Cover not available
Part of
Grammaticalization – Theory and Data
Edited by Sylvie Hancil and Ekkehard König
[Studies in Language Companion Series 162] 2014
► pp. 203–234

Sequentiality in dialogue as a trigger for grammaticalization

Using the rise of three final particles in spoken English (then, though, anyway) as a case study it will be shown that dialogic interaction is an important domain of grammaticalization. The central idea is that grammaticalization may be induced by the regularization of interactive sequences which, over time, freeze into dialogic schemas and trigger a change of originally lexical or sentence-internal grammatical items involved in such schemas into elements establishing relations beyond the sentence level. The study shows that the proper domain of grammaticalization is not an individual element, but the dialogic context in which it is regularly used. Corpus-based, empirical data are used to document the grammaticalization of the three final particles in different text types within a framework that conceives of grammaticalization as structural and contextual expansion (rather than reduction) and as a functional (rather than formal) change.
Published online: 24 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.162.11has
References (58)
References
Altenberg, Bengt. 1986. Contrastive linking in spoken and written English. In English in Speech and Writing. A Symposium, Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd Bäcklund (eds), 13-40. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1996. The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6(3): 295-322. Special issue, ed. by Johannes Wagner & Cecilia Ford).Google Scholar
. 2009. On-line syntax: Thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31(1): 1-13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter & Günthner, Susanne. 2005. Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen. Ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung? In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmanns & Sarah De Groot (eds), 335-362. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2002. On the development of final ‘though’: A case of grammaticalization? In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 345-361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen. 1999. Politeness: Some universals in language use. In The Discourse Reader, Adam Jaworski & Nikolas Coupland (eds), 321-335. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia & Arnovick, Leslie. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discursisation. In Handbook of Pragmatics: Historical Pragmatics, Andreas Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 165-192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2011. Grammaticalization and conversation. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Heiko Narrog & Bernd Heine (eds), 424-437. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Thompson, Sandra A. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. In Cause - Condition - Concession - Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 381-410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Defour, Tine & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2010. ‘Positive appraisal’ as a core meaning of well: A corpus-based analysis in Middle and Early Modern English data. English Studies 91(6): 643-673. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie (eds). 2011. Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Special issue of Linguistics 49(2).Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2008. Verstehen im Gespräch. In Sprache - Kognition - Kultur. Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 2007, Heidrun Kämper & Ludwig M. Eichinger (eds), 225-261. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich. 2006. From speaker to subject. The obligatorization of the Old French subject pronouns. In La linguistique au coeur. Valence verbale, grammaticalisation et corpus. Mélanges offerts à Lene Schøsler à l’occasion de son 60e anniversaire, Hanne Lette Andersen, Merete Birkelund & Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen (eds), 75-103. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49(2): 365-390. 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
Fanego, Teresa. 2010. Paths in the development of elaborative discourse markers: Evidence from Spanish. In Subjectification, intersubjectification, and grammaticalization, KristinDavidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds), 197-237. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 1991. Polyfunctionality and the semantics of adversative conjunctions. Multilingua 10(1-2): 79-92.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia & Thompson, Sandra A. 1996. Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 238-276. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 257-310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2012a. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication 32(3): 182-204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In English Historical Linguistics 2010: Selected papers from the sixteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL-16), Pécs, Iré n, Hegedüs & Alexandra Fodor (eds), 153-175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds), 17-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 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
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 21-42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. Emergent Grammar. In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 155-175. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory, Acquisition, and Language Pedagogy, Martin Pütz & Susanne Niemeier (eds), 109-130. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1993. Caveat speaker: preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(1): 1-30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van & Los, Bettelou. 2006. Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax in Old and Middle English. In The Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds), 224-248. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Min-Joo. & Jahnke, Nathan. 2011. The meaning of utterance-final ‘even’. Journal of English Linguistics 39(1): 36-64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1986. Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. In On Conditionals, Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Alice ter Meulen, Judy Snitzer Reilly & Charles A. Ferguson (eds), 229-246. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995[1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
. 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 1-18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 2004. Collaborative turn sequences. In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 125], Gene H. Lerner (ed.), 225-256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67: 475-546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 2007. Dialogicality in languages, minds and brains: Is there a convergence between dialogism and neuro-biology? Language Sciences 29(5): 605-620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulder, Jean & Thompson, Sandra A. 2008. The grammaticization of but as a final particle in English conversation. In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions [Typological Studies in Language 80], Ritva Laury (ed), 179-204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. BUT, ONLY, JUST: Focusing on Adverbial Change in Modern English 1500-1900. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Pomeranz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkison & John Heritage (eds), 57-101. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696-735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996a. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 104: 161-216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996b. Turn organization: One direction for inquiry into grammar and interaction. In Interaction and Grammar, Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 52-133. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. 2000. Viewpoints and polysemy. Linking adversative and causal meanings of discourse markers. In Cause - Condition - Concession - Contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds), 257-281. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1978. Assertion. In Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 215-323. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In The Limits of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 37], Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul Hopper (eds), 229-272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the ICHL XII, Manchester 1995. [URL] (15.01.2014)Google Scholar
. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian A. Joseph & Richard Janda (eds), 624-647. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. Dialogic contexts as motivations for syntactic change. In Studies in the History of the English Language, V: Variation and Change in English Grammar and Lexicon: Contemporary Approaches, Robert A. Cloutier, Anne Marie Hamilton-Brehm & William Kretzschmar, Jr. (eds), 11-27. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Grammaticalization. In Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds), 269-283. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian ‘guarda’. Linguistics 40(5): 987-1010. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Hancil, Sylvie
2016. Final but, theticality and subjectification. Anglophonia :22 DOI logo
Hancil, Sylvie
2016. BUT, périphérie droite et macro-syntaxe. Modèles linguistiques XXXVII:73 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 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.