Cover not available

In:Reconnecting Form and Meaning: In honour of Kristin Davidse
Edited by Caroline Gentens, Lobke Ghesquière, William B. McGregor and An Van linden
[Studies in Language Companion Series 230] 2023
► pp. 99–122

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

Chapter 4
On the rise of a marker of disaffiliation from Others’ discourse

 | Stanford University
Published online: 10 February 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.230.04tra
Abstract
The discourse marker combination Oh, by the way is typically used to signal “digressive” discourse management and topic-shift from discourse 1 to content in discourse 2. I discuss how the combination came to be conventionalized as a hedge on a potentially face-threatening utterance (OBTW1), as attested in COHA from the 1840s. From the 1920s it could be used as a marker that signals the speaker’s strong disalignment with and mockery of something said by a third person “Other” (OBTW2). This study contributes to work on reported speech enactment. Links to pejorative expressives and echoic mockery are suggested. It is proposed that OBTW1 and OBTW2 are coming to be constructionalized as a new construction with variants. This construction is independent of its source in a discourse marker combination.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The theoretical approaches adopted
    • 2.1The model of Construction Grammar
    • 2.2The Diachronic Construction Grammar perspective
    • 2.3The approach to reported speech adopted
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.The development of OBTW
    • 4.1The rise of OBTW1 uses
    • 4.2The rise of OBTW2 uses
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1OBTW2 as an expressive
    • 5.2OBTW2 and mimicry
    • 5.3Reported speech and OBTW1 and OBTW2
  • 6.Is OBTW coming to be constructionalized?
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
References (60)
Corpora
CLMET_3.0. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0, 1710–1720. Compiled by Hendrik De Smet, Hans-Jürgen Diller & Jukka Tyrkkö. c.34 million words.
COCA. The Corpus of Contemporary American English. 1990–2019, version 2020. Compiled by Mark Davies. <[URL]>. Over a billion words.
COHA. Corpus of Historical American English. 1820–2019, version 2021. Compiled by Mark Davies. <[URL]>. c.400 million words.
EEBO. Early English Books Online. 1470s to 1690s. Online corpus created as part of the SAMUELS PROJECT (2014–2016). c.755 million words.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
TIME. Time Magazine Corpus. 2007–. Compiled by Mark Davies. <[URL]>. c.100 million words.
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2016. Pragmatic markers as constructions. The case of anyway. In Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 29–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriele. 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel & Walkden, George. 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113: 363–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2013. On mitigation. In Pragmatics of Speech Actions, Marina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds), 258–286. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2011. Tense use in direct and indirect speech in English. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 236–250. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88(4): 601–633. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Spreading Patterns. Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2017. Usage-based linguistics. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Mark Aronoff (ed.). Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul & Heritage, John. 1992. Analyzing talk at work. An introduction. In Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds), 3–65. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, Ogden, Richard & Curl, Traci. 2009. Affiliation and disaffiliation in interaction. EXRC Grant report RES-000-23-0035.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2020. Constructionalization and the Sorites paradox. In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Lotte Sommerer & Elena Smirnova (eds), 45–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167–190.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Pragmatic competence. The case of hedging. In New Approaches to Hedging, Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch & Stefan Schneider (eds), 15–34. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 538–561. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2012. Thetic speaker-instantiating quotative indexes as a cross-linguistic type. In Quotatives. Cross-linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 15], Isabelle Buchstaller & Ingrid van Alphen (eds), 117–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Culpeper, Jonathan. 2018. Integrative pragmatics and (im)politeness theory. In Pragmatics and its Interfaces, Cornelia Ilie & Neal R. Norrick (eds), 213–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Structures of Social Action, J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), 299–345. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Turn-initial particles in English. The cases of Oh and well. In Between Turn and Sequence. Turn-initial Particles across Language [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 31], John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds), 155–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions. A Usage-based Approach to Language Change [Constructional Approaches to Language 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Three open questions in diachronic construction grammar. In Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 21], Evie Coussé, Joel Olofsson & Peter Andersson (eds), 22–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, Adele Goldberg (ed.), 217–230. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma. 2000. Diachronic speech act analysis. From flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 67–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne & Barlow, Michael. 2000. Introduction. A usage-based conception of language. In Usage-Based Models of Language, Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), vii–xxviii. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2000. Some Emergent Discourse Connectives in English. Grammaticalization via Rhetorical Patterns. PhD dissertation, University of Oxford.
Lohmann, Arne & Koops, Christian. 2016. Aspects of discourse marker sequencing. Empirical challenges and theoretical implications. In Outside the Clause. Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents [Studies in Language Companion Series 178], Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds), 417–446. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning. 2006. The semantics of polyphony (and the pragmatics of realization). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 38: 137–160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Linguistic Polyphony. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2014. Constructions and Environments. Copular, Passive, and Related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. How constructions are born. The role of patterns in the constructionalization of be going to INF. In Patterns in Language and Linguistics. New Perspectives on a Ubiquitous Concept, Beatrix Busse & Ruth Möhlig-Falke (eds), 157–192. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. Dynamics of a Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spronck, Stef & Nikitina, Tatiana. 2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1): 119–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma & Jucker, Andreas H. 2008. Speech acts now and then. Towards a pragmatic history of English. In Speech Acts in the History of English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 176], Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 1–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2008. Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In Impoliteness in language, Derek Bousfield & Miriam Locher (eds), 54–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2020a. The development of “digressive” discourse–topic shift markers in English. Journal of Pragmatics 156: 121–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020b. Expressions of stance-to-text. Discourse management markers as stance markers. Language Sciences 82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022a. Discourse Structuring Markers in English. A Historical Constructionalist Perspective on Pragmatics [Constructional Approaches to Language 33]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022b. Ten Lectures on a Diachronic Constructionalist Approach to Discourse Structuring Markers. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2021. Rethinking constructionalization. The history of by the way. Paper presented at ISLE 6, Joensuu, June.
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2009. Speech and Thought Representation in English. A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue