Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers (BestMasters) 3658395060, 9783658395063

Citation preview

Best Masters

Jan-Friso Heeren

Establishing a MechanismBased Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers

BestMasters

Mit „BestMasters“ zeichnet Springer die besten Masterarbeiten aus, die an renommierten Hochschulen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz entstanden sind. Die mit Höchstnote ausgezeichneten Arbeiten wurden durch Gutachter zur Veröffentlichung empfohlen und behandeln aktuelle Themen aus unterschiedlichen Fachgebieten der Naturwissenschaften, Psychologie, Technik und Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Die Reihe wendet sich an Praktiker und Wissenschaftler gleichermaßen und soll insbesondere auch Nachwuchswissenschaftlern Orientierung geben. Springer awards “BestMasters” to the best master’s theses which have been completed at renowned Universities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The studies received highest marks and were recommended for publication by supervisors. They address current issues from various fields of research in natural sciences, psychology, technology, and economics. The series addresses practitioners as well as scientists and, in particular, offers guidance for early stage researchers.

Jan-Friso Heeren

Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers

Jan-Friso Heeren Hannover, Germany

ISSN 2625-3577 ISSN 2625-3615 (electronic) BestMasters ISBN 978-3-658-39506-3 ISBN 978-3-658-39507-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39507-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Responsible Editor: Stefanie Probst This Springer VS imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Acknowledgement

Thesis: Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers. Jan-Friso Heeren I am extremely grateful to be able to publish this thesis, and I hope that one or the other reader will find its study enjoyable and enriching. Special thanks to my colleagues and friends who took their time to read this work and offered highly valuable comments. I am also very thankful to my family and friends who supported me throughout this time. Without these amazing people, I would not have been able to invest the effort which was necessary for a thesis like this. Please excuse me for not calling you all by name, but you may all feel addressed. Last but not least, let me express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Pascal Hohaus and his tireless support and continuous commitment.

v

Abstract

This thesis establishes and applies a linguistic framework that describes language change processes of multi-word discourse markers (MWDMs). Comprehensive and distinct mech-anisms are introduced as the foundation of the approach towards the analysis of exemplary MWDMs. In this study, the concept of MWDMs is defined as a formal, multi-word representative of DMs. Referring to the classifications of Siepmann (2000) and Fraser (1988, 1996), MWDMs are distinguished from the prevailing fuzziness around the concepts of pragmatic markers and DMs. Along with the controversies about these linguistic forms, this thesis will review ex-isting frameworks and examine the development of MWDMs out of their polysemous lexical constructions. The four dominating approaches in contemporary research will be presen-ted and critically discussed, i.e. i) MWDMs as conventional Grammaticalization (Hopper 1991, Lehmann 1995, Heine & Kuteva 2002), ii) MWDMs as Grammaticalization in a re-vised and broadened sense (Traugott 1988; 1995; 2007, Diewald 2010; 2011), iii) MWDMs as Pragmaticalization (Erman & Kotsinas 1993, Aijmer 1997) and iv) MWDMs in a Pmz approach within the Gmz framework (Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen 2002). Even-tually, Pragmaticalization will be redefined as a subprocess of Grammaticalization and six Pragmaticalization mechanisms, i.e. Discursivization, Scope Extension, Syntactic Isolation, Acategorialization, Consistency and Prosodic Accentuation, will be suggested. In the following, corpus-informed linguistics will be used as a method to obtain authentic language material illustrating and describing changes of the linguistic forms (Collins 2009). The data employed in this thesis is taken from the TV Corpus (Davies 2019) and from the Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com). To apply and cement the established mechanism-based framework, the MWDMs by

vii

viii

Abstract

the way, all the same and what is more are analysed by using the six previously defined mechanisms. The analysis confirms the applicability of the suggested mechanisms and provides deep in-sights into the defined framework. All six Pragmaticalization mechanisms reveal profound developments that distinguish MWDMs from their polysemous lexical counterparts. Finally, this thesis will critically review the suggested approach and will address areas for further research focusing especially on changes related to MWDMs. Keywords: multi-word discourse marker · discourse marker · pragmatic marker · Grammat-icalization · Pragmaticalization · mechanisms · corpus-informed linguistics · by the way · all the same · what is more

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Research Gap and Research Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Preliminary Delimitations of Linguistic Form and Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 The Linguistic Form of MWDMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 The Linguistic Approach Towards MWDMs . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.1 MWDMs and Gmz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.2 MWDMs and Lxz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2.3 MWDMs and Pmz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Structure of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Pragmatic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Pragmatic Meaning and Discourse Structure . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Fraser’s Classification of Pragmatic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Discourse Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Pragmatic-Interactional Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Discourse-Structuring Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Multi-word Discourse Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 By the Way, all the Same and What is More—Lexical and MWDM Usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1.1 By the Way—Prepositional Phrase as a Topic Change MWDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1.2 All the Same—Adjective Phrase as a Contrastive MWDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2 5 6 7 9 11 12 15 17 19 19 21 24 27 28 30 33 34 34

ix

x

Contents

2.3.1.3 What is More—Wh-Clause as an Elaborative MWDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 By the Way, all the Same and What is More—Justification of the Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs . . . . 3.1 MWDMs in a Conventional Gmz Approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Lehmann’s Grammaticalization Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1.1 Integrity and Attrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1.2 Paradigmaticity and Paradigmaticization . . . . . . . 3.1.1.3 Paradigmatic Variability and Obligatorification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1.4 Structural Scope and Condensation . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1.5 Bondedness and Coalescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1.6 Syntagmatic Variability and Fixation . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Hopper’s Principles of Grammaticalization . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.1 Layering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.2 Divergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.3 Specialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.4 Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2.5 De-categorialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3 Heine & Kuteva’s Grammaticalization Mechanisms . . . . . 3.1.3.1 Desemanticization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3.2 Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3.3 Decategorialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3.4 Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.4 Criticism: Conventional Gmz cannot Describe the Rise of MWDMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 MWDMs in a Broadened Gmz Approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Traugott: Extending the Notion of Grammar for the Analysis of DMs in a Gmz Approach . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Parameters of Gmz in a Broader Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Criticism: Gmz in a Broader Sense is not the Final Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.1 Criticising the Scope of Gmz in a Broader Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3.2 Criticising the Parameters of Gmz in a Broader Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 MWDMs Independent from Gmz in a Pmz Approach? . . . . . . . .

35 36 39 41 42 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 48 48 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 55 55 57 61 62 62 65

Contents

xi

3.3.1 Erman & Kotsinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1.1 Erman & Kotsinas’ Notion of Pmz . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1.2 Criticism: MWDMs Show Relations to Pmz and Gmz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Aijmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.1 Aijmer’s Notion of Pmz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.2 Criticism: Pmz should not be Considered in Isolation of Gmz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 MWDMs in a Pmz Approach within the Gmz Framework? . . . . 3.4.1 Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1.1 Gmz as a Continuum and Family Resemblance of Gmz and Pmz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1.2 Criticism: Gmz not as a Continuum but as a Superordinate Framework of Pmz . . . . . 3.4.2 Redefining the Framework: MWDMs as a case of Pmz and a Distinct Subprocess of Gmz . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66 66

4 Establishing Mechanisms for the Approach Towards MWDMs . . . . 4.1 Semantic Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Discursivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Scope Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Syntactic Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Syntactic Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Acategorialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Phonological Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Prosodic Accentuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77 79 80 80 81 81 82 83 83 84

5 Methodological Approach: Corpus-Informed Research . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Data Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85 87 89

6 Applying the Mechanism-based Framework: Corpus-Informed Analysis of MWDMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 By the Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 Semantic Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1.1 Discursivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1.2 Scope Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Syntactic Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2.1 Syntactic Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97 98 99 100 104 106 106

67 68 68 70 72 72 72 74 75

xii

Contents

6.1.2.2 Acategorialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 Phonological Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3.1 Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.3.2 Prosodic Accentuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 All the Same . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Semantic Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1.1 Discursivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1.2 Scope Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Syntactic Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2.1 Syntactic Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2.2 Acategorialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3 Phonological Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3.1 Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.3.2 Prosodic Accentuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 What is More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Semantic Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1.1 Discursivization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1.2 Scope Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Syntactic Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2.1 Syntactic Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2.2 Acategorialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Phonological Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3.1 Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3.2 Prosodic Accentuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108 110 111 114 116 117 118 120 122 122 125 129 129 131 132 135 136 138 141 141 144 146 146 151

7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.1 Implications for Pmz as the Approach Towards MWDMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.2 Implications for Pmz Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.3 Implications for by the Way, all the Same and What is More as Pragmaticalised MWDMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Outlook and Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

155 155

159 160 162

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

165

156 157

Abbreviations

Adj AdjP Adv CC Comp DefArt DemPr Det DM EModE Gmz KWIC Lxz MC ME MWDM N NP O OE OED P PDE PersPr PGmc PM

Adjective Adjective phrase Adverb Coordinating conjunction Complement Definite article Demonstrative pronoun Determinative Discourse marker Early Modern English Grammaticalization Keyword in Context Lexicalization Main clause Middle English Multi-word discourse marker Noun Noun phrase Object Old English Oxford English Dictionary Phrase Present-Day English Personal pronoun Proto-Germanic Pragmatic marker

xiii

xiv

Pmz PP PreDet Prep Pron Quant S V VGrp VP

Abbreviations

Pragmaticalization Prepositional phrase Predeterminer Preposition Pronoun Quantifier Sentence Verb Verb group Verb phrase

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 1.3

Figure 1.4 Figure 1.5 Figure 1.6 Figure 1.7

Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4

Organisation and research aims of the study (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MWDMs as a formal subclass of DMs and PMs (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DMs in the Grammaticalization-Pragmaticalization-Lexicalization interface (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conception of Gmz as in Hopper & Traugott (2003) and Kurylowicz (1976) (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conception of Lxz as in Brinton & Traugott (2005) and Beijering (2015) (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conception of Pmz as in Dostie (2009) (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MWDMs in the Grammaticalization-Pragmaticalization interface (own illustration, based on Beijering 2015: 83) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of MWDMs by the way,all the same and what is more in this study (own illustration, based on Fraser 1988; 1996 and on Siepmann 2000; 2005) . . . . . Fraser’s four types of PMs (own illustration, based on Fraser 1988: 21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fraser’s four types of DMs (own illustration, based on Fraser 1988: 21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bracketing of DMs according to Fraser (1999: 937 ff.) (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 7

8 10 11 13

14

18 22 25 29

xv

xvi

Figure 2.5 Figure 2.6 Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3

Figure 6.4

Figure 6.5

List of Figures

MWDMs as DMs and PMs (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . Formal distinction of DMs according to their length (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cline of grammaticality as proposed by Hopper & Traugott (based on Hopper & Traugott 2003: 7, slightly adapted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Layering as in Hopper (1991: 22 ff.) (own illustration) . . . Subjectification cline in Gmz (as in Traugott & Dasher 2002: 225) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unidirectional Gmz cline for the rise of DMs as proposed by Traugott (1995) (own illustration) . . . . . . . . Pmz and Gmz as diverging processes (own illustration, based on Erman & Kotsinas notion of Pmz 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pmz and Gmz as diverging processes (as in Aijmer 1997: 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gmz as a continuum (own illustration, based on Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . OED’s Quick Search results for ‘by the way’ . . . . . . . . . . . OED entry of ‘way, n. and int.’ and corresponding entry of ‘by the way’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English-corpora.org and ‘SEARCH’ function of the TV Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TV Corpus list-search for ‘by the way’ with corresponding frequency and context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categorial shifts of by the way in terms of Acategorialization (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syntactic bracketing of all the same according to Fraser (1999: 937 ff.) (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syntactic tree diagram categorising the participants of adjective all the same by means of a selected example (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syntactic tree diagram categorising the participants of predicative all the same by means of a selected example (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syntactic tree diagram categorising the participants of MWDM all the same by means of a selected example (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 32

45 47 59 61

67 69 73 90 91 92 93 110 124

126

127

128

List of Figures

Figure 6.6 Figure 6.7 Figure 6.8 Figure 6.9 Figure 6.10

xvii

Categorial shifts of all the same in terms of Acategorialization (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope of literal interrogative and declarative what is more (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scope Extension of MWDM what is more (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic illustration of what is more becoming a syntactic isolated MWDM (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . Categorial shifts of what is more in terms of Acategorialization (own illustration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129 139 140 144 146

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table Table Table Table Table

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1

Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 4.1 Table 5.1 Table 6.1 Table 6.2

Alternative terminology applied to discourse-pragmatic devices by different linguists (taken from Furkó 2020: 3) . . . Basic markers (as in Fraser 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commentary markers (as in Fraser 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parallel markers (as in Fraser 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discourse markers (as in Fraser 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shared characteristics of Gmz and Pmz (based on Brinton & Traugott 2005: 110 and Beijering 2015: 84 ff.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lehmann’s Grammaticalization parameters and processes (as in Lehmann 2015: 174) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hopper’s five principles of Gmz (cf. Hopper 1991: 22) . . . . . Heine and Kuteva’s Gmz mechanisms (cf. 2002: 2 ff.) . . . . . Applicability of Lehmann’s, Hopper’s and Heine & Kuteva’s Gmz parameters to MWDMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gmz parameters as proposed by Traugott (cf. 1995; 2005; 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reorganised Gmz parameters as proposed by Traugott (cf. 1995; 2005; 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linguistic dimensions of Pmz as in Aijmer 1997 . . . . . . . . . . Pragmaticalization mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Searching for MWDMs in the TV Corpus according to their syntactic position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pragmaticalization mechanisms applied to by the way . . . . . . Different usages and meanings of by the way according to the OED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 23 23 24 26

40 43 47 50 54 60 63 69 79 94 99 101

xix

xx

Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7

List of Tables

MWDM usages of by the way in the TV Corpus according to their syntactic position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pragmaticalization mechanisms applied to all the same . . . . . MWDM usages of all the same in the TV Corpus according to their syntactic position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pragmaticalization mechanisms applied to what is more . . . . . MWDM usages of what is more in the TV Corpus according to their syntactic position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107 117 123 135 143

1

Introduction

Scholars divide the broad area of communication into two fields: Verbal communication, on the one side, comprises the spoken and written transmission of a message. Non-verbal communication, on the other side, embraces that part of interpersonal communication which is not conveyed by literal language such as gestures, facial expressions or intonation (cf. Hinde 1972). Researchers from various areas study communication and apply different angles, e.g. behaviourist, anthropologist, sociologist but also linguistic perspectives. In linguistics, communication may be analysed from a traditional Chomskyan generative perspective considering language as an abstract system “represented in the mind of its members” (Chomsky 1980: 220). Another linguistic branch investigates other aspects accompanying language use, the so-called paralinguistic dimensions of communication (e.g. intonation, pauses, emphasis, pitch). Taavitsainen & Jucker identified a “pragmatic turn” (2015: 4) occurring in the 1980s that reached out into new territories such as discourse and meta-communicative analyses. Discourse markers are linguistic forms that operate in between these dimensions and have been arousing growing interest over the last decades since the ‘pragmatic turn’. In linguistics, a DM is a unit which is relatively independent of syntax and does not alter the core meaning of a sentence. The expression organises the discourse structure and is concerned with communicative aspects of language (cf. Schiffrin 1987). DMs are frequently used in written and spoken language; however, they have a somewhat ‘empty meaning’ in the sense that they do not express conventional semantic notions. This seemingly paradox feature of DMs is identifiable when the forms are contrasted with their polysemous lexical counterparts. Sentences (1.1) and (1.2) show the lexical meaning as well as the DM usage of well and you know—probably the most commonly addressed DMs (cf. e.g. Schiffrin 1987, Fraser 1996, Heine 2013). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 J.-F. Heeren, Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39507-0_1

1

2

1

Introduction

(1.1) So things went well with Ms. Saunders? Oh, yeah. Well, I have more good news. (TV Corpus 2016: Legends of Tomorrow) (1.2) You know more about computers at your age than I ever will. You know, when I was 10, all I had was a newspaper route, a model airplane and an unbroken string of the X-Men starting at issue one. (TV Corpus 1998: JAG) While the first appearances in the two sentences express conventional semantic meanings, the second instances represent the ‘empty meaning’ of DMs. Watzlawick argues that “one cannot not communicate” (Watzlawick et al. 1967: 51). This quotation also applies to DMs. The forms do have a meaning—maybe not in a primarily literal-semantic but pragmatic-discursive sense. Their meaning has shifted from literal connotations to meta-communicative, interpersonal, textorganising implications. Operating on this peculiar level of linguistic description, many approaches struggle to capture their changes. This study investigates multi-word discourse markers, three-word constructions as formal representatives of DMs such as by the way, all the same or what is more. Linguistic research in this area is still facing discussions on terminological issues, inaccuracies as well as gaps in knowledge. To promote linguistic research in this intriguing area, this thesis establishes a mechanism-based framework for the corpus-informed analysis of MWDMs.

1.1

Research Gap and Research Aims

DMs have been in the focus of linguistic studies in the past years. Around the 1990s, DMs started to inspire many scholars (e.g. Schiffrin 1987, Fraser 1988; 1996; 1999, Brinton 1996, Jucker & Ziv 1998, Schourup 1999)1 . The first research focused on the form and function of DMs and investigated the wide range of their meta-textual and interpersonal notions such as connecting, turntaking, topic-switching, hesitation, attitude marking, etc. (cf. e.g. Jucker & Ziv 1998: 1 or Brinton 1996: 33 ff.). Linguists rapidly extended their interests during the last decades and started analysing DMs in various fields such as genre (e.g. Koike 1996 on narratives or Dedaic 2005 on political discourse), second language acquisition (as in Fung & Carter 2007 or Aijmer 2011), cross-linguistic analyses (e.g. Shloush on Hebrew bekicur; Hak-ulinen on Finish nyt; Takahara on Japanese ichioo in Jucker & Ziv 1998; further examples follow throughout the study) 1

In addition to Schiffrin (1987), there has also been research on items with pragmatic and discursive functions but not under the term discourse marker (for varying terminology cf. Table 2.1).

1.1 Research Gap and Research Aims

3

and other branches2 . Although the term discourse marker is predominantly used for linguistic forms with discourse-organising functions and seemingly ‘empty meanings’, the term itself and the forms classifying as DMs are still objects of conten-tious debates. Terms such as pragmatic marker, insert or parenthetical exist next to discourse marker. Schiffrin (1987) mentions the connectives and, because, but while Blakemore (1987) adds therefore, after all, moreover, and Fraser (1988, 1996) includes multi-word construc-tions such as by the way, all the same and what is more. These already large disputes are accompanied by the huge fuzziness concerning the features of DMs. While Hölker (cf. 1991: 78 f.3 ), for instance, addresses only four basic characteristics (such as non-propositionality or relation to the speech situation), Brinton (1996: 78 f.) lists 16 character traits of DMs (such as rising intonation or flexible syntactic placement4 ). To encounter the prevailing linguistic fuzziness and simultaneously promote the research in this area, this thesis addresses MWDMs. As the concept of DMs depicts a huge and vague field, this study’s idea is to start with the precise definition of one representative, namely MWDMs. Based on this research, further gaps in this area can be filled. Siepmann (2005) introduced the term multi-word discourse marker. He considers these units as a subclass of DMs with more than two participants (cf. Siepmann 2005: 4 ff.). As mentioned above, Fraser (1988, 1996) includes multi-word constructions in his works on DMs, too. Thus, a combination of Fraser’s and Siepmann’s previous research allows to formally identify MWDMs. By the way, all the same and what is more will serve as paradigm MWDMs for the analysis of empirical data (previous literature on the three MWDMs (Brinton 2017, Kim 2018) will be discussed in Sect. 6.1 to Sect. 6.3). Fraser, Brinton, Schiffrin and further linguists contribute functional characteristics that specify the definition of MWDMs. There has already been some research on multi-word forms (e.g. Erman 1987 or Brinton 2017), neither Siepmann nor other linguists, though, have comprehensively analysed MWDMs within a mechanismbased framework. As a consequence, this thesis aims to investigate this gap in knowledge. Another growing field of research, whose approaches trigger controversies up until today, is the analysis of DMs within a language change perspective. For these discussions, existing language change frameworks (e.g. Hopper 1991, Erman & Kotsinas 1993, Lehmann 1995, Traugott 1995, Aijmer 1997, Heine & 2

Maschler & Schiffrin (2015) offer a fairly recent and comprehensive summary of research areas. 3 Hölker prefers the term pragmatic marker but refers to the same linguistic concept. 4 The exact parameters are not discussed here. Further references to Brinton 1996 follow in Chap. 2.

4

1

Introduction

Kuteva 2002, Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen 2002, Hopper & Traugott 2003) are conducted, adapted and refined. Linguists such as Brinton (1996; 2007; 2017), Auer & Günthner (2003), Furkó (2009; 2020), Fagard (2010), Heine (2013), Jucker & Taavitsainen (2013), or Beijering (2015) discuss the applicability of these existing frameworks on DMs. Despite multiple debates, no generally acknowledged linguistic framework for the analysis of DMs MWDMs exists. Besides Gmz (e.g. Traugott 1995, Diewald 2011), Pmz (e.g. Erman & Kotsinas 1993, Aijmer 1997) and Lxz (e.g. Wischer 2000, Beijering 2015), there are further suggestions for frameworks such as Cooptation (Heine 2013) or Discoursisation (Claridge & Arnovick 2010), however, neither is undisputed. The four dominating frameworks for DMs will be introduced and extensively discussed in this study. By discussing the various perspectives on the development of DMs, this thesis aims at establishing a critically elaborated research frame that allows for an effective analysis of MWDMs as representatives of DMs. In Gmz studies, there have been many proposals for Gmz mechanisms (cf. Hopper 1991, Lehmann 1995, Heine & Kuteva 2002, Traugott 1995; 2005; 2007). Distinct mechanisms, addressed to the special development of DMs, within a well-defined linguistic framework however, have only been sparsely examined. Except from Claridge & Arnovick (2010) and Mroczynski (2012), explicit mechanisms have not been proposed. Pursuing the goal to establish a sophisticated approach, this study does not only want to suggest a framework for the developments of MWDMs but also to provide explicit mechanisms for the approach. The explanatory power of the resulting concept will benefit strongly from such a catalogue. Briefly summarised, there has been plenty of research on DMs and their form, function and framework; however, academic controversies and definitional inaccuracies continue to exist. By scrutinising the notion of MWDMs, establishing a mechanism-based framework and examining three relatively underresearched cases (by the way, all the same and what is more), this study investigates one part of the above mentioned research gap. The following three questions derive from these attempts: Which framework can best describe the developments of MWDMs? Which mechanisms distinguish the rise of MWDMs? Can the developments of the MWDMs by the way, all the same and what is more confirm the conception of the mechanism-based approach? Throughout the study, these research questions serve as a guideline from the theoretical considerations to the actual analyses of MWDMs. Fig. 1.1 comprises the structure of the study and connects the research questions with the procedural steps.

1.2 Preliminary Delimitations of Linguistic Form and Framework

5

Figure 1.1 Organisation and research aims of the study (own illustration)

Corpus-supported research has proven itself as a reliable and effective method offering authentic language data as the basis for linguistic research (cf. Aijmer & Rühlemann 2015). Latest trends in linguistic studies have given rise to the area of corpus-pragmatics (cf. ibid.). Thus, a corpus-informed approach, providing examples and figures on the concrete uses of MWDMs (cf. Chap. 5), allows for an extensive investigation of MWDMs within the realms of a recent approach. Fig. 1.1 shows that the linguistic theory building and analysis of MWDMs depends on a crititcal reception of previous literature. Simultaneously, the illustration emphasises that the research questions build upon each another. Proceeding from the established mechanism-based framework, the analysis of concrete notions, syntactics and phonology of selected MWDMs reviews the advantages of the theoretical construct. Corpus-informed research consequently constitutes the core of the following thesis.

1.2

Preliminary Delimitations of Linguistic Form and Framework

Section 1.1 has addressed the diversity of frameworks that investigate developments of forms with discursive and pragmatic functions. To reduce the number of

6

1

Introduction

possible linguistic forms and approaches towards MWDMs, a preliminary delimitation is provided. Succeding Chap. 2 and Chap. 3, introducing and defining the linguistic form and framework, will benefit from this first access to the research frame and will gain in precision. Simultaneously, general topics and interests of this study are introduced.

1.2.1

The Linguistic Form of MWDMs

This study defines MWDMs as a formal subcategory of DMs. To understand their functionality and related linguistic changes, the conception and definition of DMs must be initially clarified. The investigations delineate differences of conventional lexical and MWDM usages. Prior to a more elaborate discussion of DMs, the following paragraphs briefly introduce the linguistic form. As the name discourse marker already suggests, these constructions operate on the discourse-interactional level. Unlike lexical items, which convey a specific propositional meaning, and grammatical particles, which carry sentence-relational characteristics, DMs function as text-organising and metacommunicative devices55 . As already mentioned at the beginning of the thesis, well has been analysed several times as a DM (cf. Table 2.1) and illustrates these just mentioned functions. (1.3) A: What happened? B: Well…at one time he was a very fine doctor. And he had two terrible tragedies. (Taken from Schiffrin 1987: 110) In (1.3), the DM well functions as a marker of response and arranges the relationship between question and answer. Further, well shows the speaker’s subjective orientation to the answer. The original lexical meaning of well as an Adv (Adv of the Adj good), modifying a verb such as ‘slept’ in (1.4) (1.4) I hope you slept well. I did not. (TV Corpus 2014: Royal Pains), is barely recognisable in (1.3) anymore. How DMs emerge from original, lexical meanings and which functions they assume as DMs will be in the focus of the upcoming chapters. To effectively and comprehensively analyse this controversial 5

This is an oversimplified depiction which should demonstrate the difference of lexical, grammatical and discourse markers. Further explanations follow.

1.2 Preliminary Delimitations of Linguistic Form and Framework

7

linguistic form, Fraser’s classification of DMs as PMs will be consulted and complemented by MWDMs. Chap. 2 will identify DMs and MWDMs as subforms of PMs.

Figure 1.2 MWDMs as a formal subclass of DMs and PMs (own illustration)

As Fig. 1.2 indicates, MWDMs will be singled out from DMs and PMs in a way that the analysis is able to relate to a predefined notion of MWDMs. By the way, all the same and what is more classify as MWDMs. Throughout this study, these forms will be in the centre of discussions.

1.2.2

The Linguistic Approach Towards MWDMs

As a consequence of the terminological and definitional vagueness of the conception of DMs and MWDMs, the approach towards their analysis is equally debated. In the literature on DMs, several proposals on how to treat the linguistic forms are discussed. Frameworks such as Cooptation (Heine 2013, 2013), Degrammaticalization (Ramat 2001, Norde 2009) or Colloquialisation (e.g. Leech & Smith 2009: 175) address DMs. However, they are neither widely used nor really acknowledged. More frequently and in a more elaborate way, pragmatic items are analysed in Gmz (e.g. Traugott 1995, 2007, Diewald 2011), Lxz (e.g. Wischer 2000, Beijering 2015) and Pmz studies (e.g. Erman & Kotsinas 1993, Aijmer 1997). For example, the DM I think has been analysed in every of these three approaches: “We shall focus on I think […] as an example of grammaticalization of a pragmatic item […].” (Nevalainen & Palander-Collin 2011: 127) “Strings such as I think […] are other good examples of pragmaticalization.” (Aijmer 1997: 2) “Parenthetical phrases like I think etc. are best seen as formulaic tokens, undergoing lexicalization.” (Fischer 2007: 112)

8

1

Introduction

The given statements reinforce the prevailing uncertainty of how to address this form. Apparently, phrasal DMs are located somewhere in between the three spheres6 . Fig. 1.3 illustrates the relationship between DMs and the three language change frameworks.

Figure 1.3 DMs in the Grammaticalization-Pragmaticalization-Lexicalization interface (own illustration)

6

In this thesis, the abbreviations ‘Gmz’, ‘Pmz’ and ‘Lxz’ are used for Grammaticalization, Pragmaticalization and Lexicalization. This thesis applies British spelling; nevertheless, terms such as Gmz, Pmz, Lxz, Metaphoricalization, Discursivization, etc. will be written with a ‘-z-‘ as this is the predominantly used spelling variant. Accordingly, Gmz and Pmz are the most commonly used short forms. There are several different abbreviations for Lexicalization. ‘Lxz’ is used in this work due to its analogic form to Gmz and Pmz.

1.2 Preliminary Delimitations of Linguistic Form and Framework

9

To narrow down possible frameworks, Sect. 1.2.2.1 to Sect. 1.2.2.3 briefly introduce these three approaches with respect to their applicability to DMs.

1.2.2.1 MWDMs and Gmz Out of the three types of language change, Gmz is probably the most extensively examined framework. Several monographs (cf. e.g. Lehmann 1995, Hopper & Traugott 2003), anthologies (cf., e.g., Narrog & Heine 2011, Smith et al. 2015) and numerous case studies7 exist in the literature. Meillet (1912) introduced the term and defines Gmz as the attribution of grammatical character to a word. “L’attribution du charactère grammatical à un mot jadis autonome.” (Meillet 1912: 131)

Due to Gmz, a word that was once autonomous gains grammatical, relational functions. Instances (1.5) and (1.6) exemplify how a word can grammaticalise according to Meillet. (1.5) I have a house by the sea. (TV Corpus 2006: Night Stalker) (1.6) That was the most extraordinary thing I have seen in my entire life. (TV Corpus 1977: The Incredible Hulk) Have in (1.5) represents the full lexical verb denoting possession while (1.6) mentions the auxiliary application of have, used to express the Present Perfect in PDE. The literal meaning of the lexeme gives way to the pure grammatical function due to Gmz8 . Hopper & Traugott (2003) elaborated on the notion of Gmz and postulated an updated definition that allows investigating further cases of language change within the Gmz approach. The term does not only represent the research frame but also refers “to the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions.” (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 18)

7

Examples will be given throughout the thesis. This description serves as a simplified example of Gmz. For more information on the Gmz of have and the perfect see e.g. Tagliamonte et al. (2002) or Yao (2014).

8

10

1

Introduction

As this study explores multi-word units, Traugott & Hopper’s redefinition is quite important because the framework is not confined to single words anymore (Meillet 1912: “à un mot”). Furthermore, their conceptions suggest that Gmz is a rather gradual process than an attribution. This means that a linguistic construction can grammaticalise several times and “continue to develop new grammatical functions” (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 18). The development of the verb to go illustrates a prototypical example of multiple Gmz of clausal constructions. (1.7) I am going home to hug my son an cook him chicken. (TV Corpus 2016: Supergirl) (1.8) I just got home from work and I am going to eat my pizza, for once, while it’s still hot. (TV Corpus 2011: The Middle) (1.9) I’m gonna find out how good you are, Johnson. (TV Corpus 1959: Alfred Hitchcock Presents) Starting as a full lexical verb expressing physical movement in concordance line (1.7), go becomes an auxiliary in the be-going-to future as in sentence (1.8) and further grammaticalises to a contracted morphological and phonological reduced clause (cf. sentence (1.9), Hopper & Traugott 2003: 68 ff. or Pérez 1990). The results of this Gmz cline indicate forms expressing a higher degree of grammaticality. Gonna, for instance, embodies the infinitive marker to and the future auxiliary going. Kurylowicz (1976) ascribes “a more grammatical status” to such forms (ibid.: 69). Fig. 1.4 summarises this conception of Gmz. Following Kurylowicz idea of Gmz of already grammaticalised forms, Traugott (2002: 26 ff.) suggests the term secondary Grammaticalization.

Figure 1.4 Conception of Gmz as in Hopper & Traugott (2003) and Kurylowicz (1976) (own illustration)

The use of the word unit emphasises that single lexemes and multi-word constructions can undergo Gmz. Specific characteristics and parameters of this approach will be addressed in Chap. 3, which contrasts the different frameworks.

1.2 Preliminary Delimitations of Linguistic Form and Framework

11

1.2.2.2 MWDMs and Lxz Lxz is defined as the adoption of words into the lexicon. As the term is used in different linguistic frameworks with entirely different meanings9 , its notion is more specific in the area of language change. Here, Lxz is the cover term for the origin and rise of lexical items. Beijering explains “Lexicalization is a composite type of language change whereby (part of) a complex lexeme or (part of) a syntagm, in certain linguistic contexts, undergoes both semantic reinterpretation and formal (= constituent internal) reanalysis. […] Lexicalization leads to a lexical item, i.e. a linguistic item belonging to a major category, with referential meaning, primary status, and which may convey the main point of linguistic message.” (Beijering 2015: 82)

Brinton & Traugott (2005: 32 ff.) agree and conclude that Lxz is seen as either fusion or separation10 followed by several correlated minor changes (cf. Fig. 1.5).

Figure 1.5 Conception of Lxz as in Brinton & Traugott (2005) and Beijering (2015) (own illustration)

An example of fusion in PDE is mermaid, which originates from OE mere ‘sea’ and OE mægd(en) ‘maiden’. Separation can be detected in words such as expressionism, multilateralism, professionalism (< X-ism) where the bound morpheme {ism} was clipped and reused to form new lexemes in analogy to the donor (cf. Beijering 2015: 82). Regular, transparent word formation processes such as Compounding (e.g. black + board > blackboard), Blending (web + log > blog) or Back Formations (orientation > orientate) are excluded from Lxz (cf. Brinton & Traugott 2005: 33 ff.11 ).

9

For example in the study of word formation and Gmz. Beijering (2015: 82) calls these constituents fusion and clipping and summarises the former as Lexicalization I and the latter Lexicalization II. 11 Therein, Brinton & Traugott deliver a detailed list of ordinary processes of word formation that are not regarded as Lxz. 10

12

1

Introduction

The framework of Lxz has also been applied to DMs. Wischer (2000: 355 ff.), for instance, argues that the development of English methinks qualifies as Lxz of DMs. (1.10) There is a Hopper (mee thinketh) ouer the toppe of the Oast. (OED: ‘methinks’. Heresbach 1577: Foure bookes of husbandry). (1.11) They are only jealous, methinks. (OED: ‘methinks’. Nicholson 1991: Martha Jane & Me) Deriving from the pronoun me and the verb think, methinks merges into an impersonal formula and should consequently be added as an entity in the lexicon according to Wischer (cf. 2000: 363). In line with Gmz and Pmz, Lxz adheres to features such as Reanalysis, Divergence or Persistence (cf. Brinton & Traugott 2005: 104 ff. and Beijering 2015: 83 ff.12 ). Reconsidering Beijering’s definition, the distinguishing characteristics of Lxz become apparent. Whereas Gmz leads to grammatical forms and Pmz leads to pragmatic items (cf. Sect. 1.2.2.3), Lxz delivers lexical units. The outcomes of Lxz belong to a major category (N, V, Adj, cf. Fig. 1.5). This change proceeds in the opposite direction of Gmz which is often characterised as the process leading from a major to a minor category, e.g. to articles, prepositions, conjunctions (cf. e.g. Hopper & Traugott 2003, more information follow in Sect. 3.1). The distinction betweem major and minor parts of speech was introduced by Brown & Miller (1991: 235 ff.). Some other linguists prefer using terms such as content and functional or open and closed. These categorial shifts are the reason why Lxz has also been characterised as a “reverse process” of Gmz (Kurylowicz 1965: 52) or as Degrammaticalization (e.g. Ramat 2001, van der Auwera 2002). The crucial difference of Lxz is that it creates words which still have referential meaning, express propositional content and not functionalised grammatical or pragmatic meaning. Therefore, Lxz will not be considered any further in this study on MWDMs.

1.2.2.3 MWDMs and Pmz As opposed to Gmz, Pmz is a rather recent approach. The framework was first introduced by Erman & Kotsinas (1993) in a study on Swedish ‘ba and its Germanic correspondent you know in PDE. They define Pmz as the study of the 12

A detailed description of each parameter exceeds the study’s scope, and the research goals would also not benefit from it. For further information, see Beijering (2015) or Hopper & Traugott (2003).

1.2 Preliminary Delimitations of Linguistic Form and Framework

13

origin and rise of DMs as well as their gradual diachronic and current changes in the linguistic system (cf. Erman & Kotsinas 1993). Dostie (2009) provides a definition that summarises the basic ideas of the approach and matches the study’s research interest to multi-word units. “The term [pragmaticalization] refers to a process of linguistic change in which a full lexical […] or grammatical item […] changes category and status and becomes a pragmatic item, that is, an item which is not fully integrated into the syntactic structure of the utterance and which has a textual or interpersonal meaning.” (Dostie 2009: 203)

The term item is not restricted to one lexeme but refers to single- and multi-word units13 . Dostie further explains that DMs result from the Pmz of either lexical or grammatical items. In analogy to Fig. 1.4, Pmz can be roughly conceptualised as in Fig. 1.6. Figure 1.6 Conception of Pmz as in Dostie (2009) (own illustration)

As MWDMs were introduced as a subcategory of DMs, ‘discourse marker’ in Fig. 1.6 obviously implies that multi-word forms can also be the outcome of Pmz. The following text passage shows the broader context of concordance (1.2). It contains polysemous applications of the form you know. (1.12) Do you know what scares me? You know more about computers at your age than I ever will. You know, when I was 10, all I had was a newspaper route, a model airplane and an unbroken string of the X-Men starting at issue one. (TV Corpus 1998: JAG) The first and second you know in (1.12) are conventional uses in questions or propositions addressing the mental knowledge of the interlocutor. Initial you know in the third sentence demonstrates DM use. In Dostie’s words (cf. 2009: 203 ff.), the unit is syntactically isolated from the rest of the sentence. Additionally, you know does not express functions related to conventional grammar but rather to 13

This applies for all forthcoming uses of item, form or unit.

14

1

Introduction

the dimensions of discourse. It does not respond to the actual knowledge of the speaker or the addressee but features discourse-organising purposes and provides the statement with a personal touch14 . This section has introduced Pmz as an autonomous approach. However, the rise of DMs is a much-debated concern in linguistics, and the provided definitions are only examples of the few attempts to establish an explicit definition. Diewald states “pragmaticalization […] has not been defined in its own right up to now” (2011: 373). Hence, there is no consensus about a definition, let alone the status of Pmz. This and the fact that Pmz is never considered independently from Gmz15 demands that the applicability of Gmz and Pmz on MWDMs has to be clarified before the selected MWDMs can be analysed. As a consequence, Chap. 3 discusses DMs in the GrammaticalizationPragmaticalization interface without impacts of Lxz. The Venn-diagram in Fig. 1.7 illustrates this preliminary placement of MWDMs in this intersection16 . Figure 1.7 MWDMs in the GrammaticalizationPragmaticalization interface (own illustration, based on Beijering 2015: 83)

To establish a framework which effectively analyses MWDMs, four perspectives need to be discussed in greater depth. Resulting from this preliminary delimitation of linguistic approaches towards MWDMs are i) MWDMs as conventional Gmz, ii) MWDMs as Gmz in a broadened sense, iii) MWDMs as Pmz or iv) MWDMs in a Pmz approach within the Gmz framework. Chap. 3 is devoted to the discussion of each idea. 14

For further analysis of the DM you know see e.g. Müller (2005: 157 ff.). At least in the works and papers studied for this thesis. 16 Venn-Diagrams show similarities of two, three or more parties. The idea stems from the set theory in mathematics (cf. Künzli & Meli 2007: 3). 15

1.3 Structure of the Thesis

1.3

15

Structure of the Thesis

This introductory chapter has characterised the linguistic research area and the corresponding gap in knowledge (Sect. 1.1). Research aims and preliminary delimitations (Sect. 1.2) identified MWDMs within the Gmz-Pmz interface as the subject of this study. It was also argued that the notion of Lxz does not suffice to exhaustively describe MWDMs. The structure of the thesis is as follows: To introduce and specify the notion of MWDMs in Sect. 2.3, the linguistic form is discussed within the categories of PMs (Sect. 2.1) and DMs (Sect. 2.2). Sect. 2.3.1 and Sect. 2.3.2 introduce the three MWDMs, i.e. by the way, all the same and what is more, and explain their selection. Chapter 3 establishes the linguistic approach towards MWDMs by critically reviewing four approaches to the description of MWDMs. Conventional Gmz approaches towards DMs are scrutinised in Sect. 3.1. Lehmann’s (1995), Hopper’s (1991) and Heine & Kuteva’s Gmz parameters (Sect. 3.1.1–Sect. 3.1.3) represent these conceptions. A broadened Gmz approach, adapted to the case of DMs by Traugott (1995) and colleagues, is discussed in Sect. 3.2. Then, the concept of Pmz (Sect. 3.3) as defined by Erman & Kotsinas (1993), Sect. 3.3.1, and by Aijmer (1997), Sect. 3.3.2, is introduced. The fourth approach towards MWDMs in Sect. 3.4 treats Pmz as a subprocess of Gmz according to Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen (2002). Finally, Sect. 3.4.2 defines this study’s approach towards the analysis of MWDMs. After that, Chap. 4 presents this framework’s six mechanisms. Oriented to the linguistic dimensions of semantics, syntactics and phonology, Discursivization, Scope Extensions, Syntactic Isolation, Acategorialization, Consistency and Prosodic Accentuation are introduced (Sect. 4.1.1–Sect. 4.3.2). Chap. 5 elaborates on the corpus-informed methodology and presents the OED and the TV Corpus as the sources of the data (Sect. 5.1). The following elaborations (Sect. 5.2) explain how the study analyses the data. The analysis in Chap. 6 describes the developments of the MWDMs by the way (Sect. 6.1), all the same (Sect. 6.2) and what is more (Sect. 6.3). Using the established mechanism-based framework and the corpus-informed approach, the three MWDMs are systematically investigated on the basis of the multi-dimensional mechanisms. The analyses will reflect on the presented characteristics of MWDMs and include mechanisms and parameters of the various approaches towards their developments. The conclusion (Chap. 7) summarises results and implications for the linguistic form and framework (Sect. 7.1). Finally, limitations (Sect. 7.2) of this work are discussed and an outlook for further research (Sect. 7.3) is provided.

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

Discourse marker, first mentioned by Deborah Schiffrin 1987, tends to be the most frequently used term for items operating on the discourse level (cf. Brinton 1996: 29). However, there is neither general agreement on the term as such nor on its characteristics. On the one hand, there are numerous existing terms used to describe items expressing non-propositional meaning—for example discourse particle (Schourup 1985, Kroon 1995), disourse-shift marker (Polanyi 1985), discourse operator (Redeker 1991), pragmatic expression (Erman 1987), pragmatic marker (Beeching 2016, Fraser 1988; 1996; 1999), pragmatic particle (Holmes 1995), interactional sign (Stenström 1994), filler (Brown 1977, Svartvik & Stenström 1985), parenthetical (Brinton 2017), inserts (Jucker 2017) etc. On the other hand, the same lin-guistic forms receive different denominations by different linguists, as becomes evident in Table 2.1. It illustrates the various different terms being applied to selected words and phrases that convey discourse-structuring and/or interactional meaning. Due to this prevailing uncertainty and inconsistency between the terms, the thesis initially defines why and how the term discourse marker is used. By applying Fraser’s classification of DMs as a specific subclass of PMs (1988; 1996; 1999), the items ranked as DMs can be distinguished (Sect. 2.1). Regarding their fundamental functionalities, DMs are characterised as constructions expressing text- and discourse-organising as well as meta-communicative, interpersonal functions (Sect. 2.2). Based on these definitions, MWDMs are introduced as a specific class that can be singled out from the heterogeneous group of DMs. It will be explained why the MWDMs by the way, all the same and what is more are particularly suitable for the establishment of a framework which describes the rise of MWDMs (Sect. 2.3). Fig. 2.1 serves as a guideline for this chapter. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 J.-F. Heeren, Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39507-0_2

17

18

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

Table 2.1 Alternative terminology applied to discourse-pragmatic devices by different linguists (taken from Furkó 2020: 3)

Figure 2.1 Classification of MWDMs by the way, all the same and what is more in this study (own illustration, based on Fraser 1988; 1996 and on Siepmann 2000; 2005)

Starting from the broad field of PMs (Sect. 2.1), DMs are distinguished as a subcategory (Sect. 2.2) and further formally classified as MWDMs (Sect. 2.3). By the way, all the same and what is more belong to different functional subclasses of MWDMs, which allows analysing these forms in a multifaceted Pmz approach. This step-by-step approximation offers a distinct and precise definition of MWDMs as a subclass of the previously defined DMs and PMs.

2.1 Pragmatic Markers

2.1

19

Pragmatic Markers

As this thesis intends to scrutinise MWDMs, it needs a theoretical foundation explaining which forms can be defined as DMs. Considering the state of the art, there is no consensus on concrete terminology and functionality of DMs. One approach, which seems to offer a fruitful treatment of PMs and DMs, is introduced by Fraser (1988). Several studies in this linguistic area refer to Fraser and his classifications (e.g. Dér 2010). The following sections explain how Fraser defines PMs and DMs and how he conceptualises their relationship (cf. Sect. 2.1.2). As his classifications relate to the linguistic concepts of discourse and pragmatics, both terms are initially delineated1 . Fraser’s classification enables this study to describe the functions of DMs and to identify forms which can and cannot act as DMs.

2.1.1

Pragmatic Meaning and Discourse Structure

Trying to illustrate the thesis’ view of DMs as a subcategory of PMs, it is crucial to introduce the elementary conceptions of pragmatics and discourse. In linguistics, these terms are connoted with different areas of investigation. Therefore, it must be delineated how this study’s notion of PMs and DMs relates to the general ideas of pragmatics and discourse. The following chapters need this initial contemplation as they will expose the pragmatic meaning and discourse-structuring functions of PMs and DMs. In line with syntax, semantics, phonology and other dimensions, pragmatics can be treated as a linguistic discipline2 . Pragmatics is described as the study of meaning which is not explicitly expressed by words. It is the extra meaning speakers convey beyond the literal level and how this is interpreted by listeners. Cruse (2000: 16) explains that pragmatics considers aspects which arise naturally 1

Table 2.1 indicates that linguists not only distinguish between pragmatics and discourse but also between the notions of particle and marker. As opposed to the considerations of the former distinctions, elaborations on the latter do not provide profound results of which this research would benefit (for discussions on the uses of marker and particle see e.g. Furkó 2009). In this study, the term marker is applied due to its terminological acknowledged status as in pragmatic marker and discourse marker. 2 To offer a functional definition in this paragraph, pragmatics is treated as a rather independent level of description. Pragmatics is also treated as a perspective on various linguistic levels (Verschueren 1987). Interrelationships between pragmatics and semantics will be regarded in later chapters.

20

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

from the context and not automatically from the linguistic forms’ lexical meanings. Language in context expresses meaning which is not only dependent on words but also on ’extra-meaning’ written into or read into utterances without being overtly encoded. This is why Traugott sees pragmatics as the investigation of “non-literal meaning that arises in language use” (2004: 539). In sum, pragmatics can be defined as the study of contextualised, meta-textual meaning depending on social and interpersonal relations. Unlike pragmatics, discourse is not a linguistic discipline but a linguistic form or level of linguistic description (similar to the form of sentences in syntax or the form of texts in text linguistics). Discourse is related to spoken and written communication between people and is consequently a product of language use (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 11 f.). The most important discipline relating to the study of discourse as a linguistic form is arguably text linguistics. Jucker (2017: 165 ff.) explains that discourse in the sense of text linguistics focuses on structural properties such as sequences, story structures or turn-taking. Discourse would thus be predominantly devoted to text properties and dialogue organisation. Brinton (2017) concludes that pragmatics would rather be user-centred and interested in the process of text production. The analysis of discourse structure, by contrast, is text-centred and interested in the product. Schiffrin’s (1987) treatment of DMs as participant-indexing and text-indexing forms reflects these two linguistic spheres. Nevertheless, Brinton stresses that a strict distinction is not always simple and productive (2001: 139). DMs will demonstrate why her objection is justified. The units fulfil a variety of functions which are considered by pragmatics and discourse. They exhibit pragmatic-interactional and discourse-structuring functions alike (cf. e.g. Jucker 2017: 166 or Furkó 2009: 25). The term discourse marker is therefore somehow misleading as it is, in a conventional linguistic thinking, mainly addressed to discourse, which is per definition (see above) less related to interpersonal implications. Definitions and case stud-ies of DMs, though, demonstrate that DMs are discussed in pragmatic as well as discourse dimensions. The following chapters explain that not all expressions with metatextual prag-matic notions have discourse-organising functions, too. Therefore, the term discourse marker is reserved for items operating on both levels. This feature will distinguish DMs from other PMs.

2.1 Pragmatic Markers

2.1.2

21

Fraser’s Classification of Pragmatic Markers

In the English language, there is a large number of forms expressing meaning which goes beyond literal character. Interjections, declaratives, rhetorical questions, idioms, connectives, modal particles, speaker-oriented adverbials, discourse markers and numerous other devices carry pragmatic, context-dependent notions, too. To organise and to distinguish DMs from all these other forms, Fraser (1988, 1996, 1999) offers a classification of discourse-pragmatic interactive devices. As opposed to other classifications3 , Fraser introduces a sophisticated, organised and differentiated classification which builds upon the notions of pragmatics and discourse as elucidated in Sect. 2.1.1. He introduces the term pragmatic marker as an umbrella term for all pragmatic-interactive forms. Therefore, Fraser considers DMs a subtype of PMs. Based on his explanations, Sect. 2.2 can then define and distinguish DMs and later on MWDMs. Fraser divides linguistic expressions into two parts: i) forms with propositional/content meaning and ii) forms with non-propositional, pragmatic meaning. Pragmatic meaning is conveyed by PMs which are distinct from the propositional content of the sentence because PMs signal the speaker’s potential communicative intentions (cf. Fraser 1988: 20 ff. and 1996: 167 ff.). The following example illustrates this partition: (2.1) Truthfully, you should have answered. (2.2) You should have answered truthfully. (Taken from Fraser 1996: 169) Truthfully in (2.1) represents the use as a PM since the adverb signals that the person’s manner of speaking is sincere. In (2.2), though, truthfully modifies the manner of the person answering and is thus part of the propositional content of the sentence. Fraser states that PMs, as in (2.1), carry representational, procedural meaning (cf. 1996: 169 ff.). As PMs are drawn from all segments of grammar (e.g. adverbials, prepositional phrases, conjunctions), Fraser establishes not a formal but a functional classification. More precisely, he specifies four types of PMs—basic markers, commentary markers, parallel markers and discourse markers (cf. Fig. 2.2). Fraser stresses that PMs are context- and speaker-dependent and that their functions may vary. Consequently, there are some PMs which relate to more than only one category. Nevertheless, it is largely acknowledged since Schiffrin (1987: 314) that pragmatic markers have a certain ‘core meaning’. This justifies Fraser’s four-way classification. 3

Brinton (1996), for example, postulates 16 different characteristics of PMs.

22

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

With reference to the general distinction between content meaning and pragmatic meaning, Fraser proposes the constellation as illustrated in Fig. 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Fraser’s four types of PMs (own illustration, based on Fraser 1988: 21)

The succeeding paragraphs briefly outline Fraser’s four PMs and addresse respective subcat-egories and some examples. Tables will represent the subcategories and selected forms. The chosen instances are not based upon frequency or typicality4 . It will now be delineated how Fraser distinguishes basic-, commentary- and parallel markers from DMs. Basic markers (cf. Table 2.2) are introduced as forms signalling the force of the basic meaning with relation to connotations of the lexical expressions and the mediated mood. Their representational meaning emphasises the speaker’s intention that exceeds the propositional meaning. Fraser argues that phrasal pronominal constructions with a verb (often I + mental state verb) and sometimes in combination with a modal verb are subsequently not defined as DMs but as basic markers. He explains that these forms, in line with modal particles, question tags (e.g. don’t you), idioms, proverbs, pre-fabricated interrogative and imperative clauses (e.g. Why not...), primarily describe the way an expression is performed and not how discourse is organised. Interjections (e.g. Wow!, Oh!5 ), simple expressions (e.g. Get lost!) and proverbs are also excluded from DMs and treated as basic markers for the same reasons ( Fraser 1999: 942 ff.). (2.3) Mark my words, he will never finish on time. (Fraser 1996: 175) The basic marker in (2.3), for instance, is used idiomatically and indicates a personal warning. 4

A detailed consideration of each category is not needed as only the last category (DM) is in the focus of this work. For further material and explanations see Fraser 1996. 5 At this point, Fraser demonstrates that his notion of DMs diverges from Schiffrin’s initial approach as Schiffrin treated oh as a DM (1987).

2.1 Pragmatic Markers

23

Table 2.2 summarises the forms Fraser considers as basic markers. Table 2.2 Basic markers (as in Fraser 1996)

Commentary markers (cf. Table 2.3) insert comments whose messages provide further per-sonal notions to the utterance. Sadly in (2.4) demonstrates such a specifying comment. (2.4) Sadly, Mary arrived 5 minutes too late to meet the deadline. (Fraser 1996:180) Fraser classifies adverbs of comment and viewpoint (e.g. obviously, stupidly), focus particles (e.g. even, only, just) and pause markers (e.g. hum..., well...,) as commentary markers. Un-like DMs, they do not signal a two-placed relationship between adjacent discourse segments (cf. Fraser 1999: 942 ff.). Table 2.3 presents forms that classify as commentary markers. Table 2.3 Commentary markers (as in Fraser 1996)

Parallel markers (cf. Table 2.4) signal an additive message in line with the basic message.

24

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

(2.5) John. Come over here right now! (Fraser 1996: 185) Right now is explicitly accentuating the speaker’s anger, which would be less obvious without the PM. Exclamations, along with other forms, are not considered as DMs but as parallel markers (cf. Table 2.4). Table 2.4 Parallel markers (as in Fraser 1996)

Fourth and finally, Fraser describes discourse markers as forms signalling “the relationship of the basic message to the [...] discourse” (Fraser 1996: 186). They have procedural meaning because they clarify how the addressee should interpret the utterance (see also Schiffrin 1987). (2.6) I think you should cool off a little. In other words, sit down and wait a little bit. (Fraser 1996: 188) The prepositional phrase in other words functions as a cohesive device indicating that the following utterance will elaborate on the preceding statement. According to Fraser, estab-lishing explicit references between utterances and organising the surrounding discourse are the decisive functions of DMs. In line with Table 2.2 to Table 2.4, Fraser suggests a further sub-classification of DMs. As this will be important for the selected MWDMs, the classification will be discussed in detail in the next subchapter that is devoted to DMs as a subcategory of PMs.

2.2

Discourse Markers

Now that the relationship between PMs and DMs has been explained, and forms which would not function as DMs have been delineated, characteristic functions of DMs can be described in this section. To complete the classification of PMs and to introduce the subclassification of DMs, Fraser’s notion of DMs will be expounded in the following paragraphs. To present a diverse introduction to the

2.2 Discourse Markers

25

linguistic form of DMs, Fraser’s ideas are complemented with further characteristics that are stated in corresponding literature. Distinguishing features of DMs are accumulated and assigned to the two central modes of DMs—pragmatics and discourse. Next to basic markers, commentary markers and parallel markers, Fraser qualifies DMs as a discrete class of PMs (cf. Fig. 2.2). He further identifies four types of DMs expressing different functions: topic change markers, contrastive markers, elaborative markers and inferential markers (cf. Fraser 1996: 186 ff.). Accordingly, Fig. 2.3 extends the hierarchical structure of Fraser’s PMs and DMs (cf. Fig. 2.2).

Figure 2.3 Fraser’s four types of DMs (own illustration, based on Fraser 1988: 21)

Topic change markers indicate that the following utterance signals a digression from the ongoing topic. (2.7) Speaking of Marsha, where is she these days? (Fraser 1996: 187) The speaker inserts the DM to introduce a new topic that relates to his or her personal interests. Contrastive markers relate to the surrounding discourse by implying an opposing statement. (2.8) Jane is here. However, she isn’t going to stay. (Fraser 1996: 187) The subsequent comment conveys denial or contrast of the speaker. As the name already suggests, elaborative markers elaborate on the preceding discourse. (2.9) Take your raincoat with you. But above all, take gloves. (Fraser 1996: 188)

26

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

The proposition following the elaborative marker expresses refinements and further em-phases. The fourth class, inferential markers, indicates that the utterance following the DM is a conclusion drawn from the ongoing actions. (2.10) Mary went home. After all, she was sick. (Fraser 1996: 188) As it was done in the previous chapter, Table 2.5 summarises the different forms of DMs and offers some examples. The focus in this thesis will be on topic change markers, contrastive markers and elaborative markers, all of which being represented by a selected MWDM. By the way, all the same and what is more are highlighted in Table 2.5 because they will depict these cases. Due to reasons of space, no inferential MWDM will be analysed in more detail, but further research may apply the suggested approach and mechanisms to inferential markers as well. Table 2.5 Discourse markers (as in Fraser 1996)

Although Fraser delivers a comprehensive classification specifying forms and functions of DMs, his depiction is not generally acknowledged. Recent publications (e.g. Furkó 2009; 2020, Beijering 2015) have established that DMs are a formally and functionally incoherent group and that attempts to classify DMs would always be oversimplified. Furthermore, it has to be considered that Fraser predominantly focuses on the relationship of PMs to foregoing discourse. As the following paragraph will show, their scope is even more flexible. Fraser also states that PMs usually appear in initial position and that they predominantly originate from conjunctions, adverbials and prepositional phrases (cf. Fraser 1999). These claims need to be reviewed, especially when being applied to MWDMs. Nevertheless, this research benefits from Fraser’s functional classification as it will decisively influence the selection process of MWDMs for the analysis. While there is no general agreement on the terms Fraser proposed (topic change markers, contrastive markers etc.), various linguists agree that DMs should

2.2 Discourse Markers

27

be analysed on a pragmatic and discursive level (cf. Sect. 2.1.1)6 . As this idea applies to the general approach of Fraser, acknowledged features of DMs can be gathered from the existing literature and assigned to these dimensions.

2.2.1

Pragmatic-Interactional Functions

The pragmatic dimension of DMs considers the extra-sentential and extragrammatical meaning of pragmatic-interactive forms. DMs were defined as PMs that shift the focus on contextual and interpersonal content and thus signal the speaker’s potential communicative intentions (cf. Sect. 2.1.1 and Sect. 2.2). As these functions distinguish DMs from other lan-guage change phenomena and linguistic forms, further linguists, apart from Fraser, describe these characteristics in great detail. Probably the most apparent feature of DMs is their non-propositional status (cf. e.g. Furkó 2020, Beijering 2015, Traugott 2007). Due to their abstract meanings, they are semantically optional but simultaneously crucial for pragmatic speaker-hearer relations. In (2.10) for instance, after all has no impact on the fact that Mary is ill. Grammatically and semantically, the form could have been left out. By inserting the DM, the speaker wants to address the happenings that led to Mary’s sickness. Observers of this discussion probably do not understand the connection, but the two (or more) interlocutors in (2.10) most certainly will. The DM guides the hearers towards a particular interpretation (cf. Furkó 2020: 7 f.). Diewald explains that this indexicality is an inherent function of DMs and reinforces context-dependency (cf. Diewald 2011: 369 ff.). Furthermore, this is one of the reasons why it is anything but easy to adequately translate or paraphrase a DM (cf. Brinton 1996). Since “context is a complex and multilayered notion” (Taavitsainen & Jucker 2015: 6), context-dependency explains why DMs offer a multitude of discursive functions (cf. e.g. Fraser’s different classifications in Sect. 2.2 and Table 2.5). Hedging, politeness, turn taking, hesitating and topic shifts are only some of the functions Beeching (2016: 4 ff.) lists to illus-trate the plethora of meanings DMs can convey. Due to the polysemy and multifunctionlity, arranging DMs into classes as Fraser does inevitably involves generalisations. Therefore, this study takes Fraser’s classes as a starting point to distinguish between the different 6

Jucker & Taavitsainen (2013) call these two functions textual functions and interpersonal functions; Furkó (2009) uses the terms role in interaction and pragmatic inferencing; Schiffrin (1987) prefers text-indexing and participant-indexing.

28

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

prag-matic notions of DMs. Simultaneously, DMs will not be restricted to one functionality since multifunctionality allows for a more comprehensive analysis. Another very intriguing, albeit complex part of DMs is their unconventional morpho-syntactic nature. Since different grammatical forms can function as DMs and, with regard to multi-word forms, sometimes consist of different grammatical material within the unit itself, it is hardly possible to assign an indistinguishable grammatical function to DMs. Subsequently, it is problematic to classify DMs in terms of conventional morpho-syntactic word classes (Schiffrin 1987: 40 ff.). Along with the abstraction of meaning, these forms do not share conventional grammatical (e.g. subjunctive, pronominal, temporal) but flexible, pragmatic-interactional functions.

2.2.2

Discourse-Structuring Functions

Fraser explains that DMs must exhibit discourse-structuring functions. In the same vein, Heine states that “the main function of DMs is to relate an utterance to the situation of discourse, more specifically to speaker-hearer interaction, speaker attitudes, and/or the or-ganization of texts” (2013: 1211). Whether or not the discourse-relating function is more important than the pragmatic aspect should not be discussed here. Heine’s statement em-phasises that text organisation is the second crucial and defining capacity of DMs. Although the quote points at the interrelation between pragmatics and discourse, a separate consider-ation is fruitful since it yields more distinct and defined clues for the analysis. Furthermore, this approach relates to Fraser’s initial classification of PMs and DMs (cf. Sect. 2.1). As non-propositionality and contextualised meaning are central for the functions of DMs, procedural meaning with a varying scope triggers discoursestructuring properties. The scope of a DM varies from a single word to a whole sentence (cf. Furkó 2020: 9 ff.), or in Brinton’s words (cf. 1996: 33 ff.), from local to global level. (2.11) You, above all, should understand that. (TV Corpus 1998. Babylon 5 ) (2.12) Each person you see here has their own story of his selflessness, generosity, good citizenship, and, above all, his integrity. (TV Corpus 2016: How to Get Away with Murder)

2.2 Discourse Markers

29

Concordance lines (2.11) and (2.12) illustrate how the DM’s scope changes its range from one word towards a whole sentence. Another striking characteristic of DMs is that they “bracket units of talk” (Schiffrin 1987: 31). Fraser (1999: 937 ff.) schematises the bracketing as it is depicted in Fig. 2.4.

Figure 2.4 Bracketing of DMs according to Fraser (1999: 937 ff.) (own illustration)

Fig. 2.4 highlights the seemingly extra-sentential behaviour of DMs. As they are freely movable in utterances, they can point backwards, forwards or in both directions on the textual level (cf. Mroczynski 2012: 92). At the same time, DMs also relate to persons or extra-sentential proceedings (cf. Schiffrin 1987: 35). This is why Schiffrin (ibid.) ascribes indexicality towards DMs on the pragmatic and on the textual-discursive level (cf. Sect. 2.2 and Sect. 2.2.1). Furthermore, the distribution of DMs does not follow any grammatical rules or morpho-syntactic trends—they can be found at the beginning, at the end or in the middle of the sentence (cf. Fagard 2010: 3). Consequently, DMs acquire a syntactically and grammatically free and optional standing. This is why DMs set themselves apart from e.g. conjunctions, which can also have a varying scope but apply a fixed slot at the beginning of a clause. Combined with weak clause association and disintegration (cf. Furkó 2020: 9 ff. and Beijering 2015: 69 ff.), DMs operate as linguistic units that do not express proper semantic notions or grammatical references but text- and discourse-related functions. Next to striking features on the pragmatic-semantic and syntactic level, DMs also exhibit specific phonological and prosodic characteristics. Isolation from other sentential participants provokes specific prosodic contours (cf. e.g. Traugott 1995, Auer & Günthner 2003, Heine 2013; 2016). DMs are frequently separated by pauses or accentuation in oral speech or by “comma intonation” (cf. Hansen 1997: 156) in written texts. Hirschberg & Litman (1993: 516), for example, discovered that the English DM well shows independent stress patterns in about every second case. By this, the DMs’ independence of any morpho-syntactic conventions is literally stressed, and the speaker can articulate his personal use of the marker. This structuring element allows the user to insert meta-linguistic messages as well as the possibility to recapitulate his thoughts.

30

2.3

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

Multi-word Discourse Markers

Thus far, PMs and DMs have been in the centre of the descriptions. The title of the thesis, though, explicitly addresses MWDMs. The reasons for the detailed preceding explanations and classifications are that every MWDM is a PM and DM at the same time. Vice versa, not every PM is a DM and not every DM is a MWDM. Fig. 2.5 illustrates the integration of MWDMs within the scopes of PMs and DMs. Figure 2.5 MWDMs as DMs and PMs (own illustration)

This kind of hierarchical relationship demonstrates why it is crucial to start at the superor-dinate category of PMs and then stepwise approach the realm of MWDMs. Now that the notions of PMs and DMs have been elucidated, MWDMs can be introduced. This chapter explains how MWDMs are defined and in what way MWDMs are a subcategory of DMs as well as how MWDMs exhibit valuable features for the analysis. MWDMs will be introduced as a well-defined formal subclass of which by the way, all the same and what is more are attractive examples. Despite Fraser’s sophisticated functional classification of DMs (cf. Sect. 2.1 and 2.2), DMs still consist of various different forms. Table 2.5 has already demonstrated the heterogeneity: epistemic parentheticals, adverbial constructions, prepositional phrases, adverbs and fur-ther linguistic forms classify as DMs. In the same way as this pluralism characterises DMs, this diversity complicates analyses in the area of DMs and triggers controversies. Blakemore (2002), for instance, argues that there is no recognised distinguishing criterion for DM status. Lewis (2011) consents that in his opinion “the status of discourse markers remains uncertain [... and] there is little consensus on whether they are a syntactic or a pragmatic category” (2011: 419 f.). These considerations, however, should not refute previous descriptions but rather emphasise that it is difficult

2.3 Multi-word Discourse Markers

31

if not impossible to create one work that captures every inch of DMs’ scope. Recognising and at the same time sidestepping this dilemma, this thesis applies a further formal division of DMs into MWDMs. Adhering to Fraser’s functional classification of DMs into topic change markers, contrastive markers, elaborative markers and inferential markers (cf. Sect. 2.2 and Table 2.5), the formal categorisation into MWDMs specifies the number of linguistic forms which have to be considered. Although this categor-isation might appear arbitrary and very simple, the analysis and the parameters will gain in accuracy and will deliver more valuable results. Using the term multi-word DM for constructions such as by the way, all the same or what is more, the study’s notion of word has to be explained as the respective interpretation can cause ambiguities. Multi-word units, which are also listed in dictionaries, differ from ordinary single-word items because the combination of the multi-word construction’s participants form one semantic unit. Hence, these units could also be interpreted as one word. Nevertheless, this thesis refers to a purely orthographic concept of word (cf. Schmid 2016: 24 ff.). Although this simple counting method is not the most sophisticated in linguistic studies, it is most helpful for the formal distinction of MWDMs. Furthermore, this approach is quite common in corpus and computer linguistics7 (cf. e.g. Rayson 2015 or Gries 2015). Since the TV Corpus is an online corpus that also distinguishes words purely due to an orthographic space on both sides of a word, the methodological and linguistic approaches towards MWDMs are in agreement8 . Siepmann proposed the idea of MWDMs thanks to its intuitive label which responds to their pre-packaged phrasal character (cf. 2005: 34 ff.). The prefix multi is interpreted as “more than two, as do most linguists” (cf. Siepmann 2000: 5). By using the term discourse marker, he emphasises parallels to the DMs. As a consequence, MWDMs equally carry pragmatic-interactional and discourse-structuring functions (cf. Sect. 2.2). Siepmann and this studybreak with the convention that “discourse markers in the literature typically consist of one or maximally two words” (Müller 2005: 229 ; see also Heine 2013: 1211 or Brinton 1996: 33). An obvious consequence of utilising MWDMs is that the large number of one-word DMs (e.g. well, but, actually) and also epistemic two-word parentheticals such as I think, you know can be excluded. This distinction of 7 In these areas, the idea of n-grams is frequently applied (n ∈ N > 0). A 1-gram or monogram would be e.g. by, a 2-gram or bigram e.g. by the and a 3-gram or trigram e.g. by the way. 8 For more information on the methodological foundation and the TV Corpus see Chap. 5. 9 In this passage, Müller explains that Fraser’s ideas (1988, 1996, 1999) were an exception in the late 1990 s and early 2000 s as he listed one-word DMs in line with multi-word units and not only conventional short DMs.

32

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

DMs is established in analogy to Fig. 2.3. It must be noted that both classifications apply simultaneously to DMs and MWDMs because Fraser differentiates between functional categories, and Fig. 2.6 adds a formal, lexicological level10 .

Figure 2.6 Formal distinction of DMs according to their length (own illustration)

To distinguish MWDMs from ‘simple word collections’, Siepmann consults lexicological fea-tures. Besides the pragmatic and discursive functionality, the single lexemes of a MWDM need an internal fixation as a phrase. “To sum up, in lexicographic terms, multi-word discourse markers can be de-scribed as collocations or fixed expressions.” (Siepmann 2005: 49)

Siepmann (2005) provides another subdivision of MWDMs into second-level discourse mark-ers which are distinguished by empirical appearances in a corpus. Since this work operates corpus-informed and not primarily corpus-based (cf. Chap. 5), this further breakdown is not considered any closer. The main benefit of combining Fraser’s functional and Siepmann’s formal perspective is that both approaches are mutually complementary. As the previous chapters have shown, a definite semantic and functional classification of DMs is not always possible due to their context-dependency. Siepmann’s lexicographic distinction of MWDMs, however, is unmistakable—MWDMs consist of minimum three words. As a result, it becomes easier to select MWDMs from the heterogeneous class of DMs. Analysing changes of MWDMs promises valuable results for the establishment of a frame-work and corresponding mechanisms. Since MWDMs are considered as DMs and PMs, conclusions of this study may also reveal implications for the general view on discourse-organising items. What is even more 10

In accordance with the n-gram terminology, one-word, two-word and multi-word DMs could have also been named mono-, bi- and trigrams. As this study refers to Siepmann’s term multi-word discourse marker, the former terminology is applied due to standardisation.

2.3 Multi-word Discourse Markers

33

valuable for current research is that MWDMs carry larger semantic, morphosyntactic and phonological substance than monosyllabic DMs. Gmz and Pmz processes can subsequently be observed in the whole construction and the single participants themselves. In the same way one-word items function as DMs in one context and as proper lexical items in another (polysemy), MWDMs also display this kind of complementary distribution. Since the DM use and the lexical use of a construction co-exist (the following chapter will elaborate on this), pragmatic and discursive functions of MWDMs can be identified in similar fashion as it was shown in numerous existing case studies on one-word or two-word DMs (cf. e.g. Sect. 1.2.2). Analyses of MWDMs have therefore even more obvious and comprehensive implications for the linguistic form and framework of DMs. Before the linguistic framework is defined, it will be explained why by the way, all the same and what is more are chosen as MWDMs for this thesis and how they correspond to the ideas of Fraser and Siepmann.

2.3.1

By the Way, all the Same and What is More—Lexical and MWDM Usages

To investigate processes MWDMs have undergone, it is vital to identify their corresponding source constructions. As already mentioned, Jucker & Taavitsainen (2013) explain that DMs derive from forms that express conventional lexical meaning. At a certain point in history, these expressions gained an additional usage and were applied in different contexts in which they gained pragmatic meaning while simultaneously abandoning their original notion. By being applied in a new context in which the form was primarily not used, constructions gain indexical and pragmatic functions and acquire DM status (cf. ibid.). Source domains for MWDMs can be analysed diachronically and described as slow language change processes over time11 . As the English language is in constant flux, current changes in PDE also lead to the emergence of new MWDMs. In contemporary English, these processes are particularly intriguing because they can be experienced and described right now. Furthermore and as opposed to retrospective studies, which need historical data, it is easier to distinguish lexical source

11

Brinton (2017), for instance, conducts such successive historical investigations of DMs and describes de-velopments over the different language periods from OE to PDE. She analyses for example the OE DM hwæt as the origin of PDE what.

34

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

constructions of MWDMs in PDE because they are polysemous. Thus, historical developments of MWDMs are not in the centre of this study, and historical corpora do not have to be consulted. Nevertheless, it is of prime importance to contrast original lexical use and DM use. As it is quite common for linguistic studies in this area, the Oxford English Dictionary is consulted12 for lexical applications. Examples from the TV Corpus complement the following sections.

2.3.1.1 By the Way—Prepositional Phrase as a Topic Change MWDM According to the OED, by the way is a prepositional phrase which relates to incidents that happen alongside or near the road (cf. OED: ‘by’ & ‘way’). (2.13) I was cozen’d by the way, and lost all my money. (OED: ‘by’. Shakespeare 1616: Winter’s Tale) Out of this lexical usage with locative character, a more figurative, metaphorical meaning of the phrase emerged. (2.14) Oh, by the way, I’m opening on Oxford Street so there may be a bit of a spotlight on us. (OED: ‘way’. Private Eye Magazine, May 2011) This parenthetical DM use is quite frequently applied in PDE to introduce a topic change or an aside.

2.3.1.2 All the Same—Adjective Phrase as a Contrastive MWDM OED suggests that all the same is synonymous with ‘equally acceptable’ or ‘indifferent’. The following example demonstrates the adjective use with predicative functions of the phrase by which the adjacent arguments receive equivalent status. (2.15) We have taken her to classical concerts and to music halls; and its all the same to her: she plays everything..she hears right off when she comes home. (OED: ‘same’. Shaw 1914: Pickering)

12

In this study, the electronic online version of the OED serves as a comprehensive resource for historical and contemporary variations of the English language. The OED offers innumerable attestations from OE to PDE. Example sentences are categorised and annotated according to their general morpho-syntactic functions and semantic notions. See Chap. 5 for an elaborate description and screenshots.

2.3 Multi-word Discourse Markers

35

Similar semantic notions can also be expressed when all the same functions as an attributive complement of a noun phrase. (2.16) It’s funny, you and I growing up around all the same people and we never met. (TV Corpus 1976: Rich Man, Poor Man—Book II ) Literal all the same is therefore used as an adjective phrase with either predicative or at-tributive notions. A further but fundamentally different application of the form is synonym-ous with ‘nevertheless’ or ‘notwithstanding’. (2.17) I was very sorry to come away. All the same, I’m glad to be at home again. (OED: ‘same’. Ruskin 1878: Letter to Dr. J. Brown) According to the OED, this use indicates something happening “in spite of what has been mentioned; even if circumstances had been otherwise” (cf. OED: ‘same’). This contrastive use comes close to MWDM all the same in Fraser’s contrastive discursive notion. (2.18) It’s a fair price for this kind of job. Well, all the same, I’d like to take it home and look it over, and I’ll get back to you. (TV Corpus 2008: Army Wives) All the same in (2.18) acts as a MWDM that refers to a preceding topic and initiates a contrastive proposition.

2.3.1.3 What is More—Wh-Clause as an Elaborative MWDM The comparative phrase receives its lexical notion by the expression of the clausal participant ‘more’. The whole construction subsequently signifies a statement of greater significance or importance than the preceding utterance. (2.19) I made a vow that I would never open that infernal Euclid book again, and, what is more, I never will! So that is straight. (OED: ‘more’. Astley 1894: Fifty Years of my Life) Due to the interrogative relative pronoun ‘what’, the phrase also triggers questions that discuss a specific argument. (2.20) What is more energizing than springtime in Paris? (TV Corpus 2016: Modern Family)

36

2

Defining the Linguistic Form of MWDMs

To provide an instance of what is more as an elaborative MWDM, the concordance lines are taken from the TV Corpus because the OED does not mention such implementations. (2.21) How can I interrogate him, if you shoot him? What is more, I do not believe him to be the guilty one. (TV Corpus 1988: ‘Allo’ Allo!) A comparative notion of what is more is still apparent although not as obvious as in (2.19). An interrogative function cannot be identified in the MWDM use and has apparently made room for elaborative purposes.

2.3.2

By the Way, all the Same and What is More—Justification of the Selection

By the way, all the same and what is more are not randomly chosen for the upcoming analyses but have been selected according to specific criteria. At this point, it becomes apparent why Fraser’s and Siepmann’s classifications of MWDMs influenced the selection process. First of all, the three linguistic forms were defined as DMs by Fraser (1996: 186 ff.). Secondly, and quite obviously, the three phrases consist of more than two words. Thus, by the way, all the same and what is more can be defined as DMs and formally subclassified as MWDMs. That these three cases were not arbitrarily chosen from other constructions that match this criteria has formal and functional reasons. As Table 2.5 has already indic-ated, each MWDM occupies a different core discursive function: by the way is a topic change MWDM, all the same a contrastive MWDM and what is more an elaborative MWDM. From a formal, morpho-syntactic perspective, the three MWDMs also differ from each other. The first MWDM is a prepositional phrase, the second one a predicative phrase and the third MWDM a wh-clause fragment13 . Furthermore, the three phrases convey varying core se-mantic notions as the previous sections have indicated. Additionally, there has been none to little previous literature on the three forms (cf. Brinton 2017 on what is more and Kim 2018 on by the way). All in all, the constructions can definitely be identified as MWDMs, and, as they depict diverging functional, formal and semantic notions, a multi-layered analysis of MWDMs can be guaranteed. Moreover, it is possible to compare the 13 Note that these formal classifications disappear in DM use (cf. Acategorialization in Sect. 4.2.2). Lexico-grammatically considered, however, the three phrases express such morpho-syntactic categories.

2.3 Multi-word Discourse Markers

37

three MWDMs’ changes since all of them consist of three words. Selecting three different MWDMs according to the just mentioned criteria promises interesting results for the linguistic form and its corresponding framework. By this short introduction to the main lexical and DM uses of the three MWDMs, the description of the linguistic form finishes. To sum up, MWDMs were defined as PMs ex-pressing speaker-hearer, context-dependent, pragmaticinteractional functions. In contrast to other subtypes of PMs (such as basicor parallel markers), MWDMs function as discourse-organising units, whose scope exceeds conventional grammatical relations. Furthermore, MWDMs were functionally classified according to the ideas of Fraser and formally defined as multi-word units with a length of minimal three constituents according to Siepmann. By the way, all the same and what is more are examples of MWDMs expressing different semantics, functionalities and morpho-syntax. This variety and diversity within the discrete class of MWDMs suggests intriguing examinations. Now, this thesis needs to define a linguistic framework that allows for a detailed study of MWDMs. Since this framework has not been defined in linguistic studies yet, the following chapter will discuss this issue.

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

The central purpose of this chapter is to identify a framework that allows investigating the rise of MWDMs. Chap. 2 introduced MWDMs as a subclass of DMs which occupy discursive and interpersonal functions. To scrutinise their development, the linguistic framework constitutes a scaffold and guideline on how to analyse the units’ changes. As Chap. 1 and Chap. 2 have indicated, there is no general consensus in linguistic research on how to treat the rise of DMs and MWDMs. Starting point of these debates is the question if theories of Gmz suffice to understand this specific case of language change. In simple terms, Gmz describes the process whereby a linguistic form acquires grammatical functions (cf. Sect. 1.2.2.1). DMs, however, exhibit pragmatic notions, and, in conventional approaches, grammar and pragmatics are fairly opposing concepts (e.g. Lehmann 1995, Hopper 1993 and Heine & Kuteva 2002). However, there are also interpretations of Gmz which incorporate pragmatic elements (e.g. Traugott 1995). Yet Erman & Kotsinas (1993) and Aijmer (1997), for instance, plead for a more rigid distinction of grammatical- and pragmatic markers and introduce a separated framework, i.e. Pmz. Despite all these different readings of DMs, the treatments are based upon similar fundamental characteristics. Table 3.1 offers an overview of features all these different notions, be it Gmz or Pmz, have in common. These shared features emphasise why the analysis of DMs within the GmzPmz-interface has become the subject of controversial discussions and why these two frameworks must be tested against the characteristics of MWDMs (single instances of Table 3.1 will be considered throughout this study). Although Pmz was introduced for the rise of DMs, Table 3.1 indicates that Gmz has the same

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 J.-F. Heeren, Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39507-0_3

39

40

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

Table 3.1 Shared characteristics of Gmz and Pmz (based on Brinton & Traugott 2005: 110 and Beijering 2015: 84 ff.)

potentials1 . Categorial changes and semantic bleaching, for instance, are integral characters of Pmz and Gmz and thus suggest that Gmz may also be used to analyse MWDMs. Therefore, it has to be initially discussed if and/or why Pmz is even necessary. This chapter investigates the following four approaches to eventually identify the most suitable framework for the analysis of MWDMs. i) ii) iii) iv)

MWDMs MWDMs MWDMs MWDMs

in a conventional Gmz approach—Sect. 3.1. in a broadened Gmz approach—Sect. 3.2. independent from Gmz in a Pmz approach—Sect. 3.3. in a Pmz approach within the Gmz framework—Sect. 3.4.

Since these four positions are crucial for the justification of this study’s approach, this chapter devotes a separate section to each position.

1

Subjectification and Pragmatic Strengthening receive a “(+)” as they are part of the broadened notion of Gmz (e.g. Traugott 1995) but not of the conventional approaches (as defined in Sect. 3.1). More discussions on Subjectification follow in Sect. 3.2.

3.1 MWDMs in a Conventional Gmz Approach?

41

i) Conventional Gmz theories (e.g. Lehmann 1995, Hopper 1991, Heine & Kuteva 2002) do not aim at the special developments of DMs. As a consequence, they struggle to describe the rise of DMs. Out of this controversy, further perspectives have emerged trying to describe the rise of DMs. ii) This camp analyses the rise of DMs within a redefined Gmz approach (cf. e.g. Traugott 1995, 2007, Diewald 2011). Traugott and her colleagues acknowledge the fact that DMs are no prototypical cases of Gmz. Therefore, they argue for a broader notion of grammar which allows incorporating pragmatic units in an adapted notion of Gmz. iii) This approach considers DMs as the outcome of Pmz (cf. e.g. Erman & Kotsinas 1993, Aijmer 1997). Representatives of this approach argue that Pmz and Gmz are diverging concepts. Pmz would describe the emergence of DMs which have extra-grammatical reference beyond the sentence whereas Gmz would depict the development of grammatical markers which in turn have explicit intra-sentential reference. iv) While many committed Gmz scholars avoid the term Pragmaticalization, this strand suggests a compromise. Similarities and differences of Gmz and Pmz approaches are recognised. As a consequence, they treat Pmz as a subtype of Gmz. DMs would represent borderline phenomena that deviate from prototypical cases of Gmz and perform changes according to the ideas of Pmz. However, their developments would be too close to the ideas of Gmz to call it an independent process (cf. Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen 2002). The following four subchapters are oriented to the given four approaches towards DMs. Resulting from these various attempts is a notion of Pmz which is sufficiently differentiated to describe language change processes of MWDMs. Based on this treatment of the pragmatic units, Pmz mechanisms, which define the changes of MWDMs, are generated, and the foundation of the forthcoming analysis is established.

3.1

MWDMs in a Conventional Gmz Approach?

On the way towards a framework for MWDMs, Lxz was disqualified as an approach for these cases (cf. Sect. 1.2.2). As Pmz’s mere right to exist is still debated (cf. Sect. 1.2.2.3), this chapter proves that a conventional Gmz approach cannot explain the emergence of DMs. The term conventional is used in this work to refer to acknowledged Gmz theories that were utilised over the last decades to explain the emergence of grammatical items (e.g. Lehmann 1995, Hopper 1991

42

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

and Heine & Kuteva 2002). These fundamental notions deliver specific parameters explaining the different steps a form has to undergo to be accounted as grammaticalised. Those Gmz theories that actually consider DMs will be referred to as Gmz in a broader sense (cf. Sect. 3.2). This division suggests that a conventional approach towards Gmz is inadequate to understand the rise of MWDMs. Before discussing the broader, adjusted notion of Gmz (cf. Sect. 3.2), it must be explained more thoroughly who exactly represents the conventional approaches and why they fail at describing MWDMs. Browsing through the existing literature on Gmz, three general approaches towards Gmz are prominent. Lehmann’s Gmz parameters (1995), probably the most widely applied framework, Hopper’s principles of Gmz (1991) and Heine & Kuteva’s Gmz mechanisms (2002) depict three conventional Gmz theories2 whose characteristics will be tested against MWDMs. The results of these single analyses are collected in Sect. 3.1.4 which summarises why conventional Gmz theories are insufficient to cover the rise of MWDMs. These examinations are not meant as criticism towards the approaches per se but refer to their applicability to MWDMs. As it is customary in linguistic discourse, several critical papers on Lehmann’s and his colleagues’ approaches have been published. This general critique shall be left to others (see e.g. Norde 2012 or Mroczynski 2012).

3.1.1

Lehmann’s Grammaticalization Parameters

Lehmann (1995) postulates six Gmz parameters with corresponding processes which determine the degree of a grammaticalised case. According to Lehmann, an item is defined as weakly grammaticalised once it does not fulfil every of the criteria of the different processes’ outcomes. If a unit has performed the Gmz processes and exhibits the parameters, Lehmann declares strong Grammaticalization (Lehmann 2015: 129 ff.3 ). Table 3.2 illustrates the indicated processes and parameters. In the following paragraphs, the discursive and pragmatic features of MWDMs, as they have been introduced in Chap. 2, are tested against Lehmann’s 2

Next to Lehmann’s, Traugott’s (1995) understanding of Gmz is used numerous times in case studies. As her notion of Gmz is explicitly adapted to the role of DMs, her definition of Gmz will not be discussed in this chapter but in Sect. 3.2. 3 In this work, the references relate to the third and newest edition of Lehmann’s Thoughts on Grammaticalization. The book was first published in 1995.

3.1 MWDMs in a Conventional Gmz Approach?

43

Table 3.2 Lehmann’s Grammaticalization parameters and processes (as in Lehmann 2015: 174)

parameters. As a result, it will be concluded to what extent the six parameters are able to express the rise of MWDMs.

3.1.1.1 Integrity and Attrition Lehmann defines Integrity as the linguistic substance of an item. Integrity maintains the form’s identity and prominence as opposed to other signs in the sentence (cf. Lehmann 2015: 132). A unit’s Integrity would refer to its phonological and semantic substance. Attrition is introduced as the process causing a successive subtraction of both features. Linguistic forms that are subject to attrition become shorter and change their meaning. The original core meaning generalises and becomes abstract and less palpable. Items would lose their lexical features until only grammatical characters are visible. Hence, high Integrity signifies many semantic and phonological features but a low degree of Gmz. Consequently, lexemes possess a higher Integrity than grammemes (ibid. 132 ff.). MWDMs feature semantic bleaching. They lose their actual semantic meaning and become more abstract and figurative in their applications. Phonological attrition is a parameter which barely affects MWDMs. Lexical and MWDM usages of a construction are polysemous and are used without any phonological alterations. As phonological and semantic aspects are equally important for the parameter,

44

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

this consideration does not deliver clear-cut answers to the question whether MWDMs can be treated as conventional cases of Gmz.

3.1.1.2 Paradigmaticity and Paradigmaticization Paradigmaticity is explained as the integration of a linguistic sign into a paradigm. The members of this set are linked to each other by formal or semantic relations. Paradigmaticization is the corresponding Gmz process of aligning and bonding an item to its paradigm. The smaller the paradigm and the tighter the signs are integrated into the paradigm, the stronger is the Gmz (cf. Lehmann 2015: 141 ff.). The English interrogative wh-pronouns, for instance, share formal and semantic characteristics and can therefore be classified as a tight paradigm. The subgroup of MWDMs could be interpreted as a paradigm. An example for further paradigms within the category of MWDMs are prepositional or adverbial phrases. However, the paradigm of MWDMs is extremely heterogeneous, and the attempts to semantically subdivide MWDMs into different categories (cf. e.g. Fraser 1988, Hyland 1998, Siepmann 2005) show no “clear-cut paradigmatic relations” (Lehmann 2015: 141). Furthermore, MWDMs seem to evolve in the reverse direction of Paradigmaticization. They are only loosely attached to their original semantic field and develop new pragmatic meanings in different contexts. MWDMs do not undergo Paradigmaticization and would therefore be cases of weak Gmz in Lehmann’s Paradigmaticity parameter.

3.1.1.3 Paradigmatic Variability and Obligatorification Lehmann terms the freedom of a language user to choose a linguistic sign Paradigmatic Variability. Grammaticalised forms have pure functional meaning. They are not employed to convey a certain message that is essential for the communication. A user must apply these forms due to grammatical requirements of a language (cf. Lehmann 2015: 146 ff.). Auxiliaries, indicating progressive or perfect aspects, are suitable examples. Original lexical verbs turn into obligatory grammatical items, such as auxiliaries, which express the user’s interpretation of an event or situation while the following modified verb carries the main semantic notion. (3.1) I am working as fast as I can. (TV Corpus 2006: Stargate Atlantis) Instance (3.1) demonstrates auxiliary am as a grammaticalised form of to be expressing the present progressive aspect of the ongoing working. Lehmann names this process of Gmz Obligatorification.

3.1 MWDMs in a Conventional Gmz Approach?

45

As it was already indicated in Sect. 2.2, MWDMs are neither grammatically nor semantically obligatory for a sentence. They carry discourse-related information which is deliberately added to an utterance. Being not obligatory but consciously utilised for communicative intentions, MWDMs contradict the principles of Obligatorification and show little to no Gmz with respect to Paradigmatic Variability.

3.1.1.4 Structural Scope and Condensation Structural Scope describes a construction’s morpho-syntactic ability to perform grammatical relations. A sign’s scope can refer to word stems, phrases or as cataphoric or anaphoric references to the surrounding sentences. Autonomous units may have a varying scope whereas the general tendency in Gmz is that strong Gmz equals low scope (e.g. on peripheral words or stems, cf. Lehmann 2015: 152 ff.). Hopper & Traugott’s cline of Gmz (cf. Fig. 3.1) corresponds to Lehmann’s idea of Condensation (cf. 2003: 7).

Figure 3.1 Cline of grammaticality as proposed by Hopper & Traugott (based on Hopper & Traugott 2003: 7, slightly adapted)

The Structural Scope shrinks alongside this cline. Affixes have the highest degree of Gmz as their scope is reduced to the word they are attached to. PDE derivational -ly, as an example of Condensation, dates back to OE lice ‘body’, ‘corpse’ that started to function as an adjective compound cyne-like ‘like a king’. It grammaticalised in ME to an adjective suffix, e.g. stronge-liche, and finally to the PDE affix -ly (cf. Killie 2007). OE liche’s scope on sentence level gradually but considerably reduced to the affix -ly. One of the main characteristics of MWDMs is their scope beyond the sentence level. The forms express reference on discourse and interpersonal level. Since this is a straightforward contradiction to the principles of Lehmann’s Structural Scope, this parameter cannot explain the development of MWDMs.

3.1.1.5 Bondedness and Coalescence Lehmann defines the relationship between a unit and its adjacent words as Bondedness. The Bondedness of autonomous words is low as they are independently

46

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

juxtaposed to the other forms of a sentence. Due to Coalescence, the relationship between two neighbouring words intensifies. Gmz can trigger the fusion of two words. Lehmann emphasises that Coalescence is a gradual process because, in most of the times, free morphemes first cliticise and then develop into a bound morpheme (cf. Lehmann 2015: 157 ff.). This process is close to condensation and proceeds also along the Gmz cline (cf. Fig. 3.1). Unlike Structural Scope, Bondedness does not refer to the reduced morpho-syntactic range but to the phonological and morphological merger of different forms. This boundary loss and morpho-phonological Coalescence is for example visible in the development of be going to > be gonna or want to > wanna (cf. Brinton & Traugott 2005: 27 f.). Fixation is a crucial feature of MWDMs because the phrasal constructions only function as MWDMs when they consist of every constituent. This fixation and morpho-phonological rigidity, in turn, resist Coalescence. Considering MWDMs, the internal cohesion is not associated with a merger. As Coalescence is hardly noticeable and the fixedness of the MWDM does not really comply with the ideas of Bondedness in Lehmann’s approach, this parameter does not manifest Gmz of MWDMs.

3.1.1.6 Syntagmatic Variability and Fixation Syntagmatic Variability addresses possible relocations of a form within a sentence. Weakly grammaticalised items can shift around freely. Strongly grammaticalised items occupy a fixed slot. The process restricting a unit’s Syntagmatic Variability is termed Fixation (cf. Lehmann 2015: 167 ff.). While grammaticalised forms have fixed slots (e.g. conjunctions at the beginning of a clause), MWDMs are not restricted to a syntagmatically assigned position. Sect. 2.2 has demonstrated that MWDMs can usually be placed in initial, medial or final position of a sentence. Apparently, MWDMs are not or only weakly grammaticalised concerning this parameter. Moreover, they developed in the opposing direction of Lehmann’s predicted trend of Gmz.

3.1.2

Hopper’s Principles of Grammaticalization

Table 3.3 presents Hopper’s five principles of Gmz (1991) which can be applied as heuristic means to identify potential cases of Gmz.

3.1 MWDMs in a Conventional Gmz Approach?

47

Table 3.3 Hopper’s five principles of Gmz (cf. Hopper 1991: 22)

Hopper postulates these principles as a supplement to Lehmann’s parameters4 . The mechanisms should help to analyse cases of language change “where the question more cogently arises as to whether we might speak of Gmz” (ibid: 21). Applying Lehmann’s Gmz parameters to MWDMs (Sect. 3.1.1) has shown that they do not represent prototypical cases of Gmz. Therefore, it seems promising to test MWDMs against Hopper’s Gmz principles. Since Hopper suggests additional analytical tools, this review might yield results on the question whether MWDMs can be treated as cases of conventional Gmz. In the same way as Lehmann’s parameters were briefly introduced and tested against MWDMs, Hopper’s Gmz principles will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

3.1.2.1 Layering Hopper subsumes the synchronic variation of a broad functional domain and its uses in different semantic and functional ways under the term Layering. Original notions can co-exist with newer ones that emerge out of the original source domain; older meaning layers can survive alongside newer layers (cf. Fig. 3.2 A+B). It is also possible that some meanings become archaic (cf. Fig. 3.2 ϕ 5 ). Fig. 3.2 captures the general idea of Layering. Figure 3.2 Layering as in Hopper (1991: 22 ff.) (own illustration)

4

Lehmann’s Thoughts on Grammaticalization was first published in a working-paper version in 1982. This is why Hopper (1991) can refer to Lehmann’s Gmz parameters (1995). 5 The extinction of a certain use (ϕ, Fig. 3.2) is not obligatory but a possible alternative.

48

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

In PDE for example, three layers co-exist and express past-notion. a. Ablaut: She sang a song. b. Affixation: They followed his way. c. Periphrasis: You have gained respect. Each layer, i.e. vowel alternation, a suffix -ed and a periphrastic construction with the auxiliary have/has indicates past tense or aspect (cf. Hopper 1991: 22 ff.). Applying Hopper’s notion of Layering to MWDMs, it could be argued that, in general, the functional domain of MWDMs developed out of lexical constructions. Lexical applications of MWDMs are still in use—the forms have polysemous meanings. However, it is not easy to identify an overall original source for MWDMs. By the way, for instance, refers to a prepositional locative phrase while what is more stems from an interrogative wh-clause (cf. Sect. 2.3.1). Layering’s broad perspective on the developments of a functional domain delivers no clear implications on a potential Gmz layer of MWDMs as supposed by Fig. 3.2.

3.1.2.2 Divergence Hopper connects Divergence with the fact that an original form may remain an autonomous lexeme while, in other contexts, it grammaticalises to a functional word. The resulting item has a diverging functionality as opposed to the coexisting lexeme, but they both have the same etymological background (c.f. e.g. have in Sect. 1.2.2.1). Divergence can therefore be understood as a special case of layering which explains specific cases within a broader functional domain. It explains why and how a form receives polysemous character (cf. Hopper 1991: 22 ff.). That Hopper’s Divergence can be applied to MWDMs is relatively easy to understand when Sect. 2.3.1 is reconsidered. The MWDM usages of the forms were introduced as polysemous variants of the original, lexical source constructions. Their syntactic and semantic applications as MWDMs diverge and can thus be defined as a newer form that emerged from an older one. Thus, MWDMs adhere to Hopper’s Gmz principle Divergence.

3.1.2.3 Specialization Before Specialization and Gmz commence, a variety of forms, only expressing marginal differences in their semantics, can be employed at a certain place. Specialization narrows this variety of choices. The smaller the number of selected forms, the more general and grammatical becomes their meaning (cf. Hopper

3.1 MWDMs in a Conventional Gmz Approach?

49

1991: 22 ff.). The grammaticalised use of bit and drop in (3.2) demonstrates the principle of Specialization. (3.2) He didn’t get a drop/bit of applause. (Taken and slightly adapted from Hopper & Traugott 2003: 118) The sample of nouns that expresses this sense of ‘absence’ is limited. It is also obvious that the literal meaning of drop and bit has given way for a more grammatical meaning. The original semantic meaning of MWDMs also generalises and functionalises (cf. Sect. 2.3). However, Specialization is not really traceable in the rise of MWDMs. Fraser’s (1988; 1996) and Siepmann’s (2005) classifications of MWDMs, for example, demonstrate a growing variety of MWDMs expressing similar notions. Furthermore, it is complicated to ascribe general functions or meanings to MWDMs as they are strongly context-dependent. Subsequently, Specialization does not feature the developments of MWDMs.

3.1.2.4 Persistence Hopper defines Persistence as the tendency of a grammaticalised form to show some traces of its original lexical meaning. Constraints of a grammatical form could be traced back to its lexical background (Hopper 1991: 22 ff.). The different applications of be going to and will as future markers are suitable examples indicating Persistence and the resulting constraints. Be going to is the future of plans or schedules. As an original aspectual unit, it operates in constructions where a will-future cannot. Bybee & Pagliuca (1986: 112 ff.) argue that the original purposive meaning of be going to continues to constrain because of its more literal reading (given that it is not restricted to spatial movement). Will, by contrast, is used for predictions and spontaneous decisions due to its historical origin of OE wille expressing willingness and volition (cf. ibid.). MWDMs are forms that show Persistence. Their original lexical meaning is retained to a certain extent and glimmers through. Although the relation is not always instantly recognisable, metaphorical references can be retraced (cf. Sect. 2.3.1). Therefore, Persistence is sometimes even more apparent in MWDMs as in highly grammaticalised forms.

50

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

3.1.2.5 De-categorialization De-categorialization expounds the morpho-syntactic aspect of Gmz which describes the movement of a unit from a major to a minor category6 (cf. Sect. 1.2). Accompanying are the gain of functionality and the loss of semanticity. The meaning of grammaticalised items is not independent from the text anymore. On the contrary, their meaning becomes text-dependent and changes from propositional > textual (cf. Hopper 1991: 30 ff.). De-categorialization is a principle accompanying the rise of MWDMs. The classification as DM per se demonstrates De-categorialization because DMs can be classified as a minor category. The original lexical constructions express major characteristics (e.g. nominal way in by the way or adjective same in all the same) that de-categorialise to constituents of a MWDM.

3.1.3

Heine & Kuteva’s Grammaticalization Mechanisms

Heine & Kuteva (2002) propose another, more recent approach towards Gmz. Their Gmz mechanisms also do not explicitly refer to DMs and are therefore treated in analogy to Lehmann and Hopper as part of a conventional Gmz framework. The term mechanism underlines that they focus on developments of grammatical markers. Their approach operates multi-dimensionally because it covers several linguistic dimensions as Table 3.4 outlines. Table 3.4 Heine and Kuteva’s Gmz mechanisms (cf. 2002: 2 ff.)

Hopper’s principles of Gmz (1991) have been largely consistent with the development of MWDMs (cf. Sect. 3.1.2). However, as the preliminary conclusions in Sect. 3.1.4 will demonstrate, they are not specific and comprehensive

6

Hopper (1991: 22) does not use the term major and minor but full and secondary categories.

3.1 MWDMs in a Conventional Gmz Approach?

51

enough to grasp the rise of MWDMs. The previous approaches could not conclusively identify MWDMs as conventional instances of Gmz. Heine & Kuteva’s notion is another way to analyse Gmz phenomena. Their concept serves as the last point of discussion of MWDMs in a conventional Gmz framework.

3.1.3.1 Desemanticization Heine & Kuteva (2002) subsume semantic bleaching and loss in meaning during Gmz under the term Desemanticization. The reinterpretation and application of the grammaticalised forms in specific contexts would lead from a concrete, lexical meaning towards a more abstract, grammatical meaning. In Heine & Kuteva’s notion of Gmz, the lexical meaning gives way to an entirely grammatical meaning. They provide the cases of grammaticalised be going to, used to, keep (doing) as examples of Desemanticization (cf. ibid.: 2 ff.). That MWDMs show Desemanticization was already attested in Sect. 3.1.1.1 and Sect. 3.1.2.3. Semantic bleaching, semantic loss and gain in discourseorganising functions is definitely a decisive mechanism during the rise of MWDMs. However, the results of Desemanticization of conventional cases of Gmz as opposed to MWDMs are quite different. The emerging functions of MWDMs are not primarily grammatical in a conventional sense. This demands for an adaption of Desemanticization when being applied to MWDMs7 .

3.1.3.2 Extension Heine & Kuteva’s Extension is the first instance explicitly mentioning the pragmatic dimension of Gmz (cf. Table 3.4). Extension comprises the uses of a form in different contexts. Due to Gmz, a construction can be applied in contexts in which they could not be used before. Extension leads to context generalization and semantic abstraction since the original meaning of a form was previously blocked in this newer context (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2002: 2 ff.). “The more contexts of use a linguistic expression acquires, the more it tends to lose in semantic specifity and to undergo semantic generalization [...].” (Heine & Kuteva 2007: 37)

The mechanisms Extension and Desemanticization are therefore symbiotically related. Previous chapters have accentuated the meta-communicative capacities of DMs. Hence, testing MWDMs against Heine & Kuteva’s Extension seems 7

Sect. 4.1 will introduce Discursivization and Scope Extension as mechanisms addressing the meaning abstraction of MWDMs.

52

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

useful. Lexical and MWDM instances are polysemous variants occupying different context slots. Their semantic meaning and pragmatic functions equally vary in the respective contexts. Extension is consequently an integral parameter of MWDMs. A problem of the transfer to MWDMs is that Heine & Kuteva refer Extension not really to the context but to the co-text (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2002 for several examples). The notion of context in this study is not restricted to the adjacent sentences but to whole strings of utterances as well as paralinguistic aspects. MWDMs operate on this textual and interpersonal level. Extension in Heine & Kuteva’s notion is thus insufficient to perform a holistic pragmatic approach towards the developments of MWDMs.

3.1.3.3 Decategorialization Decategorialization was already introduced by Hopper (1991, cf. Sect. 3.1.2.5) as the process of loss in morpho-syntactic features. Heine & Kuteva also emphasise that categorial shifts characterise Decategorialization. Apart from this, their definition reacts to the Decategorialization of already grammaticalised words so that multiple Gmz (cf. Fig. 1.4) can be considered (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2002: 2 ff.). Decategorialization in Heine & Kuteva’s notion of Gmz corresponds largely to the previously discussed principles of categorial change (cf. Sect. 1.2.2.3 & Sect. 3.1.2.5). Recapitulated, Decategorialization was identified as an essential mechanism for the rise of MWDMs.

3.1.3.4 Erosion Erosion describes the loss in phonetic substance of a form undergoing Gmz. Heine & Kuteva identify the general tendency of Gmz leading to shorter, phonetically less complex units. The mechanism would also lead to loss in stress and to phonetic reduction. As a result, grammaticalised forms tend to lose morphological and phonological substance (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2002: 2 ff.). The development of conjunctive because /bi’kO:z/ towards phonologically reduced coz /k@z/ manifests a loss of stress and phonological material8 . Due to Erosion, because shortens to a monosyllabic sign (cf. Stenström 1998). Observing DMs, Schiffrin (1987: 328 ff.) also identifies traces of erosion. You know, for instance, exhibits phonological reduction. (3.3) Do you know that? (taken from Schiffrin 1987: 287) (3.4) Y’know the boatyard? (ibid.: 288) 8

Throughout this work, phonological transcriptions will be conducted in British English.

3.1 MWDMs in a Conventional Gmz Approach?

53

The former vowel /u:/ in you is reduced to /@/ in y’know. Brinton (cf. 2008: 53) delivers further examples of phonologically reduced and fused phrases such as indeed > /n’di:d/. However, Brinton states that Erosion is a mechanism that occurs rather rarely with regard to PMs and she argues that “pragmatic markers, although they are generally fixed in form, are not necessarily fused to their host” (ibid.: 53). Beijering (cf. 2015: 85) consents and stresses that the phonology of DMs often remains unaffected. The three MWDMs in consideration also do not show clear-cut signs of Erosion. Furthermore, the phrasal fixation and prosodic status of MWDMs contradicts Heine & Kuteva’s Gmz mechanism. Distinct loss of morpho-phonological substance is not apparent in the three forms, and, thanks to their syntactic set-off, stress is rather raised than reduced.

3.1.4

Criticism: Conventional Gmz cannot Describe the Rise of MWDMs

Section 3.1.1 to Section 3.1.3 have presented three conventional approaches towards Gmz and tried to apply their parameters to MWDMs. Table 3.5 summarises the results of these examinations9 . The initial question was: can MWDMs be treated as cases of Gmz in Lehmann’s, Hopper’s or Heine & Kuteva’s notions of Gmz. Table 3.5 recapitulates the results and provides an unambiguous answer: no they cannot. Lehmann’s parameters demonstrated very little applicability; in fact, MWDMs developed against the direction of his Gmz parameters. As he pleads for weak and strong Gmz (cf. Table 3.2), it could be argued that MWDMs possess a low degree of Gmz. However, his Gmz parameters and processes can by no means explain the behaviour of MWDMs and should therefore not be applied to these constructions. Hopper’s and Heine & Kuteva’s Gmz mechanisms seem to be more adequate to sketch the linguistic changes (cf. Table 3.5). Hopper’s principles, though, are too vague to precisely trace MWDMs. The majority describes general attributes of language change. Layering, Divergence and Persistence are characteristics of Gmz, Pmz and also Lxz (cf. Sect. 1.2 and Table 3.1) and therefore do not provide decisive clues whether MWDMs are instances of Gmz. Beijering argues that “they are not useful in determining types of X-ization because none of them is unique to a particular type of change” (2015: 87). Additionally, Hopper ignores 9

If no explicit source is mentioned, tables are self created.

54

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

Table 3.5 Applicability of Lehmann’s, Hopper’s and Heine & Kuteva’s Gmz parameters to MWDMs

any pragmatic inferences. Heine & Kuteva touch upon pragmatic notions (cf. Sect. 3.1.3). The outcome of Desemanticization and Extension, however, does not represent the crucial features of MWDMs (illustrated by “(+)” in Table 3.5). As indicated before, other mechanisms are similarly inadequate. Conventional Gmz approaches address integral processes of MWDMs such as semantic and categorical changes or extension of the scope. The emergence of other crucial qualities of MWDMs (e.g. pragmatic range, prosodic status and syntactic position) is not covered by the analysed Gmz parameters. Furthermore, the character of MWDMs disagrees with the predicted results of several Gmz mechanisms (e.g. Obligatorification, Specialization, Erosion).

3.2 MWDMs in a Broadened Gmz Approach?

55

Since conventional Gmz approaches do not help to understand changes of MWDMs, the next chapters look for already existing approaches which try to cover more comprehensively the properties of MWDMs.

3.2

MWDMs in a Broadened Gmz Approach?

Despite numerous case studies considering DMs as conventional instances of Gmz (e.g. Onodera 1995 on Japanese DMs, Brinton 1996 on OE and ME DMs, Andersen 2007 on French je crois, Ahn 2010 on ModE thanks to and Korean tekpwuney), Sect. 3.1 clearly indicated that MWDMs are no prime examples of Gmz. The scope of Gmz in a traditional approach is simply not suitable. Several leading academics (cf. e.g. Traugott 1995, 2003, 2007; Diewald 2011; Heine 2016; Günthner 1999, 2004) came to the same result: “This type of change which leads to discourse and pragmatic markers, to elements which organize, structure, and contextualize discourse [...] contradicts classical grammaticalization [...].” (Günthner & Mutz 2004: 98)

At the beginning of Chap. 3, four basic approaches towards DMs were mentioned. The second one, which will be discussed in this chapter, pleads for a revised definition of Gmz. Traugott (1995), who came up with this approach, argues that grammar is too narrowly defined in conventional notions of Gmz (as in Lehmann 1995, Hopper 1991 or Heine & Kuteva 2002, cf. e.g. Traugott 1995; 2007). Redefining the spheres of grammar and consequently Gmz would be key to analyse DMs in a renewed Gmz framework. This subchapter expounds Traugott’s and her colleagues’ notions of Gmz and discusses their applicability to MWDMs.

3.2.1

Traugott: Extending the Notion of Grammar for the Analysis of DMs in a Gmz Approach

Describing the rise of MWDMs within a Gmz framework is difficult because the endpoint of the changes do not fall in the dimensions of traditional grammar. As Sect. 3.1 has demonstrated, DMs and their pragmatic functions can hardly be grasped by conventional grammatical categories. The problem is that they do not belong to core grammar as they primarily operate on discourse level. In contrast to Lehmann, who states that Gmz involves increasing dependency and reduction,

56

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

Traugott introduces a broader interpretation of Gmz, which admits pragmaticsemantic expansion (cf. e.g. Traugott & Trousdale 2013 32 f.). This approach towards Gmz is based upon an extended view of grammar which encompasses discourse phenomena. Traugott’s maxim is to define grammar broadly enough in order to cover the development of DMs (Traugott 2007: 150 ff.). Fraser (1988: 32) and several grammars such as Longman Grammar (Biber & Quirk 2000: 1086 ff.) or Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (Aarts et al. 2014: 124) include DMs and MWDMs as part of a language’s grammar. MWDMs fill in a syntactic slot—be it initial, final or medial—and being part of a sentence requires that even MWDMs adhere at least to some extent to grammatical structures. Pragmatic meaning, extended scope and prosodic isolation do not alter this fact. DMs would be “indubitably part of the grammar [...], they are not extragrammatical” (Brinton & Traugott 2005: 139) and “unquestionably [belong] to syntax and grammar” (Traugott & Dasher 2002: 159). Based on this assumption, Traugott redefines the notion of conventional grammar. The traditional concept of grammar is predominantly morphologically and syntactically motivated (e.g. inflections, agglutination, loss of autonomy) as a structuring principle of communication (cf. Auer & Günthner 2003: 22 ff.). Traugott’s widened notion of grammar, though, includes communicative and cognitive aspects. “Grammar encompasses phonology, morphosyntax, and truth-functional semantics10 , and is rich enough to license interaction with the general cognitive abilities such as are involved in speaker-addressee negotiation that gives rise to grammaticalization.” (Traugott 2003: 626)

Formal and semantic as well as meta-communicative and discourse-organising processes can now be subsumed under Gmz. Especially the latter processes are important since MWDMs are deeply entrenched into pragmatics. In line with Traugott, Diewald (2011) pleads for a broader definition of grammar and Gmz. She agrees on Traugott’s approach and adds that grammar has a pragmatic foundation. Tense, mood, aspect and further categories, which are largely acknowledged as grammaticalised systems, would reveal deictic, indexical and communicative properties. Pragmatic meaning would therefore depict a grammatical feature, and MWDMs, then, could be treated as forms that primarily operate on this branch of grammar (cf. Diewald 2011: 366 ff.). Traugott and her 10

Truth-functionality and truth-conditionality is a concept used to determine the range of Gmz. Heine (2013) and Aijmer (1997) discuss truth- and non-truth conditionality in the Gmz-Pmz interface. More on such analyses follow in Sect. 3.3.

3.2 MWDMs in a Broadened Gmz Approach?

57

colleagues used the complex issue of DMs to re-answer the question of what is a grammatical structure. Building upon the similarities of Gmz and the rise of DMs, they adapted grammar and hence Gmz. “If we construe grammaticalization as the development of grammatical material, i.e. the material that signals speakers’ perspective on the relationship among participants in an event (case), of events to each other and to the time of the speech situation (tense, aspect), and of utterances to each other and the beliefs of speakers and hearers (modal and discourse markers), we can see that discourse markers, like these traditional grammatical markers, typically undergo changes associated with grammaticalization.” (Traugott 2007: 151)

Due to this definition, case-, tense- and discourse marking can be considered as Gmz. In the existing literature on DMs in a broader Gmz framework, numerous case studies refer to this broader notion (e.g. cf. Méndez-Naya 2006 on PDE right; Lenker 2000 on OE DM soþlice and witodlice; Wegener 2000 on German da, denn and weil; Rosenkvist & Skärlund 2013 on Swedish typ; Pinto de Lima 2002 on Portuguese pois). The redefinition of Gmz is accompanied by a revision of Gmz parameters. Since conventional Gmz principles disappointed (cf. Sect. 3.1), revised parameters, which are adapted to the development of DMs, seem extremely promising. The following section examines these parameters and tests their applicability to MWDMs.

3.2.2

Parameters of Gmz in a Broader Sense

Traugott and her colleagues developed a notion of Gmz that would be broad enough to investigate the rise of DMs. To effectively conduct a Gmz case study, certain parameters have to be given to decide whether or not the case can be treated as such a phenomenon. Lehmann and colleagues offer such catalogues (cf. Table 3.2, 3.3, 3.4). An adjustment of the Gmz term calls for adjustments of the parameters. How Traugott rejects, revises and renews conventional Gmz parameters will be illustrated in the following lines. Considering Gmz parameters, Traugott (1995: 1 ff.) explicitly refers to Lehmann’s parameters. Similar to Sect. 3.1.1, she is particularly sceptical about Lehmann’s Structural Scope and Syntagmatic Variability when being applied to DMs. Traugott recognises that DMs are exceedingly syntactically flexible and that their scope increases during Gmz. She redefines Bondedness as the increasing internal dependency of a construction. The adjacent constituents of a phrase would bind during Gmz. Fusion and Coalescence are not obligatory anymore in

58

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

her notion of Gmz (cf. Brinton & Traugott 2005: 27 f.). Traugott explains that Paradigmatic Variability depends on the language and has therefore no universal validity (Traugott & Trousdale 2013: 102 ff.). Integrity would mirror semantic bleaching, and Paradigmaticity would be identifiable in the paradigmatic behaviour of grammaticalised forms (cf. Traugott: 105 ff.). Attrition, she calls it phonological reduction, is still an apparent feature of Gmz in Traugott’s papers (cf. Traugott 1995; 2003; 2007, Hopper & Traugott 2003). With regard to the applicability of Lehmann’s parameters to DMs, Diewald argues that “it is not necessary for all six parameters to render relevant results for one particular item investigated in order to speak of grammaticalization” (2011: 375). However, especially Lehmann’s morpho-syntactic categories contradict to the notion of Gmz in a broader sense. To sum up, Traugott’s theories relate to Lehmann’s parameters, but she substantially revises them. Unlike Lehmann, Traugott recognises that DMs gain scope beyond the sentence-level and functions of a subjective marker. Therefore, Traugott introduces Pragmatic Strengthening and Subjectification as new parameters for Gmz in a broader sense. She summarises that “these characteristics should be considered salient to grammaticalization, but decrease in syntactic freedom and scope should not” (ibid. 1995: 1). As these two parameters are the core of the redefined notion of Gmz and as they have a strong relation to DMs, they are considered closer in this section. The newly introduced features address the pragmatic notion of DMs, grammar and Gmz in a broader sense. Traugott sees Pragmatic Strengthening as the strengthening of speaker involvement and the speaker’s attitude towards coherence among propositions. Pragmatic Strengthening is defined as a process which initiates Gmz at the early stages when forms are being used in different context (cf. Traugott 1988: 407). Traugott & König (1988) call this parameter the Conventionalizing of Conversational Implicatures11 which would lead to semantic bleaching and Attrition as after-effects in a progressive Gmz development. The transition between Pragmatic Strengthening and Subjectification would be fluent because the former is characterised as a prerequisite for Subjectification. As Pragmatic Strengthening would refer to early stages of Gmz, subjectivity would be a feature of grammaticalised forms (Traugott 2010: 31). The results of 11

In 1988, in collaboration with König, Traugott published an article on Pragmatic Strengthening. This work was released before Traugott postulated her broadened notion of Gmz (1995). Only then Pragmatic Strengthening was declared a salient parameter of Gmz illustrating pragmatic developments. An example, stated in Traugott 1988, is the change of PDE while from a temporal connective towards a concessive marker in the sense of although with relevance to the speaker’s beliefs (cf. ibid.: 407).

3.2 MWDMs in a Broadened Gmz Approach?

59

Gmz would have increasing association with speakers’ attitudes and the general discourse flow12 (Traugott 1995: 12). Subjectification starts from a semantic meaning that is recruited by the speaker to index attitudes and beliefs. Traugott interprets Subjectification as “the anchoring of meaning in the speaker’s assessment of the situation” (Brinton & Traugott 2005: 108 f.) and argues that “the prime function is to represent the speaker’s perspective on the situation or to get others to do things” (ibid.)13 . Once subjectified, further subjective meanings can be expressed by the pragmatic item. Traugott elaborates that speakers can even mediate their image of the addressee by inter-subjectified forms (Traugott 2010: 6 ff.). Meaning is thus not transferred by semantic-etymological backgrounds but by interpersonal discursive actions (e.g. You know what I mean). Figure 3.3 demonstrates Traugott’s Subjectification cline which would take place during Gmz14 .

Figure 3.3 Subjectification cline in Gmz (as in Traugott & Dasher 2002: 225)

Traugott’s establishment of parameters addressing individual speaker perspectives and intentions express exactly the pragmatic component which was missing in the conventional notions of Gmz. In relation to the other approaches towards Gmz, Traugott’s broader interpretation of Gmz seems to be based upon Hopper’s Gmz principles (cf. Table 3.3). Decategorialization and Layering are explicitly named as properties of the Gmz of DMs (cf. Traugott 1995). Specialization, Divergence and Persistence are also 12

Traugott’s case studies on a piece of, a bit of and a shred of illustrate Subjectification processes (cf. 2010: 12 ff.). 13 The sentence “An earthquake is going to destroy that town” (Brinton & Traugott 2005: 29) illustrates this concept. An earthquake neither intends something nor is it going anywhere. It is the speaker’s subjective notion that conveys fear and predicts possible future happenings. 14 While there are also approaches in linguistics that treat Subjectification as an autonomous language change process leading to meanings that express speaker’s or writer’s viewpoints (cf. e.g. Langacker 1990 for Subjectification in Cognitive Linguistics or Davidse et al. 2010 for the relationship between Gmz and Sub-jectification), Traugott treats Subjectification as one characteristic of Gmz (cf. e.g. Brinton & Traugott 2005: 108 f.). This work addresses Subjectification in Traugott’s notion as “the development of a grammatically identifiable expression of speaker belief or speaker attitude to what is said” (Traugott et al. 1995: 32).

60

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

encompassed by the broad notion with reference to Hopper (cf. Hopper & Traugott 2003). As Heine’s & Kuteva’s mechanisms (2002) were published after Traugott’s proposal (1995), implications of Pragmatic Strengthening and Subjectification can be retrieved in their Extension (cf. Sect. 3.1.3.2). Since Traugott introduces a new definition of Gmz and criticises older notions, it would be interesting to see which parameters she suggests. As distinct parameters are crucial for analyses, Gmz in a broader sense also needs distinguishing parameters just as the conventional notions have proposed. Table 3.6 illustrates characteristics of Gmz that are listed in different works of Traugott (1995; 2005; 2007). Table 3.6 Gmz parameters as proposed by Traugott (cf. 1995; 2005; 2007)

In 1995, Traugott’s parameters were introduced together with the broader notion of Gmz as “shifts normally associated with grammaticalization” (Traugott 1995: 13). Here, the pragmatic dimension of Gmz is highlighted by the two features increase in pragmatic function and Subjectification15 . The column 2005 (in the middle of Table 3.6) contains general language change phenomena as well as further specific characteristics16 . The parameters on the right accentuate Traugott’s notion of Gmz as expansion rather than Lehmann’s reductive approaches. 15

The idea of Pragmatic Strengthening, as outlined above, is covered by these two characteristics. Traugott does not mention it as a proper parameter. 16 For a detailed account of the parameters, see Traugott’s respective works (1995: 14 ff.; 2005: 25 ff.; 2007: 150 ff.).

3.2 MWDMs in a Broadened Gmz Approach?

61

Based on this treatment, Traugott & Trousdale (2013) introduce GE—Gmz viewed as expansion—and GR—Gmz viewed as reduction. The former perspective reflects on Traugott’s newly introduced characteristics (e.g. syntactic and pragmatic-semantic expansion) and the latter on Lehmann’s conventional parameters (e.g. Condensation, Fixation). As a consequence, Traugott’s Gmz approach accentuates the pragmatic dimension of Gmz as well as its notion of expansion17 . Postulating a broader notion of Gmz, Traugott also establishes a further unidirectional Gmz cline for DMs. Next to nominal clines (nominal adposition > case), verbal clines (main verb > tense, aspect, mood maker), the cline in Fig. 3.4 would be another staple of Gmz (cf. Traugott 1995: 1 ff.).

Figure 3.4 Unidirectional Gmz cline for the rise of DMs as proposed by Traugott (1995) (own illustration)

For instance, PDE DM indeed developed from the OE lexical noun phrase in vuel dede towards ME adverbial phrase in dede towards EModE sentential adverb indeed and finally towards PDE DM indeed (cf. Traugott 1995: 5 ff.; see here also for developments of in fact and besides). DMs would change along the given parameters and this Gmz cline. Traugott’s broader notion of Gmz, including pragmatic dimensions and revisions of conventional Gmz approaches, is a big step towards an effective analysis of MWDMs. Nevertheless, customising the Gmz framework to the rise of DMs is not the final answer. It involves several difficulties for the framework. This will be discussed in the following sections.

3.2.3

Criticism: Gmz in a Broader Sense is not the Final Answer

The previous chapter has introduced Traugott’s notion of Gmz which explicitly relates to DMs. Pragmatic features are redefined as grammatical characteristics, 17

Himmelmann (2004) defined host class expansion, syntactic expansion and pragmaticsemantic expansion as criterial for Gmz. Traugott integrates his ideas in her notion of Gmz as expansion (cf. Traugott & Trousdale 2013).

62

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

and the idea of Gmz as expansion is postulated. These revisions of the framework definitely improve the ability of Gmz to explain the rise of DMs. However, overloading the concept of Gmz and revolutionising conventional Gmz parameters reveal problems advocates of Gmz in a wider sense have to face. Why Traugott’s general approach and the postulated mechanisms do not comprehensively distinguish the rise of DMs is shown in Sect. 3.2.3.1 and Sect. 3.2.3.2.

3.2.3.1 Criticising the Scope of Gmz in a Broader Sense Opponents’ leading argument against Traugott’s solution is that the frame of Gmz would become too large. Gmz would lose its explanatory power, and its actual target notion (i.e. describing the emergence of grammatical markers) would ‘bleach’ by the inclusion of pragmatic elements (cf. e.g. Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen 2002; Mroczynski 2012). As a consequence, it would neither precisely identify the development of grammemes nor the changes related to DMs18 . Moreover, the exceptionality of DMs perishes by such a generalising treatment. Although Traugott and Diewald argue that DMs can be handled as simple cases of Gmz (cf. Sect. 3.2.1), the bare fact that they have written several papers on the special cases of DMs (cf. e.g. Traugott 1995; 2007, Diewald 2010; 2011) demonstrates their unique standing. Considering the methodological procedure of Traugott, she does not implement a consistent distinction between MWDMs, DMs and PMs. Chap. 2 explained that serious differences and hierarchical relations exist between PMs. As Traugott ignores this distinction, it could be argued that her approach towards DMs and Gmz is not sufficiently differentiated. It seems that Traugott wants to create a Gmz notion which is broad enough to capture as many language change phenomena as possible and is simultaneously specific enough to describe single cases. As outlined above, the opposite is the case: Gmz becomes a fuzzy framework that cannot deliver specific descriptions. Traugott’s offered parameters for Gmz in a broader sense will only confirm these limitations.

3.2.3.2 Criticising the Parameters of Gmz in a Broader Sense Section 3.2.2 created the impression that Traugott has systematically developed parameters for her notion of Gmz. Table 3.6 gave an overview of parameters that were used to describe her notion of Gmz in different papers. Unlike Lehmann, Hopper and Heine & Kuteva (cf. Table 3.2, 3.3, 3.4), Traugott (1995; 2005; 2007) names different features of Gmz in every single work. Table 3.6 demonstrates that 18

More on this discrepancy follows in Sect. 3.2.3.2. There will also be some examples.

3.2 MWDMs in a Broadened Gmz Approach?

63

there is no fixed catalogue of parameters for Gmz in a broader sense. To organise Traugott’s cluster of Gmz parameters, Table 3.7 tries to assign the various characteristics to different linguistic dimensions. Table 3.7 Reorganised Gmz parameters as proposed by Traugott (cf. 1995; 2005; 2007)

This compilation displays that Traugott recognises the multi-dimensionality of Gmz since multiple linguistic domains are addressed. The accumulation of general features in 2005 is striking. Since these are features characteristic for general language change processes (cf. Table 3.1), they should not be treated as distinguishing parameters of Gmz. Every work, though, mentions parameters relating to the four dimensions morpho-syntax, semantics, pragmatics and morpho-phonetics. Since Heine & Kuteva’s approach referred to the same dimensions (cf. Table 3.4 and Sect. 3.1.3), it becomes apparent that these dimensions are crucial for the changes related to DMs. Traugott and Table 3.7 suggest several features; however, there are neither firmly defined parameters nor a fixed number (cf. e.g. the column morpho-syntax in Table 3.7). Additionally, it is surprising that Traugott (2005) refers to Coalescence and Fusion, although she stated earlier that they are not salient to Gmz (cf. 1995: 1 ff. and Sect. 3.2.2). Phonological reduction seems to be a central parameter of

64

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

her definition. Sect. 3.1.1.5 and Sect. 3.1.3.4 have expounded that phonological loss is not an integral change affecting MWDMs. Traugott’s morpho-phonetic perspective is thus not productive for this thesis. Decategorialization, Semantic Generalization and increase in pragmatic function, in turn, are crucial features during the rise of MWDMs (already conventional parameters in Sect. 3.1 and general features of DMs and MWDMs (Sect. 2.2 and Sect. 1.2) pointed in this direction). As Subjectivation and Pragmatic Strengthening distinguish Traugott’s notion of Gmz from others and promise valuable results for the analysis of MWDMs, it must be discussed if they really aim at the description of MWDMs. Strictly speaking, Traugott does not treat Pragmatic Strengthening as a proper Gmz parameter. Pragmatic Stengthening runs along a taxonomy from a conversational implicature to Conventionalization. Temporal since as a causal marker, for example, was initially introduced by speakers only in specific contexts. Due to a more frequent use, it conventionalised and became a causal conjunction in the sense of because (cf. Traugott 1988: 411). The problem is that conventionalised causal since as such has no subjective-pragmatic inferences anymore. DMs, in turn, exhibit context and person-dependent meanings. Pragmatic Strengthening should therefore not be treated as a specific pragmatic Gmz mechanism but as a more general and semantic language change process. Gain in subjectivity and loss in original semantic meaning are definitely crucial characteristics for MWDMs. However, Subjectivity is not a distinct parameter of Gmz. On the one hand, Mroczynski (2012) explains that there are prototypical Gmz cases which do not show traces of Subjectivation. The development of the PGmc subject lika ‘body, corpse’ towards the Present-Day High German suffix -lich would be an example of Gmz without evidence of Subjectivation (cf. Mroczynski 2012: 78 ff.). On the other hand, Subjectivation can be identified in language change phenomena that are not considered as Gmz. For instance, PDE villain once meant ‘farm-worker’. Today, villain applies to the image of an enemy and developed negative connotations (cf. Millar & Trask 2015: 37). Wiemer & Bisang (2004: 7 ff.) interpret this pejoration as lexical semantic change based on implicatures of Subjectivation. Here again, the criticism implies that the pragmatic inference was lost due to Conventionalization. Further, the preceding explanations demonstrate that Subjectivation does not function as a salient and distinguishing parameter of Gmz. To establish a structured and comprehensive framework, Gmz in a broadened sense is a helpful guide. Unfortunately, it does not deliver the required tools. There are case studies that refer to Lehmann’s notion of Gmz, and there are the ones considering Traugott’s widened approach—and both reveal fruitful results. That both notions of Gmz are still not comprehensive enough to extensively describe the rise of MWDMs has been demonstrated in this chapter.

3.3 MWDMs Independent from Gmz in a Pmz Approach?

3.3

65

MWDMs Independent from Gmz in a Pmz Approach?

The third approach targeted to the rise of DMs is Pmz as a sovereign framework independent from Gmz. The following sections are going to discuss if Pmz as an autonomous framework is able to describe the emergence of DMs and MWDMs in a more precise way than conventional or broadened Gmz frameworks. Pmz was introduced as the process of the origin and rise of particles with discourse functions as well as the gradual diachronic change leading to DMs (cf. Erman & Kotsinas 1993). While the concept of Pmz retains the rigid distinction between grammar and discourse, Traugott’s broadened Gmz perspective has offered an innovative approach towards grammar encompassing pragmatic factors. The separate analysis of DMs in Pmz is useful in the sense “that it draws attention to the fact that some linguistic expressions come, like discourse markers, to have primarily pragmatic function” (Traugott 2007: 150). Pmz studies argue that Gmz and Pmz are two different language change phenomena. Ocampo (cf. 2006: 317 f.) demands that Gmz should focus on developments towards syntax and morphology. DMs would not fall into this spheres as they would change precisely to the opposite end—outside syntax and grammar towards pragmatics and discourse19 . The “separatists” distinguish between obviously grammaticalised items (e.g. conjunctions, tense markers) and items that received pragmatic, meta-textual meanings (e.g. PMs). To draw a line between the different outcomes, the language change process leading to PMs should consequently receive another term—namely Pragmaticalization. “Movement towards discourse is genuinely different from movement towards grammar, and the two are therefore best kept separate20 .” (Norde 2009: 23)

Several recent studies use a Pmz framework and state that DMs are best treated as outcomes of this process (cf. e.g. Frank-Job 2006, Beijering 2015, Furkó

19

This is an oversimplified conclusion. As it was demonstrated before, Gmz proceeds in all linguistic dimensions and not only in syntax and morphology (cf. Sect. 3.1 and Sect. 3.2). The rise of DMs takes also place in syntax and morphology and is equally not limited to pragmatics. However, this reference should illustrate the general idea of Pmz and how it is traditionally distinguished from Gmz and grammar. 20 Norde refers to Ilse Wischer’s approach (2000) of dividing Gmz in Gmz I (Movement towards grammar) and Gmz II (Movement towards discourse). Traces of this approach will be discussed throughout the examinations.

66

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

2020)21 . For a start, Sect. 3.3.1 and Sect. 3.3.2 introduce Pmz as it was defined by Erman & Kotsinas (1993) and by Aijmer (1997). It will be discussed if Pmz, after all, has a justification as an autonomous linguistic stream and whether or not a strict separation of grammar and pragmatics is useful for the analysis of MWDM.

3.3.1

Erman & Kotsinas

Section 1.2.2.3 has briefly introduced Erman & Kotsinas’ (1993) notion of Pmz as a distinct language change process generating discourse particles. Since Gmz has not sufficiently described the changes concerning DMs, they launched Pmz as the development leading to DMs.

3.3.1.1 Erman & Kotsinas’ Notion of Pmz In their contrastive study on the Swedish DM ba and its English counterpart you know, Erman & Kotsinas propose the following distinction: “Lexical items on their way to becoming function words may follow two different paths, one of them resulting in the creation of grammatical markers, functioning mainly sentence internally, the other resulting in discourse markers mainly serving as textstructuring devices at different levels of discourse. We reserve the term grammaticalization for the first of these two paths, while we propose the term pragmaticalization for the second one.” (Erman & Kotsinas 1993: 80)

Starting from the same source, Gmz and Pmz would be diverging paths leading to different functional words. Fig. 3.5 illustrates Erman & Kotsinas’ (1993) concepts and captures their dealing with the two phenomena. Erman & Kotsinas explain that the Gmz path results in grammatical markers, which arrange the grammatical cohesive structure on sentence level. The Pmz path, though, results in DMs. They would operate on the discourse level and would function as text-structuring devices (cf. Erman & Kotsinas 1993: 81). In short, Pmz can be retraced to lexical items—in isolation from Gmz. Fig. 3.5 21

Ocampo (2006) proposes Discoursivization and Claridge & Arnovick (2010) Discoursisation as possible approaches towards the rise of DMs. Basically, they conform to the idea of Pmz. Thus, this thesis will not discuss their approaches any further. Heine (2013; 2016) chooses a quite different approach towards DMs, namely Cooptation. Detges & Waltereit (2016) introduces Routinization. As this research concentrates on Pragmaticalization as the framework, which has the potential to describe the rise of DMs, Cooptation and Routinization are only named for the sake of completeness and for possible further interests.

3.3 MWDMs Independent from Gmz in a Pmz Approach?

67

Figure 3.5 Pmz and Gmz as diverging processes (own illustration, based on Erman & Kotsinas notion of Pmz 1993)

demonstrates that grammatical and discourse markers differ in their functionality and referentiality and are therefore best considered in different language change frameworks. Especially, “the way the affected word comes to be used, that is at the referential or conversational level,” (Erman & Kotsinas 1993: 81) distinguishes Pmz from Gmz. Erman & Kotsinas identify referentiality as the decisive characteristic. They explain that DMs can have referentiality on phrasal level (e.g. topicalisation, focus) (3.5) ... and he’s sort of next one, you know next senior one after Hart. (Erman 2001: 1343) or meta-communicatively on textual level beyond sentence boundaries (e.g. denial, approval) (3.6) A: I didn’t realize what I was doing. I dunno. B: You’re so stupid! You know. (Erman 2001: 1343) Grammatical markers would exhibit no such reference. Furthermore, they claim that lexical items pragmaticalise “directly into a discourse marker without an intermediate stage of grammaticalization” (Erman & Kotsinas 1993: 79). Since some of their postulations prove untenable for MWDMs, the next paragraph criticises Erman & Kotsinas notion of Pmz as an isolated path of change for MWDMs.

3.3.1.2 Criticism: MWDMs Show Relations to Pmz and Gmz Erman & Kotsinas (1993) consider grammar and discourse as two distinct spheres. Traugott & Trousdale (2013), as representatives of the broadened Gmz

68

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

approach, reject the idea of Pmz and rather plead for Grammaticalization as Expansion. However, the previous chapter has demonstrated that Traugott’s definition is not precise and differentiated enough. The rather conventional distinction of Pmz, though, does not automatically imply an outdated perspective22 . Consequently, the following criticism does not relate to Erman & Kotsinas’ notion of grammar but to their understanding and scope of Pmz. Erman & Kotsinas propose two different paths for Pmz and Gmz. Due to significant differences in referentiality and functionality of discourse and grammatical markers, they offer a persuasive conceptual delimitation (cf. Fig. 3.5). However, they disregard common features of both paths. The previous chapters have highlighted that Decategorialization and semantic generalization (cf. Table 3.6) are crucial features of Pmz and Gmz. In a holistic approach towards the rise of MWDMs, these similarities must not be ignored. Erman & Kotsinas’ two-way constellation of the processes is consequently insufficient and oversimplified. Erman & Kotsinas define lexical items as the source domain of DMs. Sect. 1.2.2.3 and Fig. 1.6 depicted lexical along with grammatical items as possible starting points for Gmz and Pmz. As MWDMs lead back to lexical and grammatical words, this fact must be considered in this research on MWDMs. Therefore, Erman & Kotsinas’ idea of Pmz has to be elaborated. Additionally, Detges & Waltereit (cf. 2016: 637 ff.) criticise that their definition of DMs is too vague. This comment consorts with the distinction made in Chap. 2. As modal particles, interjections and further PMs differ from DMs, the scope of Pmz as in Erman & Kotsinas is not sufficiently differentiated and specified.

3.3.2

Aijmer

Investigating theoretical approaches to Pmz, Aijmer’s (1997) research is probably the most frequently cited paper next to Erman & Kotsinas’.

3.3.2.1 Aijmer’s Notion of Pmz In similar fashion to her Swedish colleagues, Aijmer argues that DMs have pragmaticalised because they involve speakers’ attitudes to hearers. Gmz, in turn, describes the emergence of grammatical constructions such as mood, aspect,

22 Sect. 3.4 discusses Traugott’s broader notion of Gmz with closer reference to Pmz approaches and evaluates pros and cons of each perspective.

3.3 MWDMs Independent from Gmz in a Pmz Approach?

69

tense, etc. (cf. Aijmer 1997: 2). Fig. 3.6 illustrates her idea of Gmz and Pmz which was inspired by Erman & Kotsinas (cf. Fig. 3.5).

Figure 3.6 Pmz and Gmz as diverging processes (as in Aijmer 1997: 2)

Gmz is characterised as the process leading to grammatical constructions, Pmz as the one giving birth to pragmatic expressions. While Erman & Kotsinas stressed the discourse-coordinating functions of DMs, Aijmer emphasises the involvement of a speaker’s attitude to the hearer and the given message. Aijmer proposes a diverging Pmz path because Gmz would be a too broad and fuzzy concept which could be applied to numerous syntactic, pragmatic or semantic variations. On the contrary, she interprets Pmz on a pragmatic, syntactic, semantic and prosodic level. Table 3.8 summarises her statements on different linguistic dimensions of Pmz (cf. Aijmer 1997: 2 ff.). Table 3.8 Linguistic dimensions of Pmz as in Aijmer 1997

70

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

Compared to the dimensions addressed by Traugott (cf. Table 3.7) and Heine & Kuteva (cf. Table 3.4), Aijmer suggests similar spheres23 . Subsequently, there is growing evidence that these are the crucial linguistic operations for changes related to MWDMs. Concrete parameters, though, are not presented. Aijmer accentuates that “the truth-conditional criterion is of overriding importance for distinguishing between grammatical(ized) and pragmatical(ized) elements” (Aijmer 1997: 3). To illustrate the idea of truth-conditionality, the following example is presented. (3.7) Look, I have an audition tomorrow, and I can’t go if I break my leg. (TV Corpus 2001: Friends) (3.8) That’s a rather hard reading of the situation, if I may say so. (TV Corpus 2016: Mr Selfridge) In the if-clause (3.7), the condition that must be fulfilled—being able to walk— can either be given or not. As a consequence, the proposition of the main clause—whether or not the person can participate at the audition—can be analysed as true or false. The pragmatic construction if I may say so in (3.8), though, depends on the speaker’s evaluation of the situation, and the whole sentence cannot be analysed in truth-conditional terms. By analysing this semantic capacity of pragmatic statements, elements can unequivocally be identified as pragmatical(ised) according to Aijmer. Aijmer agrees that “there are many similarities between the processes involved in Pmz and Gmz [...]. [T]ypically involved in Pmz and Gmz [are] specialization, layering, divergence [...]” (Aijmer 1997: 6). Furthermore, she claims that “the beginning of Gmz is associated with the development of new pragmatic meanings, strengthening of conversational implicatures, etc.” (ibid.: 2). Unlike Erman & Kotsinas, Aijmer explicitly relates to Hopper’s (cf. Sect. 3.1.2) and Traugott’s (cf. Sect. 3.2.2) Gmz parameters and indicates pragmatic characteristics in Gmz and hints of Gmz in Pmz vice versa.

3.3.2.2 Criticism: Pmz should not be Considered in Isolation of Gmz The last paragraph of the previous chapter requires immediate criticism. As Sect. 3.1 and Sect. 3.2 have clearly indicated, Gmz and Pmz show overlaps (cf. 23

In Table 3.8, prosody also points towards phonological features. Tone can thus be compared with phonological and phonetic features. A more precise differentiation follows in Chap. 4.

3.3 MWDMs Independent from Gmz in a Pmz Approach?

71

Fig. 1.7). However, the way Aijmer juxtaposes Gmz and Pmz is ambiguous. On the one hand, Fig. 3.6 stipulates Gmz as the complement of Pmz (cf. Aijmer 1997: 40). On the other hand, she argues that the frameworks share commonalities. Moreover, she refers to Traugott’s Pragmatic Strengthening and states that Pmz would be a requirement of Gmz. Her intention was probably to interpret Pmz as Conventionalization (cf. Traugott & König 1988 and Sect. 3.2.2). The initial goal of her paper, however, was to define Pmz as a distinct language change process describing the rise of DMs. At this point, the boundaries between Pmz as Conventionalization and as a sovereign framework blur. A differentiated and holistic approach towards DMs definitely needs an unmistakable separation of these linguistic concepts. As a consequence, her two-path distinction of Gmz and Pmz (Fig. 3.6) seems redundant when considering her concrete interpretation of Pmz and Gmz. Additionally, Aijmer’s treatment of Gmz parameters is not specific for changes of MWDMs because she predominantly refers to Hopper’s principles of Gmz. Previous applications have demonstrated that these principles are neither specific to MWDMs nor to Gmz or Pmz (cf. Sect. 3.3). Considered from a critical perspective, Aijmer’s “criterion [...] of overriding importance” (Aijmer 1997: 3) needs a second assessment. The set (3.7) and (3.8) have impressively demonstrated how a simple grammatical construction can differ from a pragmatic construction in terms of truth-conditionality. Nevertheless, such a distinction is not always as straightforward as this example. Firstly, not all DMs and MWDMs appear in such main-clause-subordinate-clause-constructions. Secondly, lexical expressions, such as adjectives, may also contain evaluative components and can consequently not be unequivocally interpreted in true-orfalse relations. Suitable examples, which are not PMs and still express subjectiveevaluative notions, are again pejorations (cf. Sect. 3.2.3.2), e.g. sentence (3.9). (3.9) [...] whose father... is rotting away in some geriatric hospital somewhere in Virginia, and why? Is the son too stingy to pay for a slightly more livable place? (TV Corpus 2008: In Treatment) Stingy depends on the attitude of the speaker and by using this lexical adjective, the utterance receives a personal notion. Why the son in (3.9) is actually saving money is unknown. Therefore, (3.9) indicates that the truth-conditional criterion is not restricted to PMs and Pmz. Aijmer’s general approach resembles Erman & Kotsinas’ theories. She, though, suggests linguistic dimensions and corresponding changes for a Pmz

72

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

framework. Unfortunately, her notion of Pmz is also not differentiated enough to call Pmz a distinct path diverging from Gmz. Due to unspecific and missing parameters, Aijmer’s approach does not offer the framework and parameters needed to conduct an effective case study of MWDMs. Since neither Erman & Kotsinas nor Aijmer have provided concrete mechanisms, their theories need further elaboration.

3.4

MWDMs in a Pmz Approach within the Gmz Framework?

Neither a conventional or revised notion of Gmz (cf. Sect. 3.1 and Sect. 3.2) nor a separated Pmz approach (cf. Sect. 3.3) constituted a suitable framework for the analysis of MWDMs. This chapter considers the last of the four conceptions prevailing in the literature: MWDM treated in a Pmz approach that is subordinated to the Gmz framework. Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen’s (2002) approach towards Pmz provides the decisive key for the exact treatment of MWDMs. Eventually, Pmz will be redefined and set as the framework for the analysis of MWDMs. By determining Pmz as a distinct but subordinated process of Gmz, references to previous theories and chapters will become apparent. This will also explain why the different approaches towards Gmz and Pmz had to be presented and discussed before a profound approach could be deduced.

3.4.1

Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen

Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen (2002) first proposed the idea of Pmz as Gmz in their study on the development of PDE though from a concessive marker to a DM. Sect. 3.4.1.1 presents a brief insight into their paper. Although criticism follows in Sect. 3.4.1.2, their treatment presents a conclusive way of how to establish a framework for the analysis of MWDMs. As a result, the final notion of the framework can be defined in Sect. 3.4.2.

3.4.1.1 Gmz as a Continuum and Family Resemblance of Gmz and Pmz Just like Traugott, Diewald, Aijmer and several other linguists, BarthWeingarten & Couper-Kuhlen (2002) unveil issues of the applicability of Lehmann’s Gmz parameters to DMs (cf. Sect. 3.1.1). Unlike most of these works,

3.4 MWDMs in a Pmz Approach within the Gmz Framework?

73

Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen criticise Traugott’s revision of Lehmann’s Gmz definition. By extending and ‘overloading’ the traditional notion of Gmz, the framework itself would bleach and lose its descriptive powers (cf. BarthWeingarten & Couper-Kuhlen 2002: 356 f., in analogy to the criticism in Sect. 3.2.3). To escape this dilemma, they propose the following: “There may be a more attractive solution, namely treating the notion of grammaticalization as a (further) instance of prototypicality [...]. The development of discourse markers could then be considered as related to more prototypical cases of grammaticalization in terms of family resemblance.” (Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen 2002: 357)

Following this idea, DMs could be related to cases which are considered to be more proto-typical instances of Gmz (e.g. auxiliaries, prepositions). Furthermore, this would explain why some cases (e.g. MWDMs) only fulfil some of Lehmann’s criteria. Due to family resemblance, MWDMs could still be considered as grammaticalised—but in an atypical way. Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen do not propose a binary distinction between grammaticalised and pragmaticalised or Gmz and Pmz as Erman & Kotsinas (cf. Fig. 3.5) or Aijmer (cf. Fig. 3.6) but postulate the idea of Gmz as a continuum. Fig. 3.7 illustrates this concept.

Figure 3.7 Gmz as a continuum (own illustration, based on Barth-Weingarten & CouperKuhlen 2002)

Since MWDMs barely adhere to Lehmann’s parameters (cf. Table 3.5), they can be placed on the far left side of the continuum—classified as atypical Gmz. Next to this proposal, they addresses the idea of Pmz as in Erman & Kotsinas (1993) and in Aijmer (1997). In line with the criticism mentioned in Sect. 3.3.1.2 and Sect. 3.3.2.2, they agree that Pmz in previous considerations has ignored already grammaticalised forms which afterwards turn into DMs. Eventually, Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen recognise shared features of Gmz and Pmz and identify this as the reason why Pmz should not be treated as an individual process. They insist that “Pmz [...] seems to be a subtype of Gmz rather than a separate, independently definable process” (Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen 2002: 357). Despite the following criticism on their prototypicality-continuum,

74

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

this idea constitutes the foundation of the treatment of MWDMs in the Gmz-Pmz interface. They indicated a way to find a compromise between the different ways to approach MWDMs. It is possible to define a framework that can specifically and extensively describe the rise of MWDMs without changing and extending the existing conception of Gmz. The following section delineates what is missing in Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen’s approach and how this leads to the notion of Gmz and Pmz in this study.

3.4.1.2 Criticism: Gmz not as a Continuum but as a Superordinate Framework of Pmz Numerous linguists refer to Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen’s paper as the first one introducing Pmz as a special subprocess of Gmz (cf. e.g. Heine 2013, Ocampo 2006, Brinton 2017). A thorough review of their study, however, indicates that it is not the idea of Gmz as a superordinate framework of Pmz but the concept of Gmz as a continuum that is focused in their study. Before scrutinising Pmz as a dependent language change process, their suggestion of a continuum has to be considered. Next to the already mentioned problems of an extended Gmz notion and missing parameters, the idea of a Gmz continuum indicates a ‘degree concept’ of Gmz. This concept, however, leads back to Lehmann’s parameters, which have already expressed strong and weak Gmz (cf. Table 3.2). Strictly speaking, BarthWeingarten & Couper-Kuhlen’s concept is rather an elaboration on previously mentioned theories than a completely new approach. Furthermore, the image of prototypical and atypical Gmz is deceptive. The be going to-future, for instance, is stated several times as the classic and paradigmatic example of Gmz (cf. e.g. Coussé et al. 2017: 5, Tagliamonte et al. 2014: 76, Hopper & Traugott 2003: 1 ff.). Comparing other, also rather uninvestigated cases to such prototypes would consequently allow positioning the new forms along the continuum (cf. Fig. 3.7). Sect. 1.2.2, however, has demonstrated that the concept of typicality is not always straightforward. I think could not even be unambiguously assigned to one framework. The allocation within a framework is also based upon subjective interpretations and research interests. For example, Diewald (2011) ascribes prototypical Gmz features to DMs, and Rosenkvist & Skärlund (2013) define DMs as straightforward cases of Gmz. Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen (2002), in contrast, treat DMs as borderline phenomena of Gmz. With regard to the parameters and mechanisms Barth-Weingarten & CouperKuhlen consult, procedural criticism can be expressed, too. Gmz features are

3.4 MWDMs in a Pmz Approach within the Gmz Framework?

75

fairly randomly chosen. They refer to Lehmann’s parameters, Traugott’s Pragmatic Strengthening, truth-conditionality as in Aijmer (1997), Hopper’s principles and further criteria without profound reflection or differentiation. Introducing the Gmz continuum adds the subjective notion of typicality to the already difficult discussions on DMs. This proposal does not contribute to a precise analysis of MWDMs.

3.4.2

Redefining the Framework: MWDMs as a case of Pmz and a Distinct Subprocess of Gmz

Briefly and succinctly summarised, there are two dominant approaches coexisting right now in the literature: DMs as a an outcome of Gmz or DMs as an outcome of Pmz. As neither of them turned out to be specific and extensive enough, this study postulates a compromise that meets these requirements. This approach should not be seen as direct criticism of the existing theories but as a conglomerate of all features and notions that suit the rise of MWDMs. The redefinition of Pmz as a subprocess of Gmz will then be elaborated and affirmed by comprehensive Pmz mechanisms (cf. Chap. 4). The following case study of MWDMs (cf. Chap. 6) will review and support this approach. At this point of the study, it is legitimate to claim that the rise of MWDMs is a development that distinguishes itself from other changes and does not really fit into an existing scheme. Relations to conventional Gmz, Gmz in a broader sense, Pmz and Pmz as a subprocess of Gmz are evident but not entirely congruent. The latter approach—Pmz as a subprocess—is, as Sect. 3.4 has demonstrated, not yet entirely formulated. This thesis tries to fill in this gap. In this study, Pmz is not treated as the use of words in new contexts (as in Traugott’s Pragmatic Strengthening) but as the contemporary and diachronic language change process describing the development of DMs24 . Pmz is further characterised as a dependent subprocess of Gmz because Pmz exhibits shared features of Gmz. Consequently, the connection between Gmz and Pmz can be described in terms of family resemblance as it was proposed by Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen (2002).

24

Remember that DMs were introduced as a subspecies of PMs. The development of e.g. modal particles or interjections may differ from this approach. A comprehensive analysis of every class of PMs exceeds this work’s scope.

76

3

Critically Reviewing Linguistic Approaches Towards MWDMs

Most academics are reluctant to assign a separate status to the rise of DMs while simultaneously recognising the atypical changes of DMs. This thesis identifies Pmz—in the notion above—as the framework for the rise of DMs. Traugott’s broader notion of Gmz still applies to the ideas of this thesis since Pmz and pragmatics are now associated to Gmz and grammar. Therefore, this thesis avoids a clear cut between grammar and discourse and ascribes extra-sentential and grammatical properties to MWDMs. Nevertheless, a distinction between Gmz and Pmz and grammatical markers and discourse markers is assumed. This conception relies on the fact that functionality, referentiality, phonology and morpho-syntactics of DMs are undoubtedly different from conventional grammaticalised constructs. Obviously, this treatment relates to Erman & Kotsinas’ suggestions (cf. Fig. 3.5). Aijmer’s call for a precise notion of Pmz and Gmz without an overload of features is also met. Further relations to previous notions of Gmz and Pmz will emerge during the establishment of the Pmz mechanisms (cf. Chap. 4). Diewald (cf. 2011: 384), Brinton (2007: 64) and Barth-Weingarten & CouperKuhlen (2002: 357) mention the idea of Pmz as a subprocess. Their works, though, only casually and rather pejoratively addressed this possibility as just a ‘subspecies’, a barely distinguishable process and as only one instance of Gmz among others. This chapter has clearly demonstrated that DMs can only be analysed comprehensively in a proper framework which acknowledges their distinctiveness. This work consequently urges to treat Pmz as a distinct subprocess of Gmz. The irony of many linguists’ works is that they severely criticised Lehmann’s and his colleagues’ Gmz parameters but do themselves not propose any specific Gmz or Pmz mechanisms. This study proceeded similarly, but, unlike other works, it postulates Pmz mechanisms. Only then will the framework be specific enough to precisely describe the rise of MWDMs.

4

Establishing Mechanisms for the Approach Towards MWDMs

There are basically two different ways to establish and describe mechanisms for a language change framework. Either the analysis of a case study is conducted before the framework is established or after the framework was established. Both ways are legitimate and involve advantages and disadvantages. While the distinction between inductive and deductive approaches is not always easy to draw (cf. Chap. 5), this thesis, by and large, suggests a deductive approach: initially, the theoretical framework is defined (linguistic form in Chap. 2, linguistic framework in Chap. 3 and corresponding mechanisms in this chapter). Afterwards, the case study reviews and, at best, supports these ideas. MWDMs have been defined as forms operating in discursive and pragmatic spheres. Their changes are best described by an approach that applies Pmz as a subprocess of Gmz. What is missing and what was stressed several times as crucial for a framework are specific and comprehensive mechanisms. The term mechanism is preferred because it accentuates the progressive and gradual development of DMs. Further mechanism demonstrates that change has happened or is happening while other terminologies such as parameter or outcome (e.g. Lehmann 1995) seem rather static and finalised. Therefore, this chapter postulates mechanisms for the proposed notion of Pmz. The case study of the MWDMs by the way, all the same and what is more (Chap. 6) can subsequently examine the mechanism-based framework. As the research area of Pmz is still relatively recent (especially compared to Gmz studies), substantial and acknowledged Pmz mechanisms do not exist. Some approaches (e.g. Frank-Job 2006, Claridge & Arnovick 2010, Mroczynski 2012) actually mention mechanisms, parameters and characteristics of Pmz1 . However, their mechanisms do not match the idea of MWDMs in 1

For more information on their notion of Pmz, see the corresponding works. Due to the scope of this work, it is decided to forgo an elaborate discussion. As the presented Gmz parameters

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 J.-F. Heeren, Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39507-0_4

77

78

4

Establishing Mechanisms for the Approach Towards MWDMs

a Pmz approach withing a superordinate Gmz framework (Chap. 2 and Chap. 3). Consequently, this research postulates Pmz mechanisms, which reflect the state of the art, and adapts them to the notion of Pmz as a subprocess of Gmz. Examining MWDMs in a Pmz approach allows investigating changes on all levels of linguistic description. Whereas many case studies focus on meaning changes associated with pragmatics and semantics, this thesis explores the forms as multi-dimensional phenomena. In the previous chapter, it has become evident that MWDMs and Pmz display changes on the linguistic dimensions of pragmatics, semantics, morpho-syntax, phonology and prosody. Since pragmatic and semantic changes are closely linked, and pragmatic changes also influence alterations in all the other dimensions, pragmatics is interpreted as a “perspective [...] on any level of structure” (Verschueren 1987: 5). This conception of pragmatics also fits the notion of Pmz as a multi-dimensional language change framework. Further, prosodic and morpho-phonological changes are assigned to phonological developments and morpho-syntax to the area of general syntax. Schiffrin (1987), Brinton (1996; 2017), Heine (2013) and also Heine & Kuteva (Sect. 3.1.3), Traugott (Sect. 3.2) and Aijmer (3.3.2) agree on these three dimensions as they ascribe semantic, syntactic and phonological properties towards DMs. This broader definition of the linguistic dimensions allows analysing various features of MWDMs within a Pmz approach. In this study, six mechanisms are suggested which comprehensively describe developments of MWDMs after having been pragmaticalised from lexical constructions. Table 4.1 briefly summarises the processes according to their linguistic dimension. The chosen terminology bases upon previous literature and parameters (e.g. Scope Extension on Heine’s & Kuteva’s Extension (cf. Sect. 3.1.3.2) or Acategorialization on Hopper’s Decategorialization (cf. Sect. 3.1.2.5)); however, concrete designations and definitions of the Pmz mechanisms are postulated for the first time in this study. In the following sections, each mechanism will be described in more detail. This chapter will be crucial for the upcoming analysis since MWDMs will be tested against these mechanisms. In the following, it can be decided if the mechanism-based framework of this study is valid and if the cases depict instances of pragmaticalised MWDMs.

and Pmz theories of Erman & Kotsinas, Aijmer and Barth-Weingarten & Couper-Kuhlen (cf. Chap. 3) are recognised and fundamental for the linguistic framework, this study benefits more from their discussion than from a detailed account of the mentioned papers.

4.1 Semantic Dimension

79

Table 4.1 Pragmaticalization mechanisms

4.1

Semantic Dimension

In Gmz studies, linguists apply terms such as Desemanticization or semantic loss (e.g. Heine & Kuteva 2002, cf. Sect. 3.1.3.1). Unquestionably, the semanticity of a form changes during Gmz. Utilising these terms, though, implies that the resulting forms have lost any semantic substance. Notwithstanding, words always have a meaning, otherwise, it would not make any sense to apply them. Therefore, this study prefers to speak about functionalisation of meaning in context. In the case of MWDMs, this indicates that the semantic notion is not any longer restricted to

80

4

Establishing Mechanisms for the Approach Towards MWDMs

the meanings of its constituents but discursively dependent. MWDMs work on the non-propositional, pragmatic level (cf. Fig. 2.2); they adopt pragmatic meanings with textual and metacommunicative references. These processes can be captured by the mechanisms Discursivization and Scope Extension.

4.1.1

Discursivization

Discursivization is probably the most obvious Pmz mechanism. It directly relates to the concept of MWDMs as discursive and pragmatic active forms. During Pmz, MWDMs change their lexical, propositional meaning into a meta-communicative and text-structuring function. During this functionalisation process, the meaning of the forms passing through Discursivization becomes increasingly abstract. Simultaneously, the original semantics of the construction bleaches. From a purely lexico-semantic point of view, MWDMs become optional. Their real pragmatic-semantic meaning cannot be discovered until the context has been examined. Starting from a lexical or grammatical word, the outcomes of Pmz operate on the discourse domain and not on the grammatical or lexical domain. This mechanism describes the resulting context- and discourse-dependent notions. Furthermore, it is not the original semantic meaning but the speaker-hearerinteractive implication of a pragmaticalised form that dominates the basic notion and function of a MWDM. Due to context-dependency, forms gain in subjectivity and speaker-involvement during Discursivization. Discursivization leads to forms expressing indexicality on textual and interpersonal level (cf. Schiffrin 1987). As a consequence, semantic and functional polysemous applications of the respective constructions co-exist. Divergence, Persistence, Split and Conventionalization, for instance (cf. e.g. Hopper 1991 and Traugott & König 1988 in Sect. 3.1 ff.), can be understood as side-effects of this pragmatic-semantic mechanism.

4.1.2

Scope Extension

Scope Extension relates to Traugott’s broader notion of Gmz as expansion and to Himmel-mann’s pragmatic-semantic expansion (cf. Sect. 3.2). While the scope of grammaticalised and lexicalised items tends to shrink, extended scope is a crucial feature of MWDMs. Grammemes usually express a clear relational structure. MWDMs do not apply such a word-to-word-reference. Moreover, Sect. 2.2 has

4.2 Syntactic Dimension

81

demonstrated that the scope of a MWDM can vary, depending on the co- and context. On the one hand, MWDMs can refer to single forms within the sentence or to larger passages beyond the sentence level. On the other hand, MWDMs can even relate to extra-sentential situations and to interpersonal relations. This pragmatic reanalysis and strengthening2 accentuates the complexity of MWDMs. Scope Extension responds to this innovative referentiality. It must be noted that the term Scope Extension does not automatically imply a magnified scope. Extension should emphasise that the number of possibilities, i.e. how far-reaching the scope of a MWDM is, extends. Furthermore, the mechanism describes that the referentiality of MWDMs shifts from a distinct reference over adjacent phrases to a more abstract reference on the interpersonal and textual level.

4.2

Syntactic Dimension

Languages need rules and conventions to enable systematic verbal communication. Typo-logically, PDE is an analytic language which needs an SVO sentence structure and rigid form-function relations to express sentential connections3 . MWDMs, however, do not really comply with this classification system. They neither occupy a fixed slot in syntax, nor do they feature characteristics of conventional morpho-syntactic word classes. Syntactic Isolation and Acategorialization are introduced as Pmz mechanisms precisely delineating these changes.

4.2.1

Syntactic Isolation

MWDMs assume every possible position in a sentence - initial, medial or final. The same MWDM can be placed in all of these syntactic slots. Contrary to the syntagmatic fixation in conventional Gmz approaches (e.g. cf. 3.1.1.6), MWDMs are extremely flexible devices. Moreover, they form autonomous units, isolated from the rest of the sentence as clausal fragments. Due to this mobility and extrasentential character, MWDMs are detached from syntactic conventions. Similar to

2

Here not explicitly referred to Traugott’s Pragmatic Strengthening (cf. Sect. 3.2.2). Latin, for instance, is a synthetic language whose word order is more flexible because morpho-syntactic relations are denoted by inflections.

3

82

4

Establishing Mechanisms for the Approach Towards MWDMs

the semantic optionality, syntactic optionality can be ascribed to MWDMs. Contextualising the MWDMs, flexible positioning and the isolated nature of MWDMs highlight their discursive functions. The phrasal constructions appear in positions that are not typical or not even possible for other word forms. These applications are particularly crucial in order to distinguish the MWDM uses from other polysemous instances since the lexical usages do not exhibit this flexibility and isolation. The Pmz mechanism describing this aspect of syntactic change is termed Syntactic Isolation.

4.2.2

Acategorialization

Categorial changes are characteristic for Gmz and Pmz processes. Hopper (1991) and Heine & Kuteva (2002) introduced Decategorialization as the loss of morphosyntactic properties which previously identified a form as a member of a certain syntactic category (cf. Sect. 3.1.2 and Sect. 3.1.3). This development is related to a shift from a major or more major category towards a minor one. MWDMs demonstrate similar transitions. The resulting forms of Pmz, however, do not assume prefabricated categories that are easy to define in common morphosyntactic relationships. Furthermore, MWDMs work on the discourse level as text-structuring devices and not as accurate grammatical cohesive units (cf. Fig. 3.5). Acategorialization can be summarised as the mechanism in which the constituents of a phrasal lexical construction change their categorial status from a lexical or grammatical to a rather unconventional MWDM status. Acategorialised forms are detached from morpho-syntactic rules since they are, in a traditional perspective, grammatically optional. This is how Acategorialization and Decategorialization in Hopper’s and Heine & Kuteva’s notion (cf. Sect. 3.1.2.5 and Sect. 3.1.3.3) differ. At the endpoint of this change, a form emerges which can be classified as a MWDM with meta-communicative referentiality.

4.3 Phonological Dimension

4.3

83

Phonological Dimension

Comparing the source constructions with their MWDM variants, the pragmaticalised forms do not exhibit striking phonological alterations. While grammaticalised forms tend to morpho-phonologically shorten, pragmaticalised units are consistent. Nonetheless, the phonological dimension of Pmz mechanisms responds to the internal fixation of single forms to MWDMs. Phonological Consistency is a feature of MWDMs and addresses their immunity against reductions during Pmz. Prosodic Accentuation literally stresses the unusual standing of MWDMs in the flow of speech.

4.3.1

Consistency

Consistency refers to the lexicographic and phonological substance of MWDMs. During Pmz, MWDMs become fixed as a phrase. This bondedness within the construction relates to the multi-word unit itself and not to the exact positioning in the syntax (which is quite flexible as it was illustrated by Syntactic Accentuation in Sect. 4.2.1). A phrasal unit cannot function as a MWDM until all of its participants co-occur. Morphological erosion and major phonological deprivation (cf. Sect. 3.1.3.4 and Sect. 3.2.3.2) do not depict parameters of Pmz. On the contrary, MWDMs become internally consistent during Pmz. No formal variation can be executed on MWDMs without destroying their pragmatic implications and discursive functions. Consistency is also a mechanism on the morpho-phonological level as it prevents the MWDM’s participants from being erosed or replaced by words with different semantic notions (e.g. by the street does not function as a MWDM, cf. Sect. 6.1.3.1). Although Consistency within the phonological dimension may appear confusing since MWDMs do not show phonological deprivation, Consistency is mentioned in this section because MWDMs develop exactly in the opposite direction than suggested by conventional phonological erosion and attrition mechanisms of Gmz4 .

4

There will be some evidence of minor phonological alterations (cf. Sect. 6.3.3.1 what is more > what’s more). However, these shifts will not be considered as severe phonological modifications.

84

4.3.2

4

Establishing Mechanisms for the Approach Towards MWDMs

Prosodic Accentuation

Linguistic prosody is concerned with the articulation of sounds and the resulting linguistic functions (cf. Reed 2010: 12 ff.). In Gmz studies, prosody is only sparsely investigated. As Prosodic Accentuation is the sixth Pmz mechanism, it is particularly intriguing to analyse the prosodic structures of MWDMs. The mechanism identifies the tendency of MWDMs to build independent intonation patterns. Triggered by their low attachment to the sentence (Syntactic Isolation, cf. Sect. 4.2.1), their autonomous character expresses itself due to specific prosodic contours. In spoken language, MWDMs are distinguished by pauses and emphases. In written language, comma intonation is applied to indicate such prosodic features. Depending on the respective tone used for the MWDM, Prosodic Accentuation provides further meta-textual information on speakerhearer relations (e.g. sarcasm or irony) and on the discursive integration of the unit (e.g. emphasis or contrast). Since the corpus used in this paper does not include further annotations on stress etc. (information on the data source follow in Chap. 5), comma intonation serves as a tool to identify irregularities in language flow. Hopper & Traugott (2003: 225 ff.), Furkó (2020: 10 ff.) and Brinton (2017: 258 ff.) already mentioned comma intonation as a method to investigate prosody in this research area. As opposed to one- and two-word DMs, Prosodic Accentuation is even more striking with regard to MWDMs due to their larger phonological substance. Sometimes, MWDMs co-occur with other PMs. This co-occurrence additionally accentuates their exceptional prosodic status. Traugott (1997: 6) calls this co-occurrence of DMs with further PMs redundancy. At this point of the study, the first two research questions have been answered: Pmz is defined as the linguistic framework for the analysis of MWDMs, and the corresponding Pmz mechanisms have been established. This chapter revealed the missing tools for a specific and comprehensive analysis of MWDMs. The six Pmz mechanisms allow analysing single cases on all levels of linguistic description. Some mechanisms are interrelated and mutually dependent; nevertheless, the six processes respond to the different pragmatic-interactive and discourse-structuring functions of MWDMs. Chap. 2 to Chap. 4 have established the theoretical background that the extensive analysis of MWDMs requires. The forthcoming chapter describes the methodological procedure which is applied to investigate MWDMs. The corpus-informed approach will explain how data is obtained and how it is used to examine the MWDMs by the way, all the same and what is more.

5

Methodological Approach: Corpus-Informed Research

Corpus Linguistics is the study of linguistic phenomena through the analysis of data obtained from a corpus by using modern computer technology (cf. e.g. McEnery & Hardie 2011 or Dash 2010): “A corpus is a collection of (1) machine-readable (2) authentic texts (including transcripts of spoken data) which is (3) sampled to be (4) representative of a particular language or language variety.” (McEnery et al. 2006: 5)

McEnery et al. (2006) provide a definition of corpora that is supplemented with features to which a corpus-informed study must adhere to. Before applying these characteristics to the chosen corpus (Sect. 5.1 and Sect. 5.2), a brief introduction to the study of corpus linguistics and the related corpus-informed approach is offered. Sect. 5.1 and Sect. 5.2 will then elaborate on the concrete selection and analysis of data received from the TV Coprus. In this context, it will also be explained why the Oxford English Dictionary represents a valuable addition to corpus material. Using corpus data as a basis for a study involves many advantages. While pure linguistic intuition of speakers and researchers is always subjective and limited, corpora are more objective and offer a vast number of examples. Common corpora (e.g. corpora on English-corpora.org, cf. Sect. 5.1 and Sect. 5.2) are so big (>100 million words) that they can represent authentic samples of a language. Moreover, only in very large collections of texts it is possible to find statistically significant and at the same time rare occurrences, which may also be crucial for the research interest (cf. Dasher 2010: 1 ff.). Corpus data is always restricted to its

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 J.-F. Heeren, Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39507-0_5

85

86

5

Methodological Approach: Corpus-Informed Research

target domain and language variety (cf. McEnery & Hardie 2011: 27 ff.),1 e.g. the News on the Web corpus (NOW) addresses online newspaper articles, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) one dialect of the English language (i.e. American English) and the TV Corpus spoken English in TV series. Concordancer (a software that displays concordances within the corpus) can reveal patterns that intuition alone cannot perceive—even better than the intuition of native and expert speakers. In turn, corpus data alone cannot generate research questions and much less provide explan-ations for what is observed. Therefore, a balanced qualitative and quantitative approach of electronic data and linguistic expertise can be key to successful studies. The corpus-informed approach fulfils these purposes because it allows to relate and explain research questions with corpus data. As opposed to corpus-driven studies, which are predominantly based upon figures and statistical patterns (see e.g. Yoon & Gries 2016 for an anthology of corpus-based approaches to grammar), corpus-informed studies extract data from a corpus and offer exemplary usages of a linguistic form (cf. Collins 2009). Corpus-informed data processing is a method to support and validate hypothesis for “heuristic and exemplificatory purposes” (Palmer 1990: 29) while corpus-driven approaches insist that the corpus itself em-bodies the theories (cf. McEnery & Hardie 2011: 5 f.). The work’s deductive structure (cf. Chap. 4) bases upon reasoning from model cases to larger, conclusive implications on the forms and framework. Authentic instances of language use illustrate and describe how MWDM applications diverge from other literal polysemous applications. Thus, the corpus-informed approach lays the foundation of the explanatory power of this study. Nevertheless, this thesis does not apply a clear cut between inductive and deductive approaches. The study is based upon other theories as well as several linguistic examples that result from other linguists’ inductive approaches to the subject matter. By approaching deductively and to some extent inductively, the Pmz mechanisms (cf. Chap. 4) reflect previous concepts and also mechanisms, i.a. Desemanticization, Decategorialization, Structural Scope or Extension (cf. Sect. 3.1), and can simultaneously be explained by suitable examples. Since this thesis investigates pragmatic implications by consulting corpus data, the study’s interests are situated in the intersection of corpus-linguistic analysis and pragmatic research. Therefore, analyses and findings contribute to the area of corpus pragmatics, a rather recent linguistic strand that combines key methodologies of both fields (cf. Aijmer & Rühlemann 2015: 1 ff.). Aijmer & Rühlemann 1

More specific limitations of corpus data and the concrete work with the TV Corpus will be discussed in Sect. 7.2.

5.1 Data Source

87

(2015) emphasise that this combination encourages analyses of “lexical words or constructions which previous pragmatic analyses have shown to have recurring pragmatic functions” (2015: 9). Chap. 6 will demonstrate that by the way, all the same and what is more depict such lexical forms expressing pragmatic functions. Supported by corpus data, these features will be extensively addressed. Although this study’s main interest is not to promote corpus pragmatics, it will be interesting to see how these linguistic fields can be joined to analyse forms with pragmatic functions by a corpus-informed approach.

5.1

Data Source

The main data of this study stems from two electronic sources. On the one side, the Oxford English Dictionary Online provides qualitative information on by the way, all the same, what is more and related constructions. OED Sentences and respective provided information on the literal and MWDM usages will serve as examplary material for the mechanism-based analyses. On the other side, the TV Corpus (Davies 2019) offers contextualised instances of the phrases and provides the foundation for some basic quantitative analyses. The TV Corpus is predominantly used to present exemplary applications and to specifically search for usages illustrating striking features of MWDM instances. Besides, some mechanisms will benfit from concrete numbers which derive from simple quantitative analyses of the corpus (e.g. the statistical distribution concerning Syntactic Isolation or collocational patterns with regard to Scope Extension (cf. Chap. 6)). In the following paragraphs, both electronic resources are briefly introduced. The OED is probably the best-known and most comprehensive dictionary of the English language. Especially studies concentrating on language change phenomena consult the OED i.a. for phonological and semantic information, etymological backgrounds and polysemous applications (cf. e.g. Coll 2009; Brinton 2008, 2017; Toupin & Lowrey 2015). The OED offers entries for more than 600,000 words and includes over 3.5 million quotations originating from over 1000 years of English.2 The entries exhibit scientific clues on first attestations in prior periods of the English language as well as cross-linguistic cognates and present-day applications in contemporary English. From polysemous applications in OE to PDE, the OED provides corresponding phonological, syntactic and semantic features. Consequently, the online dictionary lays the foundation for an analysis of polysemous usages. As the OED is not restricted to one-word forms 2

Figures and information on the OED are taken from oed.com/about.

88

5

Methodological Approach: Corpus-Informed Research

but also addresses phrasal units such as the trigrams by the way, all the same and what is more, this study relates to the dictionary in several places throughout the examinations in Chap. 6. Next to the dictionary, the other large electronic resource is the TV Corpus. The corpus can be accessed via the platform English-corpora.org. Being listed on this platform side by side with several other acknowledged corpora such as the British National Corpus (BNC) or the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), the TV Corpus’ central advantage is “to quickly and easily search through extremely large amounts of data ... [and] to gain unparalleled insight into informal, colloquial English” (quoted from english-corpora.org/tv; this page is also the source for the following information). 325 million words out of over 75,000 TV shows from the 1950s to 2018 shape the corpus. Meta-data such as e.g. year, country, series or genre supplement the concordances. Thanks to direct connections to the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), even more information on the shows (e.g. context, plot, rating) accompany the search queries. The studies of Pérez-Paredes (2020) and Werner & Tegge (2020), for example, illustrate the TV Corpus’ potentials for linguistic studies. Compared to other corpora of spoken PDE (e.g. The Movie Corpus), the TV Corpus is the largest database providing spoken language in contemporary use. Besides its size, there are further reasons why the TV Corpus and not another dataset was chosen. Firstly, the corpus is explicitly addressed to the study of contemporary language change (cf. www.english-corpora.org/files/tv_movie_cor pora.pdf). It offers numerous instances of informal language use (vocabulary and syntax). As MWDMs are particularly noticeable in oral discourse and spoken PDE (cf. e.g. Brinton 1996: 33 or Furkó 2020: 13 ff.), the TV Corpus represents a valuable source to obtain data. Since the language used in TV series bases upon screenplays, the authors and actors try to use authentic language in dialogue situations. According to Crystal & Davy’s classifications of English styles (2006), the language used in the TV Corpus can be characterised as ’written to be spoken’3 (cf. Crystal & Davy 2006). The TV Corpus offers various instances of MWDMs in communicative situations. This research does not focus on one dialect, so it needs a database which is not addressed to one variety of the English language. Unlike the BNC, for instance, which is devoted to British English, the TV Corpus covers several dialects (i.a. American, British or Australian English). Thus, the work’s results are not restricted to one dialect but respond to the English language in general use. 3

In turn, this idealised, fictive language use imposes limitations. For their discussion see Sect. 7.2.

5.2 Data Processing

5.2

89

Data Processing

Section 5.1 introduced the electronic resources that served as providers of data. To understand the corpus-informed methodological approach of this study, it is not only important to char-acterise the data source but also how the obtained data is processed, i. e. how the analysis is performed. In this research, the TV Corpus and the OED deliver exemplary concordances and contexts of the forms. As the data analysis will be carried out in Chap. 6, the following paragraphs explain how data is extracted from these two platforms and how this enriches the analysis of MWDMs. Additional screenshots will illustrate the methodological approach. Subsequently, the steps in the analysis of data can be reconstructed, and a manual for future studies within this area of investigation results. OED’s ‘Quick Search’ allows the user to browse the dictionary for any desired inquiry. These requests can be single lexemes as well as phrases. This option is crucial for this research as it investigates multi-word units. Accordingly, Quick Search presents entries for by the way, all the same and what is more. Fig. 5.1 captures the results of the search request for ’by the way’. Hereafter, by the way acts as a representative example for the three MWDMs and their screening in the OED and TV Corpus. Figure 5.1 presents a broad overview of corresponding entries. Since there are different sub-sections for by the way in the entries for ‘by, prep. and adv.’, ‘way, n. and int.’ and a hyphenated ‘by-the-way, n.’, the user has to choose between the hyperlinks. Within the OED, phrasal units are usually assigned to lexemes as subentries. Accordingly, all the same can be found in the entry for ‘same, adj., pron., and adv.’, and what is more is listed under the entry for ’more, adj., pron., adv., n., and prep.’. Fig. 5.1 shows that it is sometimes necessary to read through several different entries as the forms have polysemous uses with different morpho-syntactic and semantic features. By the way, for instance, is listed in several subentries, taking different meanings in different contexts (cf. Sect. 6.1.1.1 and Table 6.2 for the different meanings of by the way in the OED). One of the uses of by the way as a prepositional phrase can be found under the entry of ‘way, n. and int.’. Screenshots of ‘by the way in way, n. and int.’ and excerpts of the information on the related forms way and by the way are presented in Fig. 5.2. Following the hyperlink, the user is automatically forwarded to the first entry of by the way. By using the browser’s search function, the appearances of by the way can be quickly iden-tified and highlighted (yellow labelling in Fig. 5.2). This method facilitates the search for different subentries of the form. In this way, realistic and authentic usages with associated annotations on semantic backgrounds, publication date and author can be collected, presen-ted and analysed. Quotations

90

5

Methodological Approach: Corpus-Informed Research

Figure 5.1 OED’s Quick Search results for ‘by the way’

of OED material in this work state entry, author, date and title so that the cited strings can be retrieved in the dictionary. Corpus search within the TV Corpus is conducted electronically via concordance software. The interface of English-corpora.org basically looks the same for all the different listed cor-pora. The ‘SEARCH’ function allows the reader to trace words or phrases (cf. Fig. 5.3). The ‘list-search’ provides matching strings and additional information on frequency and context. As this thesis applied corpus-informed methodology, the list-search function is predominantly used throughout this study to gain suitable and illustrative examples. Fig. 5.4 captures the results of the list-search for ‘by the way’.

5.2 Data Processing

91

Figure 5.2 OED entry of ‘way, n. and int.’ and corresponding entry of ‘by the way’

At the top of Fig. 5.4, the frequency of occurrences in the corpus is provided. Beneath is a list with all the appearances, and, clicking on the respective concordance (‘CONTEXT’), the context of the appearance within the TV series can be investigated closer (‘CONTEXT + ’). Here, further information on e.g. series,

92

5

Methodological Approach: Corpus-Informed Research

Figure 5.3 English-corpora.org and ‘SEARCH’ function of the TV Corpus

5.2 Data Processing

93

Figure 5.4 TV Corpus list-search for ‘by the way’ with corresponding frequency and context

episodes, dates and genres follows. When concord-ance material of the TV Corpus is used in this thesis, it is annotated by series and date.4 Quoted concordances 4

Spelling and grammatical errors are adopted in references in the way they appear in the corpus.

94

5

Methodological Approach: Corpus-Informed Research

can be easily retrieved in the corpus by copying and entering strings of the cited material in the list-search. Consulting the list-search for the analysis of linguistic items, it is important to doublecheck the concordance lines, the resource and the environment of the respective queries. In some cases, for instance, the language used in the series represents archaic language (cf. Sect. 6.3.3.1). In other cases, the concordance may not represent the requested linguistic form but a co-occurrence with another phrasal construction (e.g. the concordance line ‘Look, I can tell by the way he stands, he’s in the military.’ (TV Corpus 2017: Empire) does not refer to the prepositional phrase by the way but to a co-occurence of the prepositional verb tell by with the NP the way). Taking these exceptions into account (when referring to exemplary concordance lines), this paper considers data reduction. Section 2.2.2, Syntactic Isolation in Sect. 4.2.1 and Prosodic Accentuation in Sect. 4.3.2 have demonstrated that displacement by punctuation is an outstanding feature of MWDMs (analyses in Chap. 6 will reinforce punctuation). Thus, possibly the most important advantage of the electronic corpus for this research is its inclusion and consideration of punctuation. Literal and MWDM usages coexist; punctuation and in particular comma intonation, how-ever, are distinctive for DMs. There may be some exceptions where literal applications show preceding or succeeding commas or full stops. Simple random sampling (cf. e.g. McEnery et al. 2006: 19 ff.), though, has proven that the following sequence of punctuation and form is in almost all cases a sign for MWDM utilisation. MWDMs can also appear without surrounding commas. Literal usages, in turn, are not likely to show the scheme as presented in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Searching for MWDMs in the TV Corpus according to their syntactic position

The examples in Table 5.1 indicate that the TV Corpus considers commas and full stops and can therefore effectively search for MWDMs.5 This method helps 5

Spaces between comma or full stop and form have to be inserted. Otherwise, the TV Corpus cannot deliver results. For the search no distinction is made between upper case and lower case.

5.2 Data Processing

95

to distinguish the MWDMs from the literal usages and also to gain statistical data about distributional pat-terns. Syntactic Isolation of MWDMs will in particular apply this procedure (cf. e.g. Chap. 6: Table 6.3, 6.5, 6.7). The notion of ‘medial position’ in Table 5.1 may be ambiguous because medial placement depends on the length of the sentence. Once again, this study proceeds pragmatically and treats all appearances that are surrounded on both sides of the phrase with a comma as medial MWDMs—no matter how far on the left or on the right of the sentence they show up. Thus, for instance, both concordance lines 2 and 11 in Fig. 5.4 are treated as medial usages. Brinton (2017), for example, applies a similar comma-based browsing of corpus data for DM concordances. English-corpora.org and the TV Corpus enable the user to look for collocations. The KWIC search provides organised information on the context of the phrase (cf. Fig. 5.3). These functions are used in parts of the analysis to compare e.g. semantic fields and syntactic environments of the phrases in lexical and MWDM use. The concordancer has several other technical potentials that simplify and refine the investigation. The most important tools of the TV Corpus have been explained. For further interests, the manual on the website offers detailed descriptions (www.english-corpora.org). For all three MWDMs (by the way, all the same, and what is more), concordance lines of the electronic sources will be processed to illustrate the six Pmz mechanisms. Based on Chap. 4, the analysis takes the following steps: Initially, each MWDM is discussed on the semantic level. Polysemous applications of the different forms will be contrasted to express meaning abstraction in terms of Discursivization. The adjacent semantic field and the direction of the MWDMs’ referentialities will show the enlarged semantic scope. Figures will then illustrate Scope Extension, and collocational patterns will indicate diverging collocational patterns of MWDM and non-MWDM usages. As it was already mentioned before, Syntactic Isola-tion relates to comma intonation and flexible appearances within the corpus (cf. Table 5.1). Discussions on Acategorialization complement the syntactic analyses with morpho-syntactic classifications, treediagrams and categorial shifts. In addition, several figures display the analytical results. Alterations of the phonological structure and morpho-phonological substance of the lexical and MWDM units will underline Consistency. The analysis of Prosodic Accentuation of each MWDM finalises the examinations and points to discontinuities within the discourse flow and emphases of MWDMs. Furthermore, selected examples of the TV Corpus will show how prosody influences the pragmatic meaning of MWDM instances.

96

5

Methodological Approach: Corpus-Informed Research

Altogether, the resources strengthen the linguistic framework of the mechanism-based and corpus-informed analysis. Not only do they offer information on semantic, syntactic and phonological backgrounds, they also illustrate and support the findings. The OED presents general etymological backgrounds on historical and contemporary usages. The use of the TV Corpus completes this qualitative data with figures as well as polysemous usages of the forms in PDE. Resulting from this is a corpus-informed approach towards MWDMs in a mechanism-based Pmz approach that has not been conducted in this way before.

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework: Corpus-Informed Analysis of MWDMs

Linguistic form and linguistic framework have been extensively discussed. MWDMs were classified as a specific subcategory of DMs and in terms of the meaning they convey as a subtype of PMs. Since the idea of Gmz is pertaining to the story of MWDMs but is simultaneously too unspecific for their development, a mechanism-based Pmz framework was established. The first two research questions have therefore been thoroughly answered. This part of the thesis, the analysis, is devoted to more concrete applications of the theoretical concepts. Here, the answer to the question, if the three forms by the way, all the same and what is more consort to the postulated framework, is acquired. Thus, this chapter establishes the bridge between the critical reception of theoretical concepts and the actual usage of MWDMs in language. Chapter 6 investigates whether the three selected MWDMs correspond to the idea of Pmz as presented in Sect. 3.4. Therefore, it will describe the changes of the MWDMs by the way (Sect. 6.1), all the same (Sect. 6.2) and what is more (Sect. 6.3) by applying the six Pmz parameters Discursivization, Scope Extension, Syntactic Isolation, Acategorialization, Consistency and Prosodic Accentuation (cf. Chap. 4). The analysis juxtaposes the literal uses (‘non-MWDM uses’) and the pragmatic-discursive uses (‘MWDM uses’) of these phrases (cf. Sect. 2.3.1) and applies the Pmz mechanism to the units. The single sections are served to demonstrate that the mechanisms allow for an effective and comprehensive analysis of MWDMs. At the same time, the studies will indicate that the Pmz mechanisms are no blueprints that schematically provide the same results for every existing MWDM. The linguistic forms may express different nuances in meaning and function due to their context-dependecy, and the mechanisms can be applied as a guideline how to approach phrasal DMs in a Pmz framework. The single subsections will illustrate several ways to describe the forms within the realms of the same mechanism and still deliver distinct results of Pmz. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 J.-F. Heeren, Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39507-0_6

97

98

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

Although there is little published data on the three constructions, existing research will be integrated, discussed and extended. Furthermore, dictionaries, with main focus on the OED, will be consulted for additional information. As Chap. 5 has explained, the TV Corpus provides concordances, numbers, collocations and other valuable data of authentic samples. As a result, an illustrated and comprehensive analysis can be offered, which not only describes the changes of the MWDMs by the way, all the same and what is more but also confirms the notion of the Pmz mechanisms and Pmz as a distinct subprocess of Gmz.

6.1

By the Way

Phrasal by the way represents polysemous uses according to the OED. Originally addressing something nearby and alongside a road (cf. OED: ‘way’ and ‘by’), the phrasal construction also functions as a MWDM. The meanings of the polysemous forms diverge and express complementary distributions. Several dictionaries list the MWDM by the way as a form which introduces new topics (Rundell 2013: 200, Gove 1976: 307, Hornby et al. 1986: 131). Some studies briefly refer to the construction as a digression marker (cf. Dailey & Palomares 2004: 480 or Croucher 2004: 40). In general terms, these depictions correspond to Fraser’s assumptions and the initial distinction of by the way as a multi-word topic shift marker (cf. Sect. 2.3). Researching for previous literature on the phrase, only one study was found that explicitly deals with by the way. Kim (2018) conducted a case study that investigated polysemous functions of the MWDM. Depending on the sentence type (interrogative, imperative, exclamatory, declarative) and the sentence position (final, mid, initial), Kim ascribes different functions to by the way. Although digression predominates, the item would also express elaboration and personal opinions (cf. Kim 2018: 73 ff.). As Kim consulted the Corpus of Contemporary American English and performed a rather pragmatic- and syntactic-oriented conversation analysis, this study can only refer to her study in a restricted way. Multifunctionality and variable syntactic positioning will be analysed in Sect. 6.1.1 and Sect. 6.1.2. Precise corpus-based analyses of by the way’s functionality depending on exact sentence position and sentence type, though, will not be performed. This study aims at examining MWDMs according to the mechanismbased Pmz approach and therefore focuses on contemporary variations of the form in a holistic, multi-dimensional, corpus-informed approach. To scrutinise by the way as a MWDM, the previously defined Pmz mechanisms (cf. Chap. 4) will be applied to the form. The following sections will describe how

6.1 By the Way

99

the MWDM usage of by the way is distinguished from the lexical applications and how this can be analysed with the aid of semantic, syntactic and phonological Pmz mechanisms. Table 6.1 Presents an overview of the findings, which will be elaborated in the succeeding chapters Table 6.1 Pragmaticalization mechanisms applied to by the way

6.1.1

Semantic Dimension

Initially being a prepositional phrase, the construction has abandoned its locative lexical meanings and has expanded its semantic scope from inter-sentential towards text-organising and interpersonal dimensions. Discursivization and Scope Extension precisely describe these semantic changes.

100

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

6.1.1.1 Discursivization Semantic developments of by the way from a prepositional locative phrase with proper lexical character towards a multi-word topic change DM can be effectively described by Discursivization. Sect. 2.3.1.1 has briefly introduced the semanticity of by the way in its lexical use and in its MWDM use. The OED suggests several polysemous applications. Table 6.2 presents a summary of the attestations the dictionary offers for by the way1 . By the way in usage a) demonstrates the literal meaning of the phrase. This is the lexical meaning which is implied when the semantics of each constituent are considered in isolation: There is something definite (‘the’) alongside or near (‘by’) the road (‘way’)—close but not a real obstacle. Literal character is also unequivocally identifiable in usage b). Here, by the way can be translated as ‘in the course of one’s way’ or, in a larger context, ‘in the course of one’s journey’. Applications d) and e) somehow relate to this use as they exhibit traces of metaphorical extension, and the literal character of ‘way’ vanishes. In b), way indicates the larger picture of a journey, in d), the construction relates to something that could indicate a potential problem on the way to achieving a purpose and in e), by the way addresses something that is perceived in passing by. The TV Corpus features another, more figurative application of the phrasal construction. (6.1) By the way they grow, the plants actually manage the environment that they live in. (TV Corpus 2012: Nature’s Microworlds) (6.2) By the way they push on the mountains or the friction on the surface of the earth, they then slow down or speed up the solid part of the earth. (TV Corpus 2008: Horizon) (6.1) and (6.2) mention a use of by the way that is quite frequently applied in PDE. In these constructions, by the way is modified by a subordinate clause. Way has become even more metaphoricalised than in b), d) or e). Contemporarily, way in lexical utilisations of by the way does far more often implicate ‘fashion/manner/kind’ as in (6.1) and (6.2) than a literal path. Since the notion of ‘something near the road’ is still needed in PDE, probably other words such as nearby or close to have occupied this syntactic slot. By now, literal by the way predominantly takes the slot for ‘manner/kind/fashion’ that was not assigned to 1 The following instances of by the way refer to the OED entry ‘way’. The OED entry ‘by’ delivers some further examples, which also refer to the figurative meaning of by the way as ‘passing along’. Hyphenated by-the-way does not show DM use and the colloquial abbreviation BTW will be examined in Sect. 6.1.3.

6.1 By the Way

101

Table 6.2 Different usages and meanings of by the way according to the OED

a specific form before2 . In the course of this abstraction, the prepositional sense of by as ‘in the vicinity of’ or ‘close to’ has equally become more metaphorical and expresses rather a causal marker in the sense of ‘by doing something’. Although Metaphoricalization can be ascribed to Pmz (cf. Table 3.1), the MWDM use of by the way is distinguished from the previously mentioned usages. 2

Here, corpus-based diachronic studies could deliver more elaborate and precise answers.

102

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

Here, way exhibits rather simple semantic changes and extension but not Discursivization3 . Usage c) in Table 6.2, however, unmistakably manifests semantic changes that can be described as Discursivization in a Pmz approach. Semantic bleaching and abstraction of meaning reached an advanced level with regard to c) i)–iii). Original references to a ‘road’ and metaphorical connotations of a ‘journey’ or ‘manner’ have vanished. In terms of Persistence (cf. Sect. 3.1.2.4), some traces of the original meaning are vaguely perceivable in the notions of ‘passing by’ and ‘aside from something’. However, the reference to discourse outweighs proper semantic meanings. Semantic changes and functionalisation of MWDMs express themselves also through their semantic optionality. Considering the two diverging usages of by the way in (6.3) and (6.4), (6.3) Men and boys were waiting at the crossroads, or sitting on the fences by the way, or loitering upon their doorsteps. (OED: ‘way’. Baldwin 1916: Fifty Famous Rides & Riders) (6.4) Thanks for doing nothing, by the way. (TV Corpus 2010: Nip/Tuck), by the way carries propositional meaning in the first sentence as it specifies the place where people are sitting while the MWDM in (6.4) is, semantically speaking, optional. The MWDM does not alter the propositional content of the sentence. The main message would be the same with or without the DM. Contextualising the MWDM, however, it becomes clear that the MWDM causes a higher speaker-hearer involvement. Sentence (6.5) illustrates these additional notions. (6.5) Thanks for doing nothing, by the way. Think of all the times I covered for you. If she hadn’t convinced them that I was giving her the heimlich maneuver, I’d still be in custody. (TV Corpus 2010: Nip/Tuck), By the way should trigger a guilty conscience, and the following sentences in (6.5) execute why. By the way has functionalised as a MWDM that initiates topic shifts and digressions. Fraser (cf. Sect. 2.3 and Sect. 2.3.1) and the OED (cf. Table 6.2) ascribe equal discourse functions to by the way. In usage c) ii), for instance, the MWDM refers to a previously mentioned topic (“talking of letters”) and incidentally changes the topic (“by the way”) by mentioning a personal remark, which 3

This instance of Metaphoricalization emphasises why this kind of semantic change is not a distinct feature of e.g. Gmz or Pmz.

6.1 By the Way

103

relates to another fact (‘there was another letter from your cousin’). The discursive functions of digression and topic shift substitute the lexical locative and semantic propositional meaning of by the way. Further concordances of the TV Corpus also demonstrate clear traces of Discursivization. The following extract of a discussion elucidates pragmatic and discursive abilities of the MWDM. (6.6) A: We talked about Joe. I told her how well your hot-sauce business was going. B: By the way, have you tried one of these cookies? A: Why did you tell her about the sauce? (TV Corpus 2016: Modern Family) In (6.6), Person B applies by the way to avoid talking about the business, person A has introduced. By inserting the MWDM, B tries to distract from the actual subject—B suggests talking about cookies. Person A, though, recognises this intention and tries to return to the previous topic by a pointed request (“Why [...] the sauce?”). The intriguing implication of this instance is that it proves the Discursivization of by the way. Not only that the MWDM is deliberately applied to insert a digression, the topic change function of by the way has apparently conventionalised. Other interlocutors automatically recognise this function. Although the MWDM conveys the notion of topic shift on a meta-communicative and not on a literal level, this function of by the way seems to be firmly established in PDE. Browsing the concordance lines of by the way in the TV Corpus, it is remarkable that most of the applications express DM character4 . This is further proof that by the way is contemporarily rather related to MWDM use. A possible reason for this is that topic shift is a function which is constantly required in discussions and therefore more often used than its specific lexical variant. How this relates to the MWDM’s extended scope and use in a growing number of contexts is described by Scope Extension.

4

There are in total 21191 instances of by the way in the TV Corpus. In 12530 cases, this equals about 60 %, by the way is immediately followed by a comma, which indicates MWDM use (cf. Sect. 5.2 or Brinton 2017). Although this is a simplified way of identifying MWDM usages, since it does not take into account final MWDM or co-occurrences with prepositional verbs (cf. Sect. 5.2), this number indicates the dominant application of by the way as a MWDM.

104

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

6.1.1.2 Scope Extension The MWDM use of by the way is an example par excellence for Scope Extension in Pmz. Thanks to the co-existing lexical applications of the construction, complementary referentialities of the diverging usages display conclusive traces of Scope Extension. To contrast these semantic changes, the lexical, the metaphorical and the MWDM uses of by the way (cf. Sect. 6.1.1.1) will be analysed in the following paragraphs. The attestation of by the way in (6.3) was defined as a lexical usage indicating the original semantic connotations of the three participants. Turning to the semantic range of the item, its scope can be described as tight. In (6.3), by the way refers to the fences which are installed alongside the road and acts as a kind of phrasal prepositional complement. As such, it specifies the place where exactly the men and boys were sitting—not at the crossroad or upon their doorsteps but on the fences by the way. Lexical by the way directly relates to ‘fences’. Its scope only points to adjacent words within the sentence and is consequently very tight. Metaphorical by the way suggests a larger scope (as in usages b), d), e) (cf. Table 6.2) or concordance lines (6.1) and (6.2)). The semantic meaning of the phrasal unit has extended, and the notion of by the way is not any longer restricted to a literal path. Lines (6.1) and (6.2) however, demonstrate that an extended meaning does not automatically trigger an extended scope. By the way in sentences (6.1) and (6.2) refers to the adjacent pronoun and verb (“by the way they grow/they push”). Consequently, its scope can also be described as intra-sentential and restricted to neighbouring words. The semantic scope in the literal, not-DM senses of by the way are always not extended since this application reveals a straight meaning relation to another neighbouring unit. While the preceding applications expressed a small scope, by the way demonstrates Scope Extension as a MWDM. Sentence (6.7) illustrates the MWDM use with topic shift functionality, reduced semantic meanings and strengthened pragmatic implications. (6.7) It’s beautiful. I wish I could stay here forever. By the way, I wanted to thank you for earlier today. (TV Corpus 2008: Stargate: Atlantis) Similar as in (6.3), by the way in (6.7) also appears in the context of a verb of location and direction (‘sitting’ in (6.3) and ‘stay’ in (6.7)). Rationally thinking, it would only be consistent to argue that by the way in (6.7) analogously refers to neighbouring ‘stay’. Analysing the context, however, by the way does not refer to the verb in the one-to-one fashion by the way did in (6.3). Additionally, the phrase is not restricted to the semantic field that is connoted with literal and figurative

6.1 By the Way

105

way. To further investigate how the form’s scope operates, the two propositions of (6.7) are considered in isolation. Proposition 1: Person A wants to stay at the place because it is beautiful. Proposition 2: Person A wants to thank person B for some reason. The two statements present two utterly different arguments—there is no evident relation between both propositions. Inserting the MWDM with an extended scope, a relationship between both statements emerges. On the one hand, by the way discursively connects the statements. It marks the end of proposition 1 and initiates proposition 2. The scope has extended on the discourse level and marks boundaries of thought processes by a topic shift. On the other hand, Scope Extension provides by the way with reference on the pragmatic level. Person B answers on statement (6.7): (6.8) A: It’s beautiful. I wish I could stay here forever. By the way, I wanted to thank you for earlier today B: I took your advice. (TV Corpus 2008: Stargate: Atlantis) Apparently, person B is aware of the circumstances and knows why A wants to thank him/her. Both refer to an event that happened earlier that day. Due to by the way, the gratitude of person A appears rather casual (by the way implies something as an aside in this context), and person B’s answer is subsequently reserved. As a result, the atmosphere between both persons seems tense. Since this interpersonal referentiality is very intriguing and distinguishing for MWDMs, the following example further illustrates this ability. (6.9) A: Good one, Mom. By the way, what are the last 16 digits of your credit card? B: Uh, what are you doing? Are you shopping? (TV Corpus 2017: One Day at a Time) The son applies by the way so that his claim for money does not sound bold. He wants his request to sound casual although he needs his mother’s credit card. The mother’s request shows that giving away her credit card number is nothing she wants to do en passant. This conversation demonstrates how by the way operates on a level beyond letters and sentences. The MWDM triggers implications in meta-communicative spheres. There is nothing left from the precise, lexical scope on co-text. Scope Extension ensured that the referentiality of by the way is not

106

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

restricted to words but widened on the discourse and pragmatic level. During this Pmz process, the semantics of the MWDM become increasingly abstract with regard to meaning and functionality as well as referentiality and scope.

6.1.2

Syntactic Dimension

This chapter elucidates how by the way behaves as a MWDM in syntax. Conventional syntactic and grammatical terms are assigned to differentiate between the MWDM and the lexical usage of the phrasal unit.

6.1.2.1 Syntactic Isolation Probably without noticing at first glance, Syntactic Isolation of the MWDM by the way was illustrated in several places during Sect. 6.1.1. Considering the positioning of by the way in sentences (6.4) and (6.6) for instance, it is striking that the MWDM takes different syntactic spots. Be it at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of the sentence, by the way can be placed in every position. The following sentences (6.10) to (6.12) clarify this flexibility once again. (6.10) initial: By the way, you should’ve kissed her. (TV Corpus 2005: How I Met Your Mother) (6.11) medial: Schroedinger’s cat, by the way, is both alive and dead at the same time. (TV Corpus 2011: Hellcats) (6.12) final: Look, I know what you two are thinking, but we are not gonna hunt my best friend, who happens to be a frigging war hero, by the way. (TV Corpus 2015: Supernatural) Browsing the TV Corpus, a solid number of appearances of by the way in initial, medial and final position can be observed. Table 6.3 presents the statistical distribution referred to the size of the corpus (325 million words). Since no conspicuous difference between the numbers arises (each position has about 5000 concordances in total and 15 per million in the TV Corpus), it can be stated that there is evidence for use of by the way in various syntactic positions, but neither of the positions strikingly predominates. These numbers also explain why Kim’s findings on by the way (2018) are not really applicable to this study. Kim’s data proposes that by the way only occurs in 18% of the times in initial position. This figure depicts a major difference compared to the statistics gained from the TV Corpus (approx. 33%). As the researcher’s evaluations base upon

6.1 By the Way

107

Table 6.3 MWDM usages of by the way in the TV Corpus according to their syntactic position

this significance, position-dependent functions and exceptions are not subject to discussion in this thesis (but maybe for further research, cf. Sect. 7.3). Due to Discursivization and Scope Extension, MWDM by the way acquired pragmatic and discursive referentiality beyond the syntax boundaries. As a consequence, the MWDM is syntactically isolated from the rest of the sentence. Syntactic Isolation can further be recognised in usages of by the way in between two sentences as in (6.13). (6.13) She told me this confidentially, by the way, so I couldn’t confront Richard or John on it. (TV Corpus 2000: Ally McBeal) The MWDM resembles a coordinating conjunction in (6.13). However, PDE coordinating conjunctions are usually, prescriptively speaking, one-word items5 . Furthermore, by the way co-occurs with conjunctive so which means that the trigram is syntactically redundant and used for pragmatic and discursive purposes. Lexical by the way cannot occupy these positions and can thus be distinguished from the MWDM. While the previous Sect. 6.1.1 displayed lexical applications of by the way in different positions, the prepositional phrase with semantic character is always integrated in a syntagm and has obvious relations to other words in the sentence (cf. Sect. 6.1.1.2). Lexical usages are neither as flexible nor as isolated as MWDM utilisations of by the way and appear in different syntactic environments. This idea further relates to Fraser (1999: 944) who argues that the functions of lexical and DM applications are in complementary distribution due to diverging placements in syntax. Speakers can employ the MWDM by the way at any syntactic slot without violating rules of word order or other conventions of the English language. 5

The coordinating conjunctions in PDE are for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so.

108

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

6.1.2.2 Acategorialization Besides the atypical placements of by the way in syntax due to Syntactic Isolation, Pmz causes an equally uncommon grammatical and categorial status of the MWDM. Regarding sentence (6.13), by the way acts as a kind of isolated sentence fragment. The aside is not a grammatically complete sentence because the phrase does not contain a verb. Thus, by the way resembles a prepositional phrase applying an elliptical extra-sentential slot. The literal prepositional phrase, however, consists of the following constituents in grammatical terms: by—preposition the—definite article way—noun Prepositional phrases comprise a preposition and a complement, which is typically a noun phrase. By represents the preposition and expresses a localisation at the side or in the vicinity nearby (cf. OED: ‘by’). The noun phrase the way complements the preposition and exhibits the definite article the, and the noun way. By and the are functional words whereas way carries the main semantic notion as the lexical head of the prepositional phrase. Prepositions are used to express certain relations between propositions. Sentence (6.14) illustrates these notions. (6.14) Do you see the silver gray smear. By the way it catches the light, it could be metallic. (TV Corpus 2008: Lipstick Jungle) In (6.14), literal by the way explains that the way how the object reflects the light indicates metallic character. In concordance line (6.15), such relations caused by a preposition phrase are not recognisable any longer. (6.15) Thank you, nurse. By the way, I like the piano. (TV Corpus 2000: Columbo) The actual grammatical and semantic notions of the expression have vanished with respect to the MWDM use of by the way. By in the MWDM usage does not literally address a path or a way of behaviour. Instead, it rather figuratively indicates a topic shift and connects strings of discourse rather than logically relate propositions. As the name already suggests, definite articles address one specific concept. Since way has changed its original semantic meaning towards an abstract pragmatic meaning in the course of Discursivization and Scope Extension (cf.

6.1 By the Way

109

Sect. 6.1.1), the has no definite complement it can relate to. Therefore, the grammatical referential function of determinative the is lost in the MWDM. Whereas the second ‘the’ in (6.15) describes a specific piano, ‘the’ in the phrasal DM does not specify any distinct ‘way’. As a result, MWDM by the way changes its functionality from a phrase with explicit lexical and grammatical character towards a discourse-organising unit with pure pragmatic function. Due to Acategorialization, the construction does not express prepositional (by), determinative (the) and propositional (way) notions anymore but acts as a MWDM. The mechanics of Acategorialization become even clearer when attempting to ascribe a certain syntactic category to the MWDM in terms of traditional word classes. The following concordance lines illustrate similarities to existing syntactic categories. (6.16) Well, the back area seems to be in order, by the way, I just learned who we’re sharing the dumpster with. (TV Corpus 2002: The King of Queens) (6.17) The foliage on the right side of the door, which looks fine, by the way, is my responsibility. (TV Corpus 2005: Gilmore Girls) (6.18) Oh, and, by the way, uh, you were totally right. (TV Corpus 2014: Rookie Blue) In sentences (6.16) and (6.17), the construction expresses conjunctive-like character because it introduces main or subordinating clauses. As Sect. 6.1.2.1 has already explained, by the way shows some resemblances but is not a conjunction in conventional terms. Co-occurrences with forms such as oh or uh as in (6.18) suggest that by the way could be treated as an interjection6 . All proposals and sentences considered, the phrasal construction shows features of conjunctions or interjections. An unambiguous assignment to a specific category, though, is barely possible in traditional terms. This is exactly what Acategorialization means: the class of DMs and its formal subcategory MWDMs has to be introduced since other categories do not suffice and even fail to describe the morpho-syntactic status of DMs. The Acategorialization of by the way is accompanied by a shift from a major or more major category towards a minor category. The lexical application of by the

6

Interjection is also a term applied to forms with discursive and pragmatic abilities (cf. Chap. 2 and Table 2.1). At the same time, forms which are acknowledged as interjections, such as uh (cf. OED: ‘uh’), are interpreted as DMs (c.f. e.g. Schiffrin 1987). Since DMs resemble other categories and are distinct from e.g. interjections (cf. Sect. 2.1), this emphasises that MWDMs pass through a process that can be defined as Acategorialization.

110

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

way exhibits a noun, which represents a major category, an article and a preposition (agents of minor categories (cf. Brown & Miller 1991: 235 ff.)). During Pmz, the participants of the unit develop from a more major to a minor category. While the application as a prepositional phrase represents discrete (more) major characteristics (especially in comparison with the MWDM use), MWDM by the way depicts a minor category. Fig. 6.1 summarises and illustrates the categorial changes of the phrase.

Figure 6.1 Categorial shifts of by the way in terms of Acategorialization (own illustration)

The categorial shift from major and minor towards an even ‘more minor’ category, namely a MWDM, indicates why this process is best described as Acategorialization7 . Consequently, these changes can be differed from ordinary Gmz (and especially from Decatogorialization as in Sect. 3.1.2.5 or Sect. 3.1.3.3) and secondary Grammaticalization (cf. Traugott 2002: 26 ff.). The outcome of this mechanism is a pragmatic-interactive and discourse-structuring MWDM with topic shift functions.

6.1.3

Phonological Dimension

Consistency and Prosodic Accentuation provide a detailed insight into the phonological dimension of by the way during Pmz.

7

The Acategorializations of all the same (cf. Sect. 6.2.2.2 and Fig. 6.6) and what is more (cf. Sect. 6.3.2.2 and Fig. 6.10) proceed in a similar way from a more major lexical phrase towards a minor MWDM. In these cases, ‘more major’ and ‘minor’ are relative terms that always refer to the contrast of non-MWDM and MWDM usages.

6.1 By the Way

111

6.1.3.1 Consistency Consistency was introduced as the resistance of MWDMs to phonetic erosion (cf. Sect. 4.3.1) as well as the fixation as a phrase. The succeeding juxtaposition of lexical and MWDM uses of by the way will demonstrate why Consistency portrays an important mechanism during Pmz. Considering literal by the way, single participants can be substituted by similar or synonymous words without severe semantic changes of the phrase. Exchanging for instance members of by the way with forms expressing comparable semantic notions, altogether, the entire meaning of ‘something happening near the road’ is conserved. The following sentences are derivations of concordance (2.13), which was introduced in Sect. 2.3.1.1 as an example of the literal usage. (2.13) i) I was cozen’d at the way, and lost all my money. (2.13) ii) I was cozen’d by a way, and lost all my money. (2.13) iii) I was cozen’d by the street, and lost all my money. (2.13) iv) I was cozen’d by my route, and lost all my money. (cf. OED: ‘way’. Private Eye Magazine, May 2011) The list demonstrates that the preposition, the article, the noun or even two participants of lexical by the way can be replaced, yet, the core semantic meaning remains the same. In the same vein, phrases, which are constructed equally (Prep + Det + N), can be substituted by by the way. (6.19) The fastest way is by the street and it’s only four blocks from here to the bus stop. (TV Corpus 2003: Without a Trace) (6.20) He’s over by the path.—What path?—The path that leads to the animals. (TV Corpus 2009: Bones) (6.21) Well, now that you mention it, I didn’t see any people on the way over. (TV Corpus 1996: 3rd Rock from the Sun) (6.22) I will make my way on foot, by a way they will never discover. (TV Corpus 1966: The Time Tunnel) Obviously, there would be minor semantic changes; the core meaning, syntactic and grammatical structure of sentences (6.19)–(6.22), however, would not be destructed by inserting by the way. Applied as a MWDM, substitutions of any kind are not possible. Derivations such as at the way or by the street (cf. (6.19)–(6.22)) cannot assume MWDM status. Instance (2.14) is used as an example.

112

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

*(2.14) i) Oh, at the way, I’m opening on Oxford Street so there may be a bit of a spotlight on us.8 *(2.14) ii) Oh, by the street, I’m opening on Oxford Street so there may be a bit of a spotlight on us. (cf. OED: ‘way’. Private Eye Magazine, May 2011) *(2.14) i) and *(2.14) ii) manifest that the form can only assume DM functions after having been fixed as a phrase—thanks to Consistency. Furthermore, the MWDM resists attrition. While Det ‘the’ can be left out as in the literal applications (6.23) and (6.24) (6.23) Or you could take the less-traveled more scenic route by way of Tahiti. (TV Corpus 1985: Night Court) (6.24) They’re smuggling out the blueprints by way of a courier who comes in through a secret entrance! (TV Corpus 1969: Get Smart)9 , the MWDM can neither be morphologically nor phonologically reduced. Morphological attrition of the MWDM in (6.10) would look as follows: *(6.10) i) By way, you should’ve kissed her. *(6.10) ii) The way, you should’ve kissed her. *(6.10) iii) By the, you should’ve kissed her. It is obvious that sentences *(6.10) ii) and *(6.10) iii) do not reflect topic shift character and are not used in PDE. Scrutinising *(6.10) i), it seems surprising that *by way cannot function as a DM. Since ‘way’ is semantically bleached and does not address one specific way in MWDM use, definite article the seems superfluous and should consequently be prone to erosion. Still, not even phonological merger or vowel reductions affect by the way. Whereas DMs you know and indeed exhibit little reduction (cf. Sect. 3.1.3.4 and Schiffrin 1987), by the way is not phonologically shortened to variants such as */b@ D@ weI/ or */baI< @ weI/

8

The asterisk symbolises that phrases and thus the corresponding sentences are not used in this way (‘grammatically and stylistically incorrect’). 9 The definite article cannot be abandoned in every case (cf. e.g. (6.20)). The KWIC search of by way shows that nearly all concordances come together with of . By way of represents a familiar use of literal by the way and is probably a variant of by the way. Some dictionaries (cf. OED: ‘way’; ‘by’) propose independent subentries for by way of . Nevertheless, both forms are semantically and syntactically comparable. More detailed contrastive studies could yield further implications on their connection.

6.1 By the Way

113

but stays /baI D@ weI/10 . Consistency therefore prevents by the way from being altered in any form. Marginal morphological or phonological changes would disrupt its pragmatic functionality. A further variant suggesting interesting implications for by the way and Consistency is abbreviated BTW. The OED lists BTW as a colloquial abbreviation of by the way (cf. OED: ‘BTW’). The applications of BTW in the OED and in the corpus indicate that it is applied with DM function. (6.25) Do you think I wanted to be publicated in your low-life-scum magazine??... BTW, what kind of name is Bruckman? (OED: ‘BTW’. Seabrook 1997: Deeper) (6.25) i) Do you think I wanted to be publicated in your low-life-scum magazine??... By the way, what kind of name is Bruckman? In the same fashion as MWDM by the way, BTW exhibits semantic and syntactic changes which relate to Pmz11 . (6.26) Hey Traci, it’s Lola, just want to say hey and BTW, I hate your outfit. (TV Corpus 2009: Hannah Montana) (6.27) I saw Elena today, btw. (TV Corpus 2009: The Vampire Diaries) It could be argued that BTW exhibits a phonological and morphological reduced variant of the MWDM. However, this argument can be refuted. On the one hand, the phonological structure of by the way and BTW cannot be compared since BTW is pronounced /bi: ti:  d2blju(:)/. On the other hand, BTW only emphasises that all three participants must be present so that DM functionality can be guaranteed. Moreover, the single letters of the abbreviation represent the three words of the trigram. This can be illustrated by the following concordance: (6.28) What the hell does btw mean?—Internet shorthand for by the way. (TV Corpus 2006: Criminal Minds).12 10

It is also possible that by way cannot function as a DM since byway is used for “quiet minor road[s]” (Collins 2018: 208). Other familiar variants such as by way of illustration or by way of articulation may resemble MWDM usages. These forms can be used as initiators for further inquiries. Additionally, */baI< @ weI/ is maybe too similar to the pronunciation of ‘away’. Further investigations of exact pronunciations would extend the scope of the study. 11 Whether capital or small letters are used for BTW is not important for the purpose of this thesis. 12 Apparently, BTW started as an abbreviation. Nevertheless, it is also applied as /bi: ti: "d2blju(:)/ in oral speech (cf. e.g. How I Met Your Mother. S1 E3: 12:35).

114

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

Consequently, BTW does indicate neither morphological attrition nor phonological reduction. On the contrary, it rather accentuates that by the way is subject to Consistency. Only insofar as the MWDM exhibits all its morpho-phonological substance, by the way can operate as the fixed phrase expressing topic shifts in communications.

6.1.3.2 Prosodic Accentuation Syntactic Isolation has demonstrated how MWDMs become isolated units. Resulting from this is Prosodic Accentuation—the tendency of MWDMs to enter independent stress patterns. An approach towards Prosodic Accentuation in written texts can refer to comma intonation. Analysing the usages of by the way in the TV Corpus, there is a significant amount of appearances in connection with a comma (or two). 70% of the concordances exhibit commas before, after or around by the way13 . This number clearly demonstrates that well over two thirds of the times the construction is applied, Prosodic Accentuation can be assumed. DMs operate on the discursive and pragmatic level. Prosodic Accentuation of by the way can analogously be described from these perspectives. On the one side, Syntactic Isolation prosodically accentuates the text-structuring functions of the MWDM. The loose syntactic bondedness of by the way causes specific prosodic contours. Although lexical and DM usage are polysemous, the MWDM exhibits independent stress patterns. (6.29) And the research is still coming in on the dangers of suppressing memories, by the way, but that’s a whole other bag of emotional scarring. (TV Corpus 1999: The Practice) (6.30) I mean, if everybody in the whole world would just not look at what’s on the outside and don’t judge people by the way they look, but instead, see into their hearts, and see their souls, if that’s what we did, the world would just be a better place. (TV Corpus 2008: Friday Night Lights) Due to comma intonation, by the way in (6.29) is prosodically accentuated. As a consequence, the syntagma following the MWDM is delimited from the preceding utterance. The commas do not only indicate a topic shift but also acoustic qualities of the MWDM. While the flow of discourse in (6.30) is not interrupted by the construction, DM by the way in (6.29) operates on the level of 13 Table 6.3 was used for calculations. As the number of usages of by the way in the TV 4445 + 5398 Corpus adds up to 21191, the calculation was 4774 +21191 = 0.689. This corresponds to approximately 70%. Usages of the MWDM in conjunction with question or exclamation marks were ignored because their number is insignificantly low in the TV Corpus.

6.1 By the Way

115

text organisation. The pause in conversation flow triggered by by the way may be more conspicuous when the MWDM is placed in medial position between two main clauses as it is the case in (6.29). Nevertheless, comma intonation in final and initial position also plead for Prosodic Accentuation14 . Additionally, the co-occurrence with other PMs (redundancy, cf. Traugott (1997) and Sect. 4.3.2), especially interjections15 , underline the discourse-interruptive character of by the way. On the other side, by the way provides the message with additional pragmatic information. Sentence (6.31) acts as an example illustrating such non-propositional connotations. (6.31) Yeah, you always play dumb. Okay. Well, sorry. By the way, I wasn’t playing dumb. I was being sarcastic. But either way, sorry. (TV Corpus 2017: The Detour) The MWDM adds a sarcastic notion to the message (which is literally addressed in the following sentence). In the eyes of the speaker, his or her sarcasm was obvious. Since the interlocutor did apparently not understand the speaker’s intentions (“you always play dumb”), the speaker has to explain his actions (“I wasn’t playing dumb”). Inserting by the way, the speaker expresses a certain disapproval of his partner. Moreover, the proposition introduced by the MWDM is emphasised. As by the way actually suggests something less important, the following statement receives an ironic character which accentuates the criticism. In sum, speakers apply by the way to convey a message with non-propositional, interpersonal notions, which can be sarcastic and/or disfavouring for instance. Examining medial and initial by the way in (6.29) and (6.31), the unit expresses different pragmatic notions. Kim (2018) claims that different syntactic positions of by the way express different meanings. Although this study does not focus on the position-function interface in detail, it can be stated that Kim is only right to a certain extent. The concrete pragmatic implications are varying in (6.29) and (6.31). A general topic shift notion, however, is clearly visible in both applications. Pragmatic and discursive notions must therefore be distinguished (cf. 14

Studies with a focus on prosody and phonology can further analyse the dependency of Prosodic Accentuation and positioning of MWDMs. Due to the scope of this study, more detailed acoustic analyses are not conducted. 15 According to the TV Corpus, oh is the most frequent collocate of by the way (preceding or succeeding). In total, there are 1963 cases where the two PMs appear together.

116

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

Sect. 2.1.1). Kim refers to different nuances of meaning. The topic shift function, though, persists and is by far the predominant discursive function of by the way.

6.2

All the Same

Next to the topic shift marker by the way, all the same represents the second form of Fraser’s classification: contrastive DMs. While there is at least to some extent previous literature on by the way (cf. Sect. 6.1) and on what is more (as Sect. 6.3 will discuss), there have been no comprehensive investigations of all the same thus far. This fact underlines that MWDMs are still unexplored (cf. Sect. 1.1) and that all the same promises valuable new insights into a mechanism-based approach towards Pmz. Being applied in literal usages, the construction equalises propositions, as in (6.32). (6.32) If it’s all the same to you, Minister, I’d prefer you to make a note of the questions, and ask me afterwards. (OED 1962: ‘same’. Deighton: The Ipcress file) The original semantics of same can be recognised in (6.32). The construction is grammatically embedded in the syntax as an adjective phrase with predicative functions and phonologically integrated in the speech flow. MWDM all the same, though, contrasts propositions. (6.33) Not the answer he was looking for. But it was an answer, all the same. (TV Corpus 2015: Jane the Virgin) In (6.33), the meaning of the unit has obviously changed towards contrastive notions. The form appears as an afterthought and may apply special prosodic contours. According to the OED, this usage of all the same discursively refers to preceding statements and introduces divergent answers. The postulated Pmz mechanisms (cf. Chap. 4) will expound how the application as a contrastive MWDM differs from the lexical application of all the same as an equaliser. In advance, Table 6.4 briefly illustrates the linguistic changes MWDM all the same expresses in terms of the study’s notion of Pmz. The upcoming chapters will elucidate how the mechanisms explain the Pmz of all the same on different levels of linguistic description.

6.2 All the Same

117

Table 6.4 Pragmaticalization mechanisms applied to all the same

6.2.1

Semantic Dimension

Regarding the literal semantic meaning of all the same in adjective applications, the phrase equalises propositions. As a MWDM, all the same functions as a contrastive marker, basically expressing the opposite notions. Discursivization and Scope Extension illustrate how the different usages of all the same exhibit semantic changes in terms of Pmz.

118

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

6.2.1.1 Discursivization Considering the single constituents of the phrase all the same, same is the semantic head of the construction. According to the OED, same refers to an object that is numerically equal to another one (cf. OED: ‘same’). Exhibiting the same semantic capacities, lexical all the same expresses analogous meanings. To establish this reference, the phrase equalises two propositions. (6.34) He don’t vally what he says to young or old, man or woman—it’s all the same to old gruffy! (OED 1803: ‘same’. Charlton: Wife & Mistress) The OED suggests (6.34) as an instance illustrating the predicative use of the item. Here, ’old gruffy’ makes no differences between young and old, men and women—they all acquire equal status. In co-occurrences with a noun, where attributive all the same acts as an adjective complement of a noun phrase, the element’s equalising semanticity becomes even more apparent. (6.35) We are very happy. Amy, we have all the same interests. We have so much chemistry. (TV Corpus 2017: Brooklyn Nine-Nine) The object all the same refers to conform in every respect. In (6.35) for example, both persons have the same interests. In the TV Corpus, the most recurrent collocates immediately after all the same are to (362 times) and thing (42 times), respectively things (40 times). This number demonstrates that both usages, predicative and attributive (cf. Sect. 2.3.1.2), are in frequent use. Consulting punctuation, all the same shows a significant cooccurrence with a comma following the construction. In 235 instances, the item is preceded by a comma. In this case, it is very likely that preposed all the same is applied as a MWDM. OED suggests that this usage introduces an argument in spite of the prevailing conditions and everything else that has been mentioned (cf. OED: ‘same’). (6.36) I was very sorry to come away. All the same, I’m glad to be at home again. (OED: ‘same’. Ruskin 1878: Letter to Dr. J. Brown) All the same in (6.36) acts as a contrastive MWDM signalling a contradiction to the prior discourse. The person in (6.36) is very sorry that he left his home. Still, and although he had probably hurt the feelings of his relatives, he feels relieved to having returned home. Studying (6.36) and the OED entry more closely, all

6.2 All the Same

119

the same semantically and functionally resembles nevertheless or notwithstanding. These two forms are broadly described and acknowledged as adverbs, more precisely, linking or conjunctive adverbs (cf. e.g. OED ‘nevertheless’, ‘notwithstanding’; Rundell 2013; Hornby et al. 1986). Pursuing this analogy, it could be argued that all the same has adverbial and/or conjunctive notions. Fraser, though, defines all the same and nevertheless as contrastive DMs that are distinct from ordinary adverbs (cf. Sect. 2.2, Table 2.5 and Fraser 1996). The question now is whether all the same in (6.36) represents a grammaticalised adverbial phrase or a pragmaticalised MWDM. The answer to this question was already prepared in the theoretical framework. Identifying Pmz as a subprocess of Gmz and DMs as a subcategory of PMs, both classifications are in their own way correct. Adhering to the idea of Pmz as it was introduced in Sect. 3.4, it would be more precise to treat this application of all the same as a MWDM. Subsequently, Discursivization allows this thesis to describe the semantic changes the phrase has passed through. The functions all the same gains are best elucidated by Pmz since the item shows implications on the text-organising and meta-communicative level as the following example will illustrate. (6.37) Sweetheart, these are fiery wings. These are meant to be eaten out of a bucket, like a real man. All the same, I think I would like to take it into my office And eat it like a lady. (TV Corpus 2010: Gary Unmarried) In lexical applications (as in (6.35)), all the same equalises two propositions. MWDM all the same (as in (6.37)), though, does not express such A=B references but rather the exact opposite. Considering the two statements in (6.37), which are connected by the MWDM, the contrastive discourse functions of all the same can be explained. (6.37) i) proposition A: Men usually eat hot wings out of the bucket. (6.37) ii) proposition B: I rather want to eat the hot wings in a relaxed setting and with manners. The two statements disagree: A6=B. Eating chicken wings out of buckets is in a conventional thinking rather related to men and not to ladylike behaviour. The MWDM accentuates this contrast by referring back to A and introducing the opposite action. All the same represents position A in the succeeding sentence

120

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

and initiates the opposing statement B16 . Without the MWDM, sentence (6.37) would still be semantically and grammatically correct. By inserting a discursivisised contrastive MWDM, the sentences become discursively associated and dependent. Considering the lexical usages of the phrases in (6.34) on the contrary, an omission of all the same would severely influence the main message of the sentence and even disrupt its grammatical correctness. Furthermore, the conversation receives pragmatic implications. Without all the same, the contents of (6.37) would appear more factual. Inserting the MWDM, the statement receives a more subjective character. The speaker does not care about conventional eating traditions. He wants to consume his food the way he prefers it. All the same emphasises speaker involvement and inter-conversational implications. Applying the idea of indexicality (cf. Schiffrin 1987 and Sect. 2.2.1 and 4.1.1), all the same proactively points at the previous discourse and, figuratively, at the participants. In sum, Discursivization of all the same has demonstrated that the MWDM has acquired contrasting discourse functions and subjective interpersonal traits. At the same time, the lexical phrase, which equalises propositions and exhibits the original semantics of the construction, persist in polysemous applications.

6.2.1.2 Scope Extension In the same way the semantic notions of the lexical and MWDM usages of all the same diverge, their scope differs considerably. Abstraction of meaning and Discursivization functionalise the phrase in a way that referentiality is not restricted to adjacent words anymore but extended beyond sentence boundaries. Comparing the scope of lexical usages of all the same, which equalise propositions, with the scope of MWDM applications, which contrast propositions, this section will demonstrate how Scope Extension influences the Pmz of all the same. The scope of the adjective phrase with attributive function is directly targeted to the following noun. (6.38) What can I get you to drink? I’ll bet you we like all the same things. (TV Corpus 2015: The Odd Couple) ‘Things’ in (6.38) serves as the nominal head of the phrase. All the same premodifies the object of the sentece. Hence, all the same exhibits a finite scope reduced to succeeding items. 16

By recapitulating and representing everything else what was said before, the notion of same somehow persists although its discourse function expresses diverging notions.

6.2 All the Same

121

The predicative use occurs without a noun. Therefore, the scope must be different from the attributive’s. Sentences (6.39) and (6.40) illustrate the referential range of this lexical application. (6.39) I know the Bible off by heart. Old Testament, New Testament. It’s all the same to me. (TV Corpus 2000: Rebus) (6.40) They would have killed me when I turned my back. Women and children. A woman or a child... they are all the same to me if they are guilty. (TV Corpus 2003: MI-5) In (6.39), all the same functions as a predicative relating to ‘it’, which is linked by the copula V ‘is’. As opposed to the attributive usage in (6.38), all the same displays a reference to preceding objects. Considering the context of (6.39), it is obvious that all the same refers back to the testaments. From a grammatical perspective, however, the cohesion with ‘Old Testament’ and ‘New Testament’ results from the reference towards ‘it’ and only indirectly from all the same, which in turn points at the form of to be (i.e. cliticised’s). Line (6.40) indicates similar referentialities: all the same relates to ‘they are’ and in a larger perspective also to ‘women and children’, who are substituted in the following sentence by the personal pronoun ‘they’. The grammatical scope of the predicative use is consequently as narrow as the attributive’s one only that it points in the other direction (i.e. to the preceding predicate). The semantic scope, though, extends when the context is taken into account. In this case, however, the one phrase or the word, all the same refers to, can be clearly identified (e.g. the testaments in (6.39) and ‘women and children’ in (6.40)). Unlike the lexical phrases’ scope, the MWDM’s scope is not directly targeted at one preceding or succeeding unit. (6.41) We had a Special Duty flight, but no up-to-date information about the area around Rouen. All the same, Colonel Wintringham decided to go ahead. (TV Corpus 2004: Foyle’s War) Comparing all the same in (6.41) with the reference of the attributive phrase in (6.38), the construction appears in front of a noun. Even if the comma had been left out, all the same would not directly relate to ‘Colonel Wintringham’. Instead, it points back to the fact that the force had no information about the area and then introduces the contrast: their Colonel still decided to advance. MWDM all the same does not show a distinct reference to an object either. It rather addresses preceding actions and initiates a whole contrastive proposition. As a contrastive

122

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

MWDM, it responds to larger strings of text and not to single items in a way the lexical usage does. Instance (6.42) illustrates a juxtaposition to the literal usage of all the same. (6.42) Lady Mary could be hours, so there’s no point in waiting.—I will, all the same. (TV Corpus 2015: Downton Abbey) Reference to preceding objects can be assigned to the predicative forms (6.39) and (6.40) as well as to the MWDM in (6.42). The MWDM usage in (6.42) formally resembles the predicative use because all the same succeeds a form of to be. In (6.42), the MWDM does not refer to specific words as all the same in (6.38) and (6.39) does. Similar to the extended scope of the MWDM in (6.41), the item exhibits Scope Extension and relates to the entire preceding passage. Although the visitor is not expected to arrive soon, Lady Marry will wait. All the same somehow explains that she does not care about waiting and resumes that she will stay despite these bad omens. As a MWDM, all the same does not relate to one clearly determinable unit within the adjacent sentences but rather refers to the whole surrounding discourse. Thanks to Scope Extension, all the same provides the sentences with additional subjective messages and adds a contrastive notion. Lexical applications of all the same express distinct semantic and grammatical relations whereas pragmaticalised all the same performs Scope Extension and operates in pragmatic and discursive spheres.

6.2.2

Syntactic Dimension

Attributive and predicative applications of the adjective phrase and the MWDM uses of all the same exhibit striking differences on the level of syntax. Syntactic Isolation and Acategorialization delineate changes that clearly distinguish the MWDM usages from the literal ones. Several examples, numbers and figures will illustrate syntactic changes of all the same.

6.2.2.1 Syntactic Isolation Syntactic Isolation results from the variety of ways where to place MWDMs in a sentence. Similar to the flexible utilisation of by the way (cf. Sect. 6.1.2.1), all the same occupies basically every position in syntax. Although this flexibility was demonstrated several times throughout the previous chapters, the following list presents an illustrative overview of the form in initial, medial and final position.

6.2 All the Same

123

(6.43) initial: All the same, he deserved a funeral with respect for all of his service. (TV Corpus 2013: Chicago Fire) (6.44) medial: He’s made hundreds of copies, all the same, but he won’t stop. (TV Corpus 1999: Millennium) (6.45) final: That was kind, but I’m rather cross with you, all the same. Why? What have I done? (TV Corpus 1967: The Forsyte Saga) All the same may take different slots; its function as a contrastive marker, however, is recognisable in every one. In initial position (6.43), all the same represents the preceding statement and introduces a contrasting action. Positioned in the middle of a sentence (6.44), the MWDM depicts a contrastive element within the phrase and in final position (6.45), the form refers back to a contrasting statement. Table 6.5 presents the statistical distribution of all the same and its position in the sentence. Table 6.5 MWDM usages of all the same in the TV Corpus according to their syntactic position

The numbers indicate frequent use of all the same in different syntactic locations; still, a higher tendency of the MWDM occurring in sentence-medial position can be identified. A possible reason for this increase is a recency effect. Contrastive notions of the MWDM are even more striking when elements of the same sentence are opposed17 . Observing the syntactic environment of the MWDM, all the same is neither part of the statement that is contrasted with another one nor is the form syntactically integrated in the contrasting statement. Predicative all the same appears in nearly all the cases with a preceding Pron + V (as in (6.32) and (6.34)). There are 362 cases of all the same to in the TV Corpus and in 315 cases the Pron is 17

The central interest of this mechanism and this study is not to scrutinise the MWDM’s functions according to their position. Further analyses on exact syntactic position and respective functions may be the objective of further studies.

124

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

it and the V is or ’s. Attributive all the same regularly co-occurs with nouns (cf. Sect. 6.2.1.1). As a MWDM, however, the form exhibits no such collocational patterns18 . Syntactic Isolation has consequently detached all the same from its original syntactic environment. Commas further demonstrate Syntactic Isolation. Discursivization and Scope Extensions of the MWDM (cf. Sect. 6.2.1) explain how the form is discursively integrated and how it refers to strings of meaning. Since this mechanism concentrates on syntactic changes, these pragmatic functions do not discount the Syntactic Isolation of all the same. This mechanism only confirms that the MWDM predominantly operates on the non-propositional discourse level and is isolated from syntax boundaries. Fraser’s conception of DMs as disintegrated units (cf. Fraser 1999: 937 ff. in Sect. 2.2.2: DM ) therefore fits the syntactic nature of MWDMs (but not unconditionally their semantic qualities, cf. Sect. 6.2.1). Fig. 2.4 applies Fraser’s ideas on all the same (Fig. 6.2)19 .

Figure 6.2 Syntactic bracketing of all the same according to Fraser (1999: 937 ff.) (own illustration)

The illustration emphasises that all the same disrupts conventional sentence patterns because it can even interfere in between clauses. (6.46) medial: He’s got a lot of support, all the same, with the rank and file. (TV Corpus 1979: Rumpole of the Bailey) In (6.46), all the same brackets out the prepositional with-phrase. This underpins that, even on the clausal level, the MWDM appears syntactically isolated. De facto, Syntactic Isolation of all the same is detectable on sentence, clausal and phrasal level. Examining the sentence structure of (6.46), the MWDM seems rather syntactically pointless and functionless than as an integral part of the sentence. Literal all the same, as in (6.34) or (6.35), offers propositional content and 18

Most frequent collocate of medial all the same is the PM well (only eleven times). As Syntactic Isolation also applies to by the way (cf. Sect. 6.1.2.1), all the same could be substituted by the other MWDM.

19

6.2 All the Same

125

is clearly integrated in syntax. As a consequence, lexical and MWDM all the same are complementarily distributed concerning syntactic optionality, flexibility and isolation.

6.2.2.2 Acategorialization All the same has been established as a DM in the English language next to polysemous attributive and predicative usages. In terms of Acategorialization, this shift demonstrates a general categorial transition of all the same. The following passages will elaborate on these categorial processes in more detail. Analysing the single constituents of the phrase for themselves, different morpho-syntactic classes can be identified within the construction. The classifications of the participants depend on the concrete usage of the form. On the one hand, all the same acts as a predetermined adjective phrase with attributive notions, as in (6.47) for instance. (6.47) It just so happens that I like all the same things that you like. (TV Corpus 2011: Mr. Sunshine), The partners can be classified in the following way: all—predeterminer the—definite article same—adjective It is important to distinguish between the function of the whole phrase and the single grammatical categories of the constituents. The phrase as a whole applies attributive adjective functions. Cross-categorial classifications of the single participants all, the and same can be illustrated by a syntactic tree diagram. The syntactic environment of all the same in (6.47) is investigated in Fig. 6.320 . Same acts as the semantic head of the adjective phrase complementing the following noun phrase (‘things’). The predeterminer all points at the adjective same and simultaneously specifies the adjective as a quantifier. Same is further specified by the determiner (definite article) the. On the other hand, in predicative utilisation, e.g. (6.48) The white walkers don’t care if a man’s free folk or crow. We’re all the same to them, meat for their army. (TV Corpus 2015: Game of Thrones), 20

Abbreviations can be found in the preamble.

126

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

Figure 6.3 Syntactic tree diagram categorising the participants of adjective all the same by means of a selected example (own illustration)

the items occupy the following morpho-syntactic categories: all—predeterminer the—definite article same—adjective Figure 6.4 establishes the syntactic tree diagram for the corresponding clause of all the same in (6.48). All the same is a predicative phrase pointing at the pronoun (linked by the copula verb be). Similar as in sentence (6.48), all assumes the role of a PreDet. Since same is not complemented by a NP, the form becomes the head of the AdjP in concordance line (6.49). Due to the preceding definite article, same may appear as a noun. Therefore, the classification of same as an Adj has to be treated with caution since predicative all the same has idiomatic traits. Nevertheless, this thesis treats the predicative use as an AdjP and adheres to the OED’s treatment of same as an Adj in this phrasal constellation (cf. analogical structure of lines (6.48) ‘We’re all the same to them’ (TV Corpus) and (6.34) ‘It’s all the same to old gruffy!’ (OED: ‘same, adj.’)).

6.2 All the Same

127

Figure 6.4 Syntactic tree diagram categorising the participants of predicative all the same by means of a selected example (own illustration)

Both applications express functionalised meaning as a phrase—attributive in (6.47) and predicative in (6.48). The constituents of both forms, though, still assume discrete, conventional morpho-syntactic categories. Trying to find such morpho-syntactic classes within the MWDM application of all the same, conventional classifications fail. Instance (6.49) serves as an example. (6.49) It’s enough to make you appreciate how boring things were before! But ya know, all the same, I’m gonna miss those little dudes! (TV Corpus 1990: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) In (6.49), the MWDM does not attributively refer to an object as in (6.47) or predicatively to a pronoun (linked by a copula verb) as in (6.48) but on a pragmatic level to larger strings of discourse. In line with the predicative and attributive uses of the unit, the MWDM expresses functionalised meaning. However, the single constituents cannot be arranged into static categories anymore. The whole phrase acts as a MWMD, and the individual participants acategorialise towards a phrasal DM. Distinct relations on the morpho-syntactic level within the phrase, such as determinative or adjective in Fig. 6.3, vanish. Acategorialization generates a multi-word unit acting as a phrasal DM, which lost its original grammatical referentiality. Fig. 6.5 constitutes the tree diagram for all the same in (6.49). The tree diagram demonstrates that all the words surrounding all the same apply conventional word classes. Due to Syntactic Isolation, which is further

128

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

Figure 6.5 Syntactic tree diagram categorising the participants of MWDM all the same by means of a selected example (own illustration)

accentuated by Fig. 6.5, the MWDM is disjunct from clausal constructions. Subsequently, it is also not bound to clausal classes and acategorialises into a MWDM. In terms of categorial shifts, a development from a more major to a more minor category can be detected. Although all the same exhibits already highly grammaticalised and specified structures such as a predeterminer, all the same continues to change on the categorial level. These developments involve a change from a more major category (attributive/predicative expression) into a minor category (MWDM). Major adjective and minor determinative characteristics give way to the MWDM usage. Fig. 6.6 comprises these shifts. This illustration once more indicates how Acategorialization is distinguished from Decategorialization (cf. Sect. 3.1.2.5 and Sect. 3.1.3.3) and why Pmz should be treated as a process with its own rights (cf. Sect. 3.4.2). Decategorialization and Gmz proceed in the direction of minor classes that apply obligatory, fixed and distinct grammatical functions. Acategorialization and Pmz, though, start from diverse classes and give rise to MWDMs that are loosely integrated in

6.2 All the Same

129

Figure 6.6 Categorial shifts of all the same in terms of Acategorialization (own illustration)

syntax, flexibly deployable and hardly assignable to conventional word classes. This explains why forms such as all the same need a specific terminology (cf. Chap. 2) and framework (cf. Chap. 3).

6.2.3

Phonological Dimension

The following sections check if all the same adheres to the mechanisms of Consistency and Prosodic Accentuation.

6.2.3.1 Consistency To indicate that this mechanism applies to all the same, the phonological substance of the different usages is altered. Afterwards, it is discussed if the actual meaning and function is still apparent. In the literal use, all the same expresses determiners (cf. Fig. 6.3 and ch. 6.4). Erosion of these participants does not really change the attributive or predicative function of the phrase. (6.50) DNA residue showed that they were all the same person. (TV Corpus 1997: La Femme Nikita) Extracting the predeterminer does barely influence the message of (6.50). (6.50) i) DNA residue showed that they were the same person.

130

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

Without quantifier all, it is still recognisable that the DNA belongs to the same person—only some emphasis and specification triggered by all vanishes in (6.50) i). Trying to apply such erosion to MWDM all the same, Consistency prohibits reductions of pragmaticalised forms. Using (6.49) as an example, the MWDM usage of all the same without all would look as follows. *(6.49) But ya know, the same, I’m gonna miss those little dudes! Neither does the same seem to relate to MWDM all the same, nor does the form function as a MWDM. Without the comma, the same would rather express lexical character as the complement of ‘ya know’21 . As Sect. 6.2.2.2 has indicated, attributive all the same tends to collocate with things (40 times) and predicative with it’s (306 times). Therefore, one question that arises is whether all the same things or it’s all the same to + X could also act as MWDMs. From a naive point of view, another determiner or an unspecific noun should not pose any differences. And indeed, the TV Corpus presents numerous concordances for both constructions. Fraser (1988, 1996), however, does not mention these forms as DMs. Considering the attestations closer, it becomes obvious why these longer forms cannot be accounted as MWDM usages. One indicator is that no concordances of both forms could be found in which they occur initially, medially or finally, surrounded by commas. Furthermore, the additional words alter the referential scope of the form. For instance, attributive all the same things in (6.47) does not relate to larger strings of discourse. Due to the added noun, all the same develops into a complement of things and directly refers to the NP. In the predicative application it’s all the same to + X, all the same equally recovers grammatical referentiality. Here, the construction relates to it is and the PP initiated by the preposition to. Enlarging the phrase therefore obstructs Acategorialization of all the same and as a result, the form does not pragmaticalise22 . Consistency stresses the fixation of MWDM as a phrase. Adding or removing participants from the phrase causes alterations in the referential structure in a way that the literal use of all the same is regained.

21

Quite interestingly, the other DM in the sentence, you know, would also lose its functionalised character in this case. 22 This fact raises another question: Are MWDMs restricted to a certain number of participants? The frequently discussed issue of length (cf. Sect. 2.3) needs further inquiry when being applied to MWDMs (cf. Sect. 7.3).

6.2 All the Same

131

On a phonological level, the MWDM is equally consistent. Similar to the case of by the way (cf. Sect. 6.1.3.1), all the same does not exhibit consonant reduction as it would be the case for hypothetical */O:l< @ seIm/. As the upper part has elucidated, Consistency demands that all words are included. The pronunciation of all the same underlines this stability since the interdental fricative [ð] is always present in /O:l D@ seIm/ when the form is expressed as a MWDM.

6.2.3.2 Prosodic Accentuation Salient prosodic contours of the MWDM underpin meta-communicative notions. Starting from these implications, other interpersonal and meta-textual meanings such as emphasis, scepticism or relief arise. In (6.51), for instance, the general contrastive function of the MWDM receives further emphasis by Prosodic Accentuation. (6.51) Their fate depends on their king. All the same, we do not kneel. (TV Corpus 2014: Game of Thrones) Although bowing the knee before the king would be the only logical decision, the persons in (6.51) refuse to cooperate. Also thanks to the sentence-initial position of the contrastive marker, all the same appears almost as an upbeat. The reference back to the actual topic and the introduction of the contrasting idea are therefore acoustically announced and separated by the MWDM. All the same provides statements with further emphatic accentuations. In (6.52), (6.52) But you did it, all the same. He would have got us all caught and hung. You too. (TV Corpus 2016: The Musketeers), the DM underlines the person’s committed risks (which could have killed all of them, but still, he did it). All the same stresses the horror of the speaker and the ignorance of the interlocutor. The MWDM delivers additional consternation that seemingly resonates in the following sentence. Some further pragmatic inferences arise due to Prosodic Accentuation. For instance, all the same may introduce a notion of scepticism. (6.53) Your book is clearly useless to him without the key. All the same, I won’t feel completely reassured until I get it back. (TV Corpus 2012: Gossip Girl)

132

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

Despite the mentioned circumstances, the person in (6.53) does not feel confident in her current situation. The multi-word construction supplies this uncertainty with scepticism. Relief depicts another pragmatic inference of all the same and becomes apparent in utterance (6.54). (6.54) I don’t think him coming back to the island was such a good idea. Well, all the same, I want to thank you for getting married here. It’d been seven years since I’d seen her. I was beginning to think she’d never come home. (TV Corpus 2009: Harper’s Island) There might be even more pragmatic nuances which could be investigated by further corpus linguistic studies. The interrelation between the concepts of semantic preference and prosody might be an interesting approach for follow-up studies (cf. Sect. 7.3). Nevertheless, the mentioned examples illustrate the most frequent and evident implications for Prosodic Accentuation of all the same.

6.3

What is More

What is more is the third and last MWDM of this mechanism-based analysis of pragmaticalised forms. By the way (cf. Sect. 6.1) and all the same (cf. Sect. 6.2) have indicated conclusive traces of Pmz on different levels of linguistic description. Whether or not what is more exhibits the same traits, will be examined in this chapter. With respect to research on this construction, Brinton (2017: 251 ff.) offers a relatively short but recent and concise investigation of what is more. Unlike the previous MWDMs, which have not been investigated systematically so far23 , Brinton considered the development of what is more from clausal construction to PM in greater depth. At this point, the question could be raised why the form is reconsidered in this study. For one thing, Brinton concentrates on the historical development of what is more and only addresses Gmz as an aside (cf. Brinton 2017: 267 f.). This thesis, however, analyses the form as a MWDM in a mechanism-based Pmz framework and thus pursues different foci. For another thing, the interesting and valuable reason for the reanalysis of what is more is that this examination impressively 23

Which, in turn, was one of the reasons why these trigrams depict intriguing cases for the analysis.

6.3 What is more

133

demonstrates why the initial theoretical definition of DMs (cf. Chap. 2) and Pmz (cf. Chap. 3 and Chap. 4) was fundamental and rewarding for the analyses of MWDMs. As Brinton considers what is more as a PM without any further differentiations and applies Gmz in a broader sense (cf. Sect. 3.2), Sect. 6.3 will explain why this thesis’ approach (cf. Sect. 3.4) is more comprehensive and precise for the analysis of what is more and hence MWDMs in a Pmz framework. An advantage of Brinton’s preliminary work is that she offers valuable data on diachronic developments of what is more, which complement definitions of the OED. Important realisations of Brinton (2017) are the several variants of the form. Especially Sect. 6.3.3.1 will benefit from these findings. Apart from diachronic investigations from ME and EModE, which are not further examined in this study (cf. Brinton 2017: 256 ff.), Brinton emphasises pragmatic and textual notions of what is more. In line with Fraser, she classifies the PM as a comment clause or additive marker that “indicate[s] a relationship in which the message of S2 parallels and possibly augments or refines the message of S1” (Fraser 1999: 948). Instances (6.55) and (6.56) show examples of elaborative MWDM utilisations. (6.55) Nothing of moment is undertaken without advising with them, and what is more, with the young men too. (OED: ‘more’. Morton 1790: Ouabi) (6.56) The Griparts were never taken in yet, and what’s more, never will. (OED: ‘more’. Charles de Fieux 1740: The fortunate country maid) According to the OED and Brinton (2017), the constructions introduce an expression which “is more significant than what has been preceded” (cf. OED: ‘more, adj.’). Cliticised what’s more applies equal status as stated in both sources. In the first two chapters, these two variants are treated as MWDM usages of the construction. Since the second form suggests phonological reduction, which was critically discussed as a feature of MWDMs (cf. e.g. Sect. 3.2.3.2, Sect. 6.1.3 and Sect. 6.2.3), Consistency of what is more suggests interesting discussions (cf. Sect. 6.3.3.1). Sect. 6.3.3.1 will deliver the explanation why the MWDM usages of what is more and its cliticised companion can be considered without further limitations on the framework. The non-complemented parenthetical MWDM usage of what is more co-exists in PDE with further variants, which are not explicitly mentioned in the OED but in Brinton (2017: 254 ff.). Apart from what was more, which is more and

134

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

it is more, which would represent further ‘non-DM uses’ according to Brinton24 , what is more + Adj was identified as the most frequent literal application. Brinton states that the MWDM usage probably derives from what is more with an explicit complement (cf. Brinton 2017: 266) as in the following two cases. (6.57) What is more annoying than one Power Ranger? Five Power Rangers. (TV Corpus 1996: Power Rangers Zoo) (6.58) Andrew Vulcan is listed as a senior with a degree in engineering. But what’s more interesting in his university days, he also had a girlfriend. (TV Corpus 1964: The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) These lexical usages express adjective phrases as the complement of the whclause. Sentence (6.58) also indicates that shortened what’s more does not automatically imply DM function. Thus, if not described otherwise, what is more includes what’s more in the first sections (semantic and syntactic analyses in Sect. 6.3.1 and Sect. 6.3.2). The succeeding chapters once again use Pmz mechanisms to describe the changes what is more exhibits on its way towards developing into a MWDM. While by the way and all the same performed changes that unambiguously adhere to the established Pmz mechanisms, the diversity of variants and reduced what’s more suggest possible exceptions concerning the phonological changes of MWDMs. By including and discussing the results of Brinton (2017), a critical and multilayered answer to the question of how to treat the emergence of MWDMs in a Pmz approach will be provided. As it was implemented in the previous introductory sections, Fig. 6.6 presents a brief overview of the linguistic changes caused by Pmz (Table 6.6). The following sections will elaborate on semantic, syntactic and phonological changes of what is more.

24

Sect. 6.3.3.1 will present several examples and further explanations.

6.3 What is more

135

Table 6.6 Pragmaticalization mechanisms applied to what is more

6.3.1

Semantic Dimension

Regarding the literal interrogative meaning of what is more, the form introduces comparative constellations. The MWDM usage, however, does not cooperate with the conventions of traditional wh-clauses. The discursivisised form does not operate in utterances where either A or B is in a certain notion ‘more’ than the other. Due to Scope Extension, what is more lacks a complement since it connects elements of discourse in a more abstract way. The following two mechanisms explain how the literal usage of what is more functionalises and initial semantic notions vanish.

136

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

6.3.1.1 Discursivization Discursivization of what is more describes how the MWDM emerges from a lexical construction. In lexical use, what is more contrasts two concepts and indicates that one of these concepts is in any way ‘more’ than the other one. Brinton suggests that what is more’s acquisition of pragmatic-discursive functions and increasing subjectivity (cf. 2017: 267 f.) match the features of PMs and Gmz (cf. Sect. 3.2.3). In this work, though, these characteristics are ascribed to Pmz and MWDMs (cf. Sect. 3.4 and Sect. 4.1.1). As a consequence, this paragraph promises more precise and distinct implications on the form. The lexical usage of what is more addresses something that is in a way more than something else. The sense of ‘more’ can be explained quite literally by countability. Looking back at (6.57), five Power Rangers are logically more than one Power Ranger. ‘More’ also functions as an indicator for propositions that seem to be of a higher value due to rational thinking or personal evaluations. An example for such an interrogative wh-clause is (6.59). (6.59) A: Doctor, what is more serious, a head injury or a foot injury? B: A head injury. (TV Corpus 2006: The Office), Here, the doctor explains the graveness of injuries from his medical point of view. In a more figurative fashion, literal what is more also relates to more abstract concepts, which can somehow still be interpreted in more-or-less patterns. (6.60) How Indian is that? What’s more Indian than that? That’s really cool. (TV Corpus 2013: Family Tree) The actual notion of ‘Indian’ is hardly gradable. Nevertheless, the meaning of more Indian (6.60) is understandable in this context. Sentence (6.58) expressed equal rather unconventional but logically deducible meanings. In (6.58), what is more referred to the personal opinion of the speaker, who thinks that Andrew Vulcan having a girlfriend is more surprising than finishing a degree in engineering. Concordance (6.58) shows that the construction can also appear in declarative sentences and is not restricted to interrogative structures. The original semanticity of ‘more’, however, persists as these mentions in declarative sentences automatically comprise the answer to what is more. Literal usages consequently always form A>B, AB, A minor but rather in terms of Acategorialization (cf. Sect. 4.2.2) and not, according to Brinton (2017: 267), Decategorialization (cf. Sect. 3.1.2.5 or 3.1.3.329 ). The decisive reason for this treatment is that pragmaticalised what is more does not show functions of a grammatical marker but those of a DM (cf. also Sect. 6.3.1). MWDM what is more does not express interrogative, pronominal, verbal or adjective meanings

28

Koops & Hilpert present what is more as an example where a pseudo-cleft develops into a formulaic token. 29 Brinton does neither explain her notion of the term nor does she state a source.

146

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

and functions but non-propositional discourse- and pragmatic-interactive referentiality and functionality. Sentence (6.67) is the perfect example demonstrating that the MWDM shows no traces of the grammatical reference of its lexical composite. Fig. 6.10 summarises this categorial syntactic change in the familiar form of representation.

Figure 6.10 Categorial shifts of what is more in terms of Acategorialization (own illustration)

As a consequence, non-compounded what is more is not functional anymore in conventional notions of grammar. Since Brinton’s definitions of what is more as a ‘particle’ or ‘parenthetical’ is not comprehensive and specific enough, MWDM and Pmz best describe these morpho-syntactic changes. Introducing Acategorialization allows for a an even more precise analysis of what is more.

6.3.3

Phonological Dimension

This subchapter will test if what is more and its related variants match the phonological dimension of Pmz. During these analyses, Consistency faces variants such as cliticised what’s more or congeneric which is more. Prosodic Accentuation tackles pragmatic and discursive implications caused by the prosodic contours of the MWDM.

6.3.3.1 Consistency Corpus concordances and also Brinton (2017) reveal variants such as what is more interesting, which is more, what was more and what’s more that obviously show formal and semantic relationships to what is more. They are sometimes only distinguished by different word forms of the same lemma (e.g. is and was are

6.3 What is more

147

word forms of the lemma be). Especially phonological reduced what’s more was addressed several times throughout the preceding sections of Sect. 6.3. Brinton overtly claims that “fusion in grammaticalization account[s] for [...] contracted what’s more” (Brinton 2017: 268, original emphasis). Consequently, the decisive aim of this section is to explain these variants within the ideas of Consistency and Pmz. One central point of the approach towards MWDMs is that, unlike other approaches (cf. e.g. Sect. 3.2), pragmaticalised constructions resist phonological alterations. To scrutinise this controversy, Consistency has to prove itself against i) extension of the MWDM, ii) variation of the MWDM’s constituents and iii) reduction of the MWDM. i) Extension of the MWDM? Extended derivations of what is more can also take commas. Remembering the definition of Syntactic Isolation (cf. Sect. 4.2.1) and the respective implementations on the three MWDMs (cf. Sect. 6.1.2.1, Sect. 6.2.2.1 and Sect. 6.3.2.1), comma intonation can be consulted as a valuable tool identifying MWDM usages. The following instance of what is more + AdjP serves as an example of such an extended phrase. (6.73) Now, what is more important, my well-being or your wealth? (TV Corpus 1986: Doctor Who) However, apart from objective isolation, what is more important does not represent MWDM usage. The form in (6.73) neither shows semantic nor syntactic changes that can be related to Pmz and MWDMs. Semantically, the unit exhibits scope within the phrase on adjacent items. What is more directly points at important and in combination, they fulfil their original literal notions by asking the interlocutor the contrastive question: ‘What is more important? My well-being or your wealth?’. Syntactically, what is more important functions as an introductory clause and is therefore separated by commas30 . Furthermore, the single constituents can be classified according to literal what is more + X with X=AdjP (cf. Sect. 6.3.2.2) and do not acategorialise towards a MWDM. What is more and important in clausal combination are therefore best treated as a strong collocation with conventionalised meaning. This analysis suggests that strong collocational relations do not automatically imply MWDM status. Siepmann’s definition (cf. 30

This paragraph shows that comma intonation serves as a valuable tool but does not necessarily induce Pmz and MWDM status.

148

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

Siepmann 2005: 49 and Sect. 2.3) does therefore not unconditionally match the concept of MWDMs as presented in this study. This examination has demonstrated that an extension with important and thus what is more important lead to literal notions, scope reduction, syntactic integration and retaining of grammatical categories. MWDM What is more consequently obeys to the conception of Consistency with regard to the resistance against extensions. ii) Variation of the MWDM’s constituents? To investigate variants of what is more that express the same number of participants but differ by only one member, Brinton (2017) is once again consulted. Thanks to her diachronic descriptions of the several variants, she detects what was more, which is more, which was more and it is more as derivations. According to Brinton (2017: 259 ff.), the past tense usage of what was more (cf. (6.74)) as a parenthetical with a following comma decreased significantly since the 20th century. (6.74) and what was more, he perceived it was look’t upon with a jealous Eye by the Universities (1616 Daniel, The Collection of the historie of England, in Brinton 2017: 259) Such parenthetical usages with a comma are extinct (at least in the TV Corpus), and usages without a comma are always complemented with an adjective as in (6.75). (6.75) I still don’t know what was more traumatizing, the police searching for us all night or hiding in that creepy loft. (TV Corpus 2015: Hindsight) In the same way, it is more is always (i.e. in the TV Corpus) complemented with an AdjP, NP, PP or introduces a comparative than-clause as for instance in (6.76). (6.76) This is the nature of the tango. It is more than just a dance. (TV Corpus 2001: The Lone Gunmen) Both variants do subsequently not own DM functions. Investigating the variant where which substitutes what, past tense which was more is also always applied in combination with an antecedent. Literal contrastive notions prevail as (6.77) shows.

6.3 What is more

149

(6.77) It’s hard to know which was more murderous—the snows of December and January or the vengeful, pursuing troops of George II’s son, the Duke of Cumberland. (TV Corpus 2001: The History of Britain) Consulting the existing inquiries on this construction by Brinton (2017) and the TV Corpus, which is more may, in rare cases, express MWDM notions. The following example illustrates one of the three cases31 where the form is followed by a comma. (6.78) The chief perfections of that lovely dame Had I sufficient skill to utter them, Would make a volume of enticing lines, And, which is more, she is not so divine, But with as humble lowliness of mind She is content to be at your command, To love and honour Henry as her lord. (TV Corpus 2016: The Hollow Crown) However, considering the additional information on the three concordances and their respective TV series, concordance (6.78) stems from The Hollow Crown, which is an adaptation of Shakespeare plays. The other two instances quote from the same poem (If by Rudyard Kipling 1895): (6.79) If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And, which is more, you’ll be a Man, my son! (Kipling 1895: If. Quoted in excerpts in: TV Corpus 2006: Brotherhood and TV Corpus 1991: The Simpsons) Thus, the language applied does not reflect PDE, and which is more represents an archaic variant. This result coincides with Brinton’s investigations (cf. 2017: 267) which yield that parenthetical, non-complemented which is more has fallen out of use. Further diachronic changes could examine in greater detail how and why this MWDM usage is extinct. Beyond that, this variant emphasises that the survey of historical MWDMs may reveal more information on the diachronic dimension of Pmz and MWDMs (cf. Sect. 7.3). Apart from these further opportunities for research, the fact that what in what is more cannot be substituted by which in

31

In total, there are 605 appearances of which is more. This means that the MWDM use with succeeding comma only claims 0.005% of the concordances.

150

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

PDE underlines that variation of the MWDM’s constituents is not possible in spite of all initial critical assumptions. iii) Reduction of the MWDM? This part analyses the phonological differences of the MWDM variants what is more and what’s more, which were treated as the same forms of the MWDM in the past chapters. Morphologically considered, both variants express the same three meaningful units, the morphemes {what}, {is} and {more}, and are therefore regarded as equal trigrams of the MWDMs. On this level, Consistency is apparent. Cliticised