Cover not available

Article published In: Discourse linguistics: Theory and practice
Edited by Karin Aijmer and Anita Fetzer
[Functions of Language 21:1] 2014
► pp. 95–118

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Discourse patterns in the development of discourse markers in English

 | University of Aix-Marseille, LERMA Research Centre
Published online: 7 April 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.06lew
The role of discourse frequency in the development of two English connectives is explored, in the context of recent work emphasizing the role of syntagmatic relations in language change and suggesting that it is constructions, rather than lexical items, which grammaticalize. The development of sub-constructions with in fact and at least are traced in a quantitative study based on corpora of formal and informal historical English. Each case involves an adverbial undergoing functional split as the clausal structure in which it is used becomes aligned with different discourse (sub-)constructions. In fact becomes both contrastive and elaborative; at least becomes evaluative and reformulative. It is shown how the adverbial expression in each case becomes compressed and more abstract, so that its informational weight is reduced, and how the English principle of end focus pushes it increasingly towards clause-initial position, resulting in alignment with the connective construction.
References (43)
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational routines in English. Convention and creativity . London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. The interface between discourse and grammar: ‘The fact is that’. In Agnès Celle & Ruth Huart (eds.), Connectives as discourse landmarks , 31–46. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. The actuality adverbs ‘in fact’, ‘actually’, ‘really’ and ‘indeed’ — establishing similarities and differences. In Martin Edwardes (ed.), Proceedings of the BAAL Annual Conference 2007 , 111–120. London: BAAL and Scitsiugnil Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2009. Semantics and grammar in clause linking. In R.M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), The semantics of clause linking. A cross-linguistic typology , 380–402. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Gabriele Diewald (eds.). 2008. Constructions and language change . Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English. Grammaticalization and discourse functions . Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers in English. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English , 307–334. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change . Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Talmy Givón & Bertram F. Malle (eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language , 109–132. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), 602–623.
2006. From usage to grammar. The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1994. Grammaticalization and linguistic theory. In Jule Gómez de García & David Rood (eds.), Proceedings of the 1993 Mid-America Linguistics Conference and Conference on Siouan/Caddoan Languages , 1–22. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin (ed.). 2006. Approaches to discourse particles . Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2011. Commentary: Corpus-based methods. In Kathryn Allan & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Current methods in historical semantics , 184–195. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English . London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar , 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hovy, Eduard H. & Elisabeth Maier. 1995. Parsimonious or profligate? How many and which discourse structure relations? Technical report, University of Southern California.
Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda (eds.). 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics . Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1992. At least. In Adrienne Lehrer & Eve F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization , 309–331. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 2010. Data in historical pragmatics. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics , 33–68. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 201. 303–318.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization , 1–18. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and rhetoric. Adverbial connectors in the history of English . Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2006. Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 43–59.
2012. Late Modern English: Pragmatics and discourse. In Alexander Bergs & Brinton Laurel J. (eds.), Historical linguistics of English: An international handbook , 901–915. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1986. Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 9(1). 57–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1987. Antithesis: A study in clause combining and discourse structure. In Rosalind Steele & Terry Threadgold (eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday , 359–384. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossari, Corinne 2006. Formal properties of a subset of discourse markers: Connectives. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 299–314.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers . Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2000. Invoking scalarity. The development of ‘in fact’. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1). 7–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2008. WordSmith Tools 5 , Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Karin Aijmer. 2008. The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs . Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence adverbials in English. A synchronic and diachronic investigation . Oslo: Novus Forlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure . Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL-12) , Manchester, August 1995.
1999. The rhetoric of counter-expectation in semantic change: A study in subjectification. In Peter Koch & Andreas Blank (eds.), Historical semantics and cognition , 177–196. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), 624–647.
2011. Towards an integrated account of grammatical constructionalization. Paper given at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europeae , Logroño, 8–11 September 2011.
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change . Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes . Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme & Muriel Norde. 2013. Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: Two case studies. Language Sciences 361. 32–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ziegeler, Debra, Eric Mélac & Volker Gast
2019. The rise of right periphery either in English. Language Sciences 75 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Ranger, Graham
2018. Indeed and in fact: The Role of Subjective Positioning. In Discourse Markers, ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue