint Péter. 2005. The Pragmatic Marker: Discourse Marker Dichotomy Reconsidered: The Case of well and of course. PhD dissertation, Bölcsészettudományi Kar, Debreceni Egyetem.Google Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna & Hopper, Paul J. (eds). 1998. The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 37]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394–415.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1975a. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo. In Li (ed.), 47–112.Google Scholar
1975b. Focus and the scope of assertion: Some Bantu evidence. Studies in African Linguistics 6(2): 185–207.Google Scholar
1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2015. The Diachrony of Grammar, 2 Vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gohl, Christine & Günthner, Susanne. 1999. Grammatikalisierung von weil als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18(1): 39–75.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gonen, Einat, Livnat, Zohar & Amir, Noam. 2015. The discourse marker axshav (‘now’) in spontaneous spoken Hebrew: Discursive and prosodic features. Journal of Pragmatics 89(1): 69–84.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goss, Emily L. & Salmons, Joseph C. 2000. The evolution of a bilingual discourse marking system: Modal particles and English markers in German-American dialects. International Journal of Bilingualism 4: 469–484.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grant, Anthony P. 2012. Contact, convergence, and conjunctions: A cross-linguistic study of borrowing correlations among certain kinds of discourse, phasal adverbial, and dependent clause markers. In Dynamics of Contact-induced Language Change, Claudine Chamoreau & Isabelle Léglise (eds), 311–358. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore. 2004. Parentheticals in Russian. Journal of Pragmatics 36(11): 1953–1974.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 1999. Entwickelt sich der Konzessivkonnektor obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte 180: 409–446.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne & Mutz, Katrin. 2004. Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 77–107. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphanage approach. In Aspects of Modern Linguistics: Papers Presented to Masatomo Ukaji on his 6oth Birthday, Shuki Chiba, Akira Ogawa, Yasuaki Fuiwara, Norio Yamada, Osama Koma & Takao Yagi (eds), 232–254. Tokyo: Kaitakushi.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14): 3603–3623.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6): 1043–1068.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds), 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The gradual coalescence into ‘words’ in grammaticalization. In Narrog & Heine (eds), 342–355.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1992. Grammaticalization chains. Studies in Language 16(2): 335–368.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6): 1205–1247.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. On non-finiteness and canonical imperatives. In Finiteness and Nominalization [Typological Studies in Language 113], Claudine Chamoreau & Zarina Estrada-Fernández (eds), 245–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. 2016b. Language contact and extra-clausal constituents: The case of discourse markers. In Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 243–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2016. Ways leading to transcategoriality. Paper presented at the Workshop on Transcategoriality, Université de Rouen, 27 April.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther & Kuteva, Tania 2016a. On insubordination and cooptation. In Insubordination [Typological Studies in Language 115], Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds), 39–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Some observations on the evolution of utterance-final particles. In Final Particles, Sylvie Hancil, Alexander Haselow & Margje Post (eds), 111–140. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania & Long, Haiping. 2013. An outline of discourse grammar. In Functional Approaches to Language. Shannon Bischoff & Carmen Jany (eds), 175–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics 55: 1–43.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction [Studies in the Evolution of Language 9]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania & Narrog, Heiko. Forthcoming. Back again to the future: How to account for directionality in grammatical change? In Unity and Diversity in Grammaticalization Scenarios: Eight Typological Contributions, Walter Bisang & Andrej Malchukov (eds).
