Cover not available
Part of
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

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

 | Stanford University
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.
Keywords: constructionalization, disaffiliation, discourse marker combination, pejorative expressive, reported speech enactment
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
Published online: 10 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.230.04tra
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte & Gildea, Spike. 2015. Diachronic Construction Grammar [Constructional Approaches to Language 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Diewald, Gabriele. 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel & Walkden, George. 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113: 363–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2013. On mitigation. In Pragmatics of Speech Actions, Marina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds), 258–286. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2011. Impoliteness. Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin & Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2011. Tense use in direct and indirect speech in English. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 236–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88(4): 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Spreading Patterns. Diffusional Change in the English System of Complementation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2017. Usage-based linguistics. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Mark Aronoff (ed.). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. The Grammar Network. How Linguistic Structure is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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
Drew, Paul, Ogden, Richard & Curl, Traci. 2009. Affiliation and disaffiliation in interaction. EXRC Grant report RES-000-23-0035.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita. 2019. Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 11(2): 171–192. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167–190.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
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2004. Pragmatics and argument structure. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds), 538–561. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013. Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: OUP.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions. A Usage-based Approach to Language Change [Constructional Approaches to Language 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, Adele Goldberg (ed.), 217–230. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma. 2000. Diachronic speech act analysis. From flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 67–95. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B. 1997. Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning. 2006. The semantics of polyphony (and the pragmatics of realization). Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 38: 137–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Linguistic Polyphony. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2014. Constructions and Environments. Copular, Passive, and Related Constructions in Old and Middle English. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2007. The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2020. Dynamics of a Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spronck, Stef & Nikitina, Tatiana. 2019. Reported speech forms a dedicated syntactic domain. Linguistic Typology 23(1): 119–159. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2020a. The development of “digressive” discourse–topic shift markers in English. Journal of Pragmatics 156: 121–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. Expressions of stance-to-text. Discourse management markers as stance markers. Language Sciences 82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022a. Discourse Structuring Markers in English. A Historical Constructionalist Perspective on Pragmatics [Constructional Approaches to Language 33]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022b. Ten Lectures on a Diachronic Constructionalist Approach to Discourse Structuring Markers. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar