Cover not available
Part of
Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface: Discourse markers and discourse-related grammatical phenomena
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Sylvie Hancil
[Studies in Language Companion Series 219] 2021
► pp. 23–56

Chapter 1
On the rise of discourse markers

| University of Cologne
| University of Graz
| Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf
| Sun Yat-sen University
Discourse markers exhibit a range of grammatical properties that set them apart from many other lexical and grammatical forms. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to account for these properties. Most commonly, such accounts have drawn on grammaticalization theory, less commonly also on the notion of pragmaticalization. As argued in this paper, however, the rise of discourse markers cannot be described exhaustively in terms of parameters of grammaticalization or pragmaticalization. Looking at the rise of two English and one French discourse marker, the paper argues that this development is also shaped by a general strategy of discourse processing called cooptation, which accounts for properties of discourse markers that are beyond the scope of grammaticalization theory. Thus, discourse markers are described best as grammaticalized (paren)theticals.
Keywords: cooptation, decategorialization, discourse grammar, discourse marker, grammaticalization, thetical
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The present paper
    • 1.2Discourse marker, grammaticalization, and cooptation
    • 1.3Conclusions
  • 2.The marker I admit
    • 2.1Introduction
    • 2.2Reconstruction
    • 2.3Cooptation
  • 3.The marker if you will
    • 3.1Grammaticalization
    • 3.2On constituent anchored if you will
  • 4.The French marker alors
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Problems
    • 5.2Instantaneous vs. gradual change
    • 5.3Alternative views
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.219.01hei
References (101)
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
Aijmer, Karen. 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
Beeching, Kate. 2016. Alors/donc/then at the right periphery: Seeking confirmation of an inference. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17(2): 208–230. DOI logoGoogle 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
Boye, Kasper & Harder, Peter. 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3): 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. From performative to concessive disjunct: I/you admit and admittedly . In Language Change and Variation from Old English to Late Modern English: A Festschrift for Minoji Akimoto [Studies in Language and Communication 14], 279–302. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2013. The evolution of three pragmatic markers: As it were, so to speak/say and if you like . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14(2): 161–184. DOI logoGoogle 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
Claudi, Ulrike & Heine, Bernd. 1986. On the metaphorical base of grammar. Studies in Language 10(2): 297–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craig, Colette G. 1991. Ways to go in Rama: A case study in polygrammaticalization. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 455–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, De Wolf, Simon & Van linden, An. 2015. The development of the modal and discourse uses of there/it is/I have no doubt expressing modal and interactional meaning. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1): 25–58. 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): 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. 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 [Studies in English Language]. Cambridge: CUP. 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 & Markó, Alexandra. 2010. A pilot study of Hungarian discourse markers. Language and Speech 53(2): 135–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich & Beeching, Kate. 2014. Discourse Functions at the Left and Right Periphery : Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011a. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 450–461. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49(2): 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dostie, Gaetane. 2004. Pragmaticalisation et marqueurs discursifs: Analyse sémantique et traitement lexicographique. Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dostie, Gaétane. 2009. Discourse markers and regional variation in French: A lexico-semantic approach. In Sociolinguistic Variation in Contemporary French [Impact: Studies in Language, Culture and Society 26], 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
Fischer, Olga. 2007a. Morphosyntactic Change. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2007b. The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalization? In Tracing English through Time: Explorations in Language Variation: A Festschrift for Herbert Schendl on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Ute Smit et al. (eds), 103–118. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 359–374. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6 (2), 167–190.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. What are discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 892–898. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furkó, Bálint Péter. 2014. Cooptation over grammaticalization. Argumentum 10: 289–300.Google Scholar
Genette, Gérard. 1982. Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 1999. Entwickelt sich der Konzessivkonnektor obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte 180: 409–446.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1997. Alors and donc in spoken French: A reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 153–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. 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
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
. 2016. A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences 54: 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1992. Grammaticalization chains. Studies in Language 16(2): 335–368. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 2003. Grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds), 575–601. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6): 1205–1247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Language contact and extra-clausal constituents: The case of discourse markers. In Kaltenböck, Keizer & Lohmann (eds), 243–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization? In New Trends on Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 202], Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban & José Vicente Lozano (eds), 23–54. 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 & Kuteva, Tania. 2016. On insubordination and cooptation. In Insubordination [Typological Studies in Language 115], Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds), 39–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 Development of Language 9]. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild. 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 The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 367–400. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 26(1): 23–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In: Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization. Volume 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 17–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization (2nd rev. 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. 1998. Discourse markers: Introduction. In Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 57], Andreas H. Jucker & Yael Ziv (eds), 1–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2007. Spoken parenthetical clauses in English. In Parentheticals. [Liguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 106], Nicole Dehé & Yordanka Kavalova (eds), 25–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 848–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko & Rhee, Seongha. 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization, 2nd extensively revised and updated edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. Grammaticalization and Cognitive Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 79–91. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. [1982] 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd edn [Classics in Linguistics 1]. Berlin: Language Science Press.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
Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. Deixis. In: Laurence R. Horn & Gregory L. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Blackwell, 87–120.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 2009. Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 181]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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, Eva Staudinger & Rolf Matasović (eds), 45–57. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ocampo, Francisco. 2006. Movement towards discourse is not grammaticalization: The development 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
Onodera, Noriko Okada. 2011. The grammaticalization of discourse markers. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 611–620. Oxford: OUP.Google 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. 2018. Grammaticalization of the plural marker in Korean: From object to text to stance. Journal of Language Sciences 25(4): 221–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rysová, Magdaléna. 2017. Discourse connectives: From historical origin to presentday development. In New Perspectives on Cohesion and Coherence, Katrin Menzel, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski & Kerstin Kunz (eds), 11–35. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Stefan. 2007. Reduced Parenthetical Clauses as Mitigators: A Corpus Study of Spoken French, Italian and Spanish [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 27]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Stefan, Glikman, Julie & Mathieu Avanzi (eds). 2015. Parenthetical Verbs. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence Clifford. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shibasaki, Reijirou. 2018. From the inside to the outside of the sentence: Forming a larger discourse unit with jijitsu ‘fact’. In New Trends on Grammaticalization and Language Change [Studies in Language Companion Series 202], Sylvie Hancil, Tine Breban & José Vicente Lozano (eds), 333–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 37], Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper (eds), 229–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2 [Typological Studies in Language 19], Eliabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 313–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Directions for Historical Linguistics, [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 24], Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds), 245–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1): 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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 1995.
. 2015. Investigating “periphery” from a functionalist perspective. Linguistics Vanguard 1(1): 119–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Modeling language change with constructional networks. In Beyond Grammaticalization and Discourse Markers: New Issues in the Study of Language Change [Studies in Pragmatics 18], Salvador Pons Bordería & Óscar Loureda Lamas (eds), 17–50. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Urmson, James Opie. 1952. Parenthetical verbs. Mind (New Series) 61(244): 480–496. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda . Linguistics 40: 987–1010. 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
Wiese, Heike. 2011. So as an emerging focus marker in German. Linguistics 49(5): 991–1039. 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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witosz, Bozena. 2017. Metatext in the discourse of the theory of text, stylistics and pragmalinguistics. Forum Lingwistyczne 4: 107–112.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Ghaderi, Soleiman
2024. An investigation of Persian response signals from an interactive perspective. Folia Linguistica 58:2 ► pp. 361 ff. DOI logo
Lorenz, David
2023. Could Be it’s Grammaticalization: Usage Patterns of the Epistemic Phrases(it) Could/Might Be. Journal of English Linguistics 51:2 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Walters, Gina Scarpete
2023. The Evolution of Temporal Adverbs into Discourse Markers: Grammaticalization or Pragmaticalization? The Case of Romanian atunci “then” and apoi “afterwards”. In Internal and External Causes of Language Change, ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 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.