Heine, Bernd, Narrog, Heiko & Long, Haiping. 2016b. Constructional change vs. grammaticalization: From compounding to derivation. Studies in Language 40(1): 137–175.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechtild. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A Typologically-based Theory of Language Structure. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Functional Discourse Grammar. In Narrog & Heine (eds), 367–400.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 19–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia & Litman, Diane. 1993. Empirical studies on disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics 19: 501–503.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael (eds). 1998. Discourse Markers: Description and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kac, Michael B. 1970. Clauses of saying and the interpretation of because . Language 48(3): 626–632.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2007. Spoken parenthetical clauses in English. In Dehé & Kavalova (eds), 25–52.Google Scholar
. 2010. Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think . In New Approaches to Hedging, Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch & Stefan Schneider (eds), 243–272. Bingley: Emerald.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The development of comment clauses. In The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora, Bas Aarts, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech & Sean Wallis (eds), 286–317. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 848–893.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne (eds). 2016. Outside the Clause. [Studies in Language Companion Series 178]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2000. How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers. Lingua 110: 69–98.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian 1982. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. A Programmatic Sketch, Vol.1 [Arbeiten des Kölner Universalien-Projekts 48]. Cologne: Universität zu Köln, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 2nd rev. edn. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2000. Soþlice and witodlice: Discourse markers in Old English. In Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 229–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49(2): 415–443.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. (ed.). 1975. Word Order and Word Order Change. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1974. An explanation of word order change SVO > SOV. Foundations of Language 12: 201–214.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67(3): 475–509.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, María Antonia & Portolés, José. 1999. Los marcadores del discurso. In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte (eds), 4051–4215. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23: 325–366.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. What can bilingual conversation tell us about discourse markers? International Journal of Bilingualism 4(4): 437–445.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matasović, Rolf. 2008. Patterns of grammaticalization and the layered structure of the clause. In New applications of Role and Reference Grammar: Diachrony, Grammaticalization, Romance Languages, Rolf Kailuweit, Björn Wiemer, E. Staudinger & Rolf Matasović (eds), 45–57. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36: 281–331.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt. 1998a. The Function of Discourse Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 53]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998b. The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua 104(3–4): 235–260.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Particles at the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface: Synchronic and Diachronic Issues. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (eds). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2012. Parentheticals, ‘fragments’, and the grammar of complementation. Paper presented at the conference on Les verbes parenthétiques: Hypotaxe, parataxe or parenthèse? Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, 24–26 May.Google Scholar
Nicolle, Steve 2012. Diachrony and grammaticalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, Robert Binnick (ed.), 370–397. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nosek, Jirí. 1973. Parenthesis in Modern Colloquial English. Prague Studies in English 15: 99–116.Google Scholar
Ocampo, Francisco. 2006. Movement towards discourse is not grammaticalization: The evolution of /claro/ from adjective to discourse particle in spoken Spanish. In Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, Nura Sagarra & Almeida Jacqueline Toribio (eds), 308–319. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Olshtain, Elite & Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1989. Happy Hebrish: Mixing and switching in American Israeli family interaction. In Variation in Second Language Acquisition. Susan Gass, Carolyn Madden, Dennis Preston & Larry Selinker (eds), 59–83. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Onodera, Noriko. 1995. Diachronic analysis of Japanese discourse markers. In Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35] Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), 393–437. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The grammaticalization of discourse markers. In Narrog & Heine (eds), 611–620.Google Scholar
Peterson, Peter. 1999. On the boundaries of syntax: Non-syntagmatic relations. In The Clause in English: In Honour of Rodney Huddleston, Peter Collins & David Lee (eds), 229–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinto de Lima, José. 2002. Grammaticalization, subjectification and the origin of phatic markers. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 363–378. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1980. Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18: 581–618.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prévost, Sophie. 2011. A propos from verbal complement to discourse marker: A case of grammaticalization? Linguistics 49(2): 391–413.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2004. From discourse to grammar: Grammaticalization and lexicalization of rhetorical questions in Korean. In LACUS: Forum XXX: Language, Thought and Reality, Gordon Fulton, William J. Sullivan & Arle R. Lommel (eds), 413–423. Houston TX: Lacus.Google Scholar
