This article takes a quantitative approach to the grammar of English two-part discourse marker sequences like oh well, you know I mean, etc. We investigate the internal ordering preferences of such sequences in spoken American English corpus data from the perspective of grammaticalization. From this perspective, the development of many discourse markers can be understood as involving a process of increasing syntactic de-categorialization (Hopper 1991) as the grammaticalizing element loses its original grammatical constraints and comes to function as a marker at the level of discourse. We test the hypothesis that discourse marker grammaticalization results in largely unconstrained ordering possibilities. Our analysis shows that, on the contrary, discourse marker sequencing is highly constrained. We interpret these constraints in terms of Auer’s (1996) model of discourse marker grammaticalization. Discourse marker sequencing is characterized by strong persistence of a marker’s original syntactic category and reflects its specific grammaticalization trajectory.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London, UK: Longman.
Beckman, M., Hirschberg, J., & Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2005). The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In S.-A. Jun (Ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing (pp. 9–54). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2014). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer software]. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed July 2014).
Brinton, L. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brinton, L. (2008). The Comment Clause in English. Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cieri, C., Graff, D., Kimball, O., Miller, D., & Walker, K. (2004a). Fisher English Training Speech Part 1, Transcripts. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Cieri, C., Graff, D., Kimball, O., Miller, D., & Walker, K. (2004b). Fisher English Training Speech Part 1, Speech. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Cieri, C., Graff, D., Kimball, O., Miller, D., & Walker, K. (2005a). Fisher English Training Speech Part 2, Transcripts. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Cieri, C., Graff, D., Kimball, O., Miller, D., & Walker, K. (2005b). Fisher English Training Speech Part 2, Speech. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2004). The Frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 201, 56–71.
Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In J. Edwards & M. Lampert (Eds.), Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research (pp. 45–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Du Bois, J., Chafe, W., Meyer, C., & Thompson, S. (2000). Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
Finell, A. (1989). Well now and then. Journal of Pragmatics, 13(4), 653–656.
Fitzmaurice, S. (2004). Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies, 6(4), 427–448.
Fraser, B. (2011). The sequencing of contrastive discourse markers in English. Baltic Journal of English Language, Literature, and Culture, 11, 29–35.
Hirschberg, J. & Litman, D. (1993). Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics, 19(3), 501–530.
Hopper, P. (1991). On some principles of grammaticalization. In E. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization (Vol. 11, pp. 17–35). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Jespersen, O. (1968). The Philosophy of Grammar. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.
Jucker, A. (1997). The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics, 1(1), 91–110.
Knott, A. (1996). A data-driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Koops, C., & Lohmann, A. (in press). Discourse marker sequencing and grammaticalization. In Baier, N., Donnelly, E., Faytak, M., Giroux, J., Goss, M., Heath, J., Merrill, J., Neely, K., & Redeye, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Levelt, W., & Cutler, A. (1983). Prosodic marking in speech repair. Journal of Semantics, 2(2), 205–217.
Oates, S. (2000). Multiple discourse marker occurrence: Creating hierarchies for natural language generation. In Kilgarriff, A., Pearce, D., & Tiberius, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Computational Linguistics UK (CLUK) Colloquium (pp. 41–45). University of Brighton and University of Sussex, UK.
Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed July 2014).
Romaine, S., & Lange, D. (1991). The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech, 66(3), 227–279.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 54–75). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Schourup, L. (1999). Tutorial overview: Discourse markers. Lingua, 107(3-4), 227–265.
Svartvik, J. (1980). Well in conversation. In S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik (Eds.), Studies in English Linguistics for Randolph Quirk (pp. 167–177). London, UK: Longman.
Thompson, S., & Mulac, A. (1991). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 15(3), 237–251.
Cited by (24)
Cited by 24 other publications
Klumm, Matthias
2024. Peripheries and their internal structure: an empirical analysis of left- and right-peripheral sequences across written English discourse. Linguistics
2023. The Effects of Textual Input Enhancement and Inputflooding on the Comprehension and Retention of Macro/ Micro Discourse Markers Functions among Iraqi University EFL Students. Journal of Tikrit University for Humanities 30:9, 1 ► pp. 1 ff.
2020. The many functions of Cuzco Quechua =<i>pas</i>: implications for the semantic map of additivity. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1
Pinto, Derrin & Donny Vigil
2020. Spanish clicks in discourse marker combinations. Journal of Pragmatics 159 ► pp. 1 ff.
Cuenca, Maria Josep & Ludivine Crible
2019. Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics 140 ► pp. 171 ff.
Haselow, Alexander
2019. Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics 146 ► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 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.