Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Linguistics
Vol. 19:4 (2018) ► pp.592–634

The role of discourse strategies in the grammaticalization of the Japanese discourse marker dakara

| University of Kentucky
The present study examines the diachronic development of the Japanese discourse marker dakara ‘so’ from the perspective of grammaticalization with a special focus on the role of discursive strategy in its semantic-pragmatic meaning change. Stemming from the adverbial phrase soredakara ‘because it is so’, dakara originally emerged as a causal connective that introduces a consequence. Subsequently, it gained several non-causal uses, i.e. the point-making use that refers back to what has been said or inferable in the discourse to stress the point that the speaker has been trying to make, the point-clarification use that points out that the preceding interlocutor’s statements need more elaboration, and the point-denying use that indicates the speaker’s opposition to the interlocutor’s claim. Among the new non-causal uses, it is found that the point-making use emerged from the retrospective use of causality as a result of employing the discourse strategy of justification in argumentative discourse, while the point-clarification and the point-denying uses arose due to its use as a device for delaying disagreement. It is argued that these new uses developed because the expression was repeatedly used for these two discourse strategies and over time the readings associated with these contexts became conventionalized and turned into the expression’s encoded meaning. This low-level generalization seems to better explain the process of grammaticalization than the high-level generalization of (inter)subjectivity for the developments of dakara.
Keywords: grammaticalization, discourse marker, justification, disagreement, accessibility
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research data
  • 3.The diachronic distribution of the four categories of use
  • 4.Diachronic analysis: Explaining the change from the grammaticalization perspective
    • 4.1Form change
      • 4.1.1Morphophonological erosion
      • 4.1.2Decategorialization and paradigmaticization
    • 4.2Meaning change
      • 4.2.1Extension to the Retrospective Causal use
      • 4.2.2Extension to the Point-making use
      • 4.2.3Extension to the Intersubjective use
      • 4.2.4Summary of the semantic-pragmatic context expansions of DAKARA
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Data source list
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 10 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00022.tan
References

Data source list

Published book

A. Nakano, Mitsutoshi & Maeda, Ai & Jibō, Kazuya (eds.) 2000 Sharebon, kokkeibon, nijōbon [Pleasure-quarter stories, humorous stories, and sentimental stories]. Tokyo: Shōgakukan.Google Scholar

Digital archives

B. Aozora bunko [Blue sky library]: [URL] (Last accessed 2016-07-22.)
C. Denshi bungei-kan [The Japan P.E.N. club digital library]: [URL] (Last accessed 2016-07-22.)
Altenberg, Bengt
1984 Causal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica 38(1). 20–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Concessive connectors in English and Swedish. In Hasselgård, Hilde & Johansson, Stig & Behrens, Bergljot & Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (eds.), Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, 21–43. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira
1988 Retrieving propositions from context: Why and how. Journal of Pragmatics 12(5–6). 567–600. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Discourse markers and form-function correlations. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael (eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, 223–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Accessibility in text and text processing. In Sanders, Ted & Schilperoord, Joost & Spooren, Wilbert (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baba, Toshiomi
2005 Gyakusetsu no setsuzokushi/setsuzoku goku [On the adversative connectives]. In The National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (ed.), Zasshi “Taiyō” ni yoru kakuritsuki gendaigo no kenkyū [Research on the formative era of contemporary Japanese based on the Taiyo Corpus], 173–191. Tokyo: Hakubunkan Shinsha.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne
2000 Usage based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
2012 Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language, usage and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, Haruko Minegishi
1990 An indexical account of the Japanese sentence-final particle no . Discourse Processes 13(4). 401–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A.
2000 Concessive patterns in conversation. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 381–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 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
Detges, Ulrich
2006 From speaker to subject: The obligatorization of the Old French subject pronouns. In Andersen, Hanne Leth & Birkelund, Merete & Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard (eds.), La linguistique au coeur. Valence verbale, grammaticalisation et corpus: Mélanges offerts à Lene Schøsler à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire [Linguistics in the heart. Verbal valence, grammaticalization and corpus: A collection of papers in honor of Lene Schøsler on the occasion of her 60th birthday] (University of Southern Denmark Studies in Literature 48), 75–103. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger
2014 Usage-based linguistics. Oxford University Press. ([URL]) (Accessed 2015-12-24.) DOI logo
Diessel, Holger & Hetterle, Katja
2011 Causal clauses: A cross-linguistic investigation of their structure, meaning, and use. In Siemund, Peter (ed.), Linguistic universals and language variation, 23–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doi, Yōichi
1984 -keredomo [but]. In Matsumura, Akira (ed.), Kotengo/gendaigo joshi jodōshi shōsetsu [Classical/Modern Japanese summary of particles and auxiliaries], 5th edn., 415–420. Tokyo: Gakutōsha.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan
2004 Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: From stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies 6(4). 427–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.
1993 Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 The treatment of contrasts in interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 283–311. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gohl, Christine
2000 Causal relations in spoken discourse: Asyndetic constructions as a means for giving reason. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 83–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2000 From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 439–468. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habein, Yaeko Sato
1984 The history of the Japanese written language. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Hasunuma, Akiko
1991 Taiwa ni okeru “dakara” no kinō. Himeji Dokkyō Daigaku Gaikokugo Gakubu Kiyō [The Journal of the College of Foreign Languages Himeji Dokkyo University] 41. 137–153.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild
1984 Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko
2010 Grammaticalization and linguistic analysis. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 401–423. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
1988 Explanations as accounts: A conversational analytic perspective. In Antaki, Charles (ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods, 127–144. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Raymond, Geoffrey
2005 The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higashiizumi, Yuko
2015 Periphery of utterances and (inter)subjectification in Modern Japanese: A case study of competing causal conjunctions and connective particles. In Smith, Andrew D. M. & Trousdale, Graeme & Waltereit, Richard (eds.), New directions in grammaticalization research, 135–156. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2013 Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
2004 Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Walter & Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What makes grammaticalization?: A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J.
1991 On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 11, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoye, Leo Francis
2008 Evidentiality in discourse: A pragmatic and empirical account. In Romero-Trillo, Jesús (ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente, 151–174. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Im, Jae-eun
2011 The Korean discourse marker kulenikka: A panchronic study. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Ito, Kiwako
2002 The interaction of focus and lexical pitch accent in speech production and dialogue comprehension: Evidence from Japanese and Basque. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Doctoral dissertation.)Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally & Jacobs, Scott
1980 Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(3). 251–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Andreas & Jucker, Andreas H.
1995 The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English, 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamio, Akio
1994 The theory of territory of information: The case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 21(1). 67–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karatsu, Mariko
1995 A functional analysis of dewa, dakara, and shikashi in conversation. Japanese Discourse 11. 107–130.Google Scholar
Katō, Kaoru
1995 “Gen’in/riyū” o ukenai “dakara”: “Dakara” no shutai-teki sokumen no tosshutsu [“Dakara” used as “cause/reason”: Prominence of the subjective aspect of “dakara”]. Waseda Nihongo Kenkyū [Waseda Japanese Language Study] 31. 14–31.Google Scholar
Kim, Ahrim
2015 Utterance-final -ketun in spoken Korean: A particle for managing information structure in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 881. 27–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Alan Hyun-Oak
2011 Rhetorical questions as catalyst in grammaticalization: Deriving Korean discourse marker KETUN from conditional connective. Journal of Pragmatics 43(4). 1023–1041. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitahara, Yasuo
2000 Nihon kokugo daijiten [The comprehensive dictionary of the Japanese language]. 2nd edn. Tokyo: Shogakukan.Google Scholar
Knott, Alistair
2001 Semantic and pragmatic relations and their intended effects. In Sanders, Ted & Schilperoord, Joost & Spooren, Wilbert (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, 127–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter
2000 Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 341–360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konishi, Izumi
2003 Kaiwa ni okeru “dakara” no kinō kakuchō: Bunpō kinō to danwa kinō no setten [The function extension of dakara in Japanese conversation]. Shakai Gengo Kagaku [The Japanese Journal of Language in Society] 6(1). 61–73.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred G.
2001 Frequency, iconicity, categorization: Evidence from emerging modals. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 309–335. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyōgoku, Okikazu & Matsui, Eiichi
1972 Setsuzokushi no hensen [Change in conjunctions]. In Suzuki, Kazuhiko. & Hayashi, Ōki (eds.), Hinshibetsu Nihon bunpō kōza [Japanese grammar lecture on parts of speech], 89–136. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
Lang, Ewald
2000 Adversative connectors on distinct levels of discourse: A re-examination of Eve Sweetser’s three-level approach. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 235–256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1985 Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20(3). 303–319.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Diana M.
2003 Rhetorical motivations for the emergence of discourse particles, with special reference to English of course . In van der Wouden, Ton & Foolen, Ad & Van de Craen, Piet (eds.), Particles (Belgian Journal of Linguistics 16), 79–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José
2010 Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 127–163. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maekawa, Kikuko
1997 Effects of focus on duration and vowel formant frequency in Japanese. In Sagisaka, Yoshinori & Campbell, Nick & Higuchi, Norio (eds.), Computing prosody: Computational models for processing spontaneous speech, 129–153. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo
1988 From bound grammatical markers to free discourse markers: History of some Japanese connectives. In Axmaker, Shelley & Jaisser, Annie & Singmaster, Helen (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 340–351. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1998 Semantic change in the grammaticalization of verbs into postpositions in Japanese. In Ōhori, Toshio (ed.), Studies in Japanese grammaticalization: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, 25–60. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina & Sansò, Andrea
2011 How directive constructions emerge: Grammaticalization, constructionalization, cooptation. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14). 3489–3521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Senko K.
1992 Cognitive and pragmatic messages of a syntactic choice: The case of the Japanese commentary predicate n(o) da . Text 12(4). 563–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 Discourse modality: Subjectivity, emotion and voice in the Japanese language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 Contrastive rhetoric: A case of nominalization in Japanese and English discourse. Language Sciences 18(3–4). 933–946. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mori, Junko
1994 Functions of the connective datte in Japanese conversation. In Akatsuka, Noriko (ed.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 41, 147–163. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
1996 Historical change of the Japanese connective datte: Its form and functions. In Akatsuka, Noriko & Iwasaki, Shoichi & Strauss, Susan (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 51, 201–218. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
1999 Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese: Connective expressions and turn construction (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 8). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakano, Mitsutoshi & Maeda, Ai & Jibō, Kazuya
(eds.) 2000 Sharebon, kokkeibon, nijōbon [Pleasure-quarter stories, humorous stories, and sentimental stories]. Tokyo: Shōgakukan.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko
2015 (Inter)subjectification and its limits in secondary grammaticalization. Language Sciences 471. 148–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nihongo Kijutsu-bunpoo Kenkyuukai [Japanese Descriptive Grammar Research Group]
2003 Gendai Nihongo bunpoo 7: Danwa/taigu hyogen [Modern Japanese grammar 7: Conversation/intersubjective expression]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Shin’ichirō & Tamon, Yasuyo
1998 Danwa ni okeru dakara no shoyōhō [Uses of dakara in discourse]. Nihongo Kyōiku [Journal of Japanese Language Teaching] 981. 49–60.Google Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Suzuki, Ryoko
2014 Introduction: Situating usage-based (Japanese) linguistics. In Kabata, Kaori & Ono, Tsuyoshi (eds.), Usage-based approaches to Japanese grammar: Towards the understanding of human language, 1–10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onodera, Noriko O.
2004 Japanese discourse markers: Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ōtsuka, Mariko
2007 Kochakugo ni okeru bun no bunpōka ni kansuru ichi kōsatsu: Nihongo/Kankokugo no riyū o arawasu setsuzokushi “dakara” “geureonikka” no imi keisei katei ni tsuite [Evolution of clause combining processes in agglutinative languages: A case of Japanese ‘dakara’ and Korean ‘geureonikka’ as causal conjunctions]. Nihon Ninchi Gengo Gakkai ronbunshū [Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association], vol. 71, 182–192. Tokyo: Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984a Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1984b Pursuing a response. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 152–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa
2011 Accounts at convenience stores: Doing dispreference and small talk. Journal of Pragmatics 43(2). 556–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ren, Li & Yi, Hu
2010 Danwa no tenkai ni okeru “dakara” no kinō [Function of connective dakara in progressive discourse]. Kokusai Nihongogaku Ronsō [Journal of International Japanese Studies] 71. 47–85.Google Scholar
Rhee, Seongha
2015 On the emergence of Korean markers of agreement. Journal of Pragmatics 831. 10–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in Conversation Analysis, vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail & Sacks, Harvey
1977 The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2). 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A.
1998 From hypothetical to factual and beyond: Refutational si-clauses in Spanish conversation. In Koenig, Jean-Pierre (ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, 423–435. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott A. & Waltereit, Richard
2010 Presupposition accommodation and language change. In Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 66), 75–102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shinzato, Rumiko
2014 From degree/manner adverbs to pragmatic particles in Japanese: A corpus-based approach to the parallel diachronic development of amari, bakari, and yahari . In Taavitsainen, Irma & Jucker, Andreas H. & Tuominen, Jukka (eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics, 77–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, Elena
2015 When secondary grammaticalization starts: A look from the constructional perspective. Language Sciences 471. 215–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Ryoko
2011 A note on the emergence of quotative constructions in Japanese conversation. In Laury, Ritva & Suzuki, Ryoko (eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective, 149–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990 From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma & Fitzmaurice, Susan
2007 Historical pragmatics: What it is and how to do it. In Fitzmaurice, Susan & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Methods in historical pragmatics, 11–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma & Jucker, Andreas H.
2010 Trends and developments in historical pragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Historical pragmatics, 3–30. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takada, Hiroyuki & Shiina, Michi & Onodera, Noriko O.
2011 Rekishi goyōron no kiso chishiki [Basic knowledge for historical pragmatics]. In Takada, Hiroyuki & Shiina, Michi & Onodera, Noriko O. (eds.), Rekishi goyōron nyūmon: Kako no komyunikēshon o fukugen suru [Introduction to historical pragmatics], 5–44. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Tanizaki, Kazuyo
1994 Danwa hyōshiki ni tsuite no kōsatsu: “Dakara” o chūshin ni [An analysis of the Japanese discourse marker dakara ]. Ōsaka Daigaku Gengobunkagaku [Osaka University Journal of Language and Culture] 31. 79–93.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1995 Subjectification in grammticalisation. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond, Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change, 124–140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “All that he endeavoured to prove was …”: On the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogual and dialogic contexts. In Cooper, Robin & Kempson, Ruth (eds.), Language in flux: Dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution, 143–177. London: Kings College Publications.Google Scholar
2010a Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In Cloutier, Robert A. & Hamilton-Brehm, Anne Marie & Kretzschmar Jr., William A. (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language V: Variation and change in English grammar and lexicon: Contemporary approaches, 11–27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization (Topics in English Linguistics 66), 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.
2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme
2013 Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Twine, Nanette
1991 Language and the modern state: The reform of written Japanese. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A.
1977 Text and context: Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1979 Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3(5). 447–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Mengden, Ferdinand & Coussé, Evie
2014 Introduction: The role of change in usage-based conceptions of language. In Coussé, Evie & von Mengden, Ferdinand (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language change, 1–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard
2006 The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change. In Fischer, Kerstin (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 61–76. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2012 On the origins of grammaticalization and other types of language change in discourse strategies. In Davidse, Kristin & Breban, Tine & Brems, Lieselotte & Mortelmans, Tanja (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, 51–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard & Detges, Ulrich
2007 Different functions, different histories: Modal particles and discourse markers from a diachronic point of view. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 61. 61–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Chueh-chen & Huang, Lillian M.
2006 Grammaticalization of connectives in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Language and Linguistics 7(4). 991–1016.Google Scholar
Wang, Yan
2007 A functional study of the final particle mono in Japanese conversational discourse. The Linguistics Journal 2(1). 162–183.Google Scholar
Yajima, Masahiro
2011 Jikanteki/kūkanteki hikaku o jiku ni shita kinsei-go bunpōshi kenkyū: Soredakara-rui no goi-ka o rei to shite [A study of the Early Modern Japanese grammar based on time/space comparisons]. In Kanazawa, Hiroyuki & Yajima, Masahiro (eds.), Kinseigo kenkyū no pāsupekuthibu gengobunka o dō toraeru ka [Perspective of the early modern Japanese language: How to recognize our language and culture], 56–82. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Shan, Yi
2021. Investigating the Interaction Between Prosody and Pragmatics Quantitatively: A Case Study of the Chinese Discourse Marker ni zhidao (“You Know”). Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2023. 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.