Robert, Stéphane. 2003. Vers une typologie de la transcatégorialité. In Perspectives Synchroniques sur la Grammaticalisation [Afrique et Langage 5], Stéphane Robert (eds), 255–270. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2004. The challenge of polygrammaticalization for linguistic theory: Fractal grammar and transcategorial functioning. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 72], Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David S. Rood (eds), 119–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, Jesús. 2015. ‘It is a truth universally acknowledged’ …, you know? The role of adaptive management and prosody to start a turn in conversation. Pragmatics and Society 6(1): 117–145.Google Scholar
Rouchota, Villy. 1996. Discourse connectives: What do they link? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 1–15.Google Scholar
Saxena, Anju. 1988. The case of the verb ‘say’ in Tibeto-Burman. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 375–388.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5]. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Stefan, Glikman, Julie & Avanzi, Mathieu (eds). 2015. Parenthetical Verbs. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 2011. The discourse marker now: A relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2110–2129.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The semantic and pragmatic development of substitutive complex prepositions in English. In Historical Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35], Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), 244–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2007. No doubt and related expresssions. In Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar: In Honour of Lachlan Mackenzie [Studies in Language Companion Series 83], Mike Hannay & Gerard J. Steen (eds), 9–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas. 2007. Allora: On the recurrence of function-word borrowing in contact situations with Italian as donor language. In Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse [Hamburg Series on Multilingualism 5], Jochen Rehbein, Christiane Hohenstein & Lukas Pietsch (eds), 75–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Christel & Stolz, Thomas. 1996. Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika: Spanisch-amerindischer Sprachkontakt [Hispanoindiana II]. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49(1): 86–123.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Giacalone Ramat & Hopper (eds), 229–272.Google Scholar
Taglicht, Josef. 2001. Actually, there’s more to it than meets the eye. English Language and Linguistics 5(1): 1–16.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott & Heine (eds),Vol. 1, 313–329.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the International Conference of Historical Linguistics XII, Manchester.Google Scholar
. 2007. Discussion article: Discourse markers, modal particles, and contrastive analysis, synchronic and diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 6: 139–157.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Grammaticalization. In Continuum Companium to Historical Linguistics, Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds), 269–283. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds). 1991a. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19:1]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(eds). 1991b. Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19:2]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2011. I think and other complement-taking mental predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49(2): 295–332.Google Scholar
Vincent, Diane, Votre, Sebastiao & LaForest, Marty. 1993. Grammaticalisation et post-grammaticalisation. Langues et Linguistique 19: 71–103.Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2007. Invisible constituents? Parentheses as B-merged adverbial phrases. In Dehé & Kavalova (eds), 203–234.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2001. Modal particles and their functional equivalents: A speech-act-theoretic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 33(9): 1391–1417.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Approaches to Discourse Markers [Studies in Pragmatics 1], Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 61–76. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne. 2011. Grammaticalization and prosody. In Narrog & Heine (eds), 331–341.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Anne, Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2010. How prosody reflects semantic change: A synchronic case study of of course . In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 103–154. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: Methinks there is some confusion. In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein (eds), 355–370. Amsterdam: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Ghaderi, Soleiman
2024. An investigation of Persian response signals from an interactive perspective. Folia Linguistica 58:2 ► pp. 361 ff. DOI logo
Ghane, Zahra & Mehrdad Vasheghani Farahani
2022. Function and translation of the thetical you know: a parallel corpus-based investigation of English and Persian. Corpora 17:3 ► pp. 363 ff. DOI logo
Al-Shawashreh, Ekab, Marwan Jarrah & Malek J. Zuraikat
2021. The functions of the verb ‘to say’ in the Jordanian Arabic dialect of Irbid. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 57:2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Childs, Claire
2021. Mechanisms of Grammaticalization in the Variation of Negative Question Tags. Journal of English Linguistics 49:4 ► pp. 419 ff. DOI logo
Ghaderi, Soleiman & Mohammad Amouzadeh
2021. Aspects ofbale(‘yes’) in Persian Discourse: Its Functions, Positions, and Evolution*. Studia Linguistica 75:3 ► pp. 623 ff. DOI logo
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long
2021. Chapter 1. On the rise of discourse markers. In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee
2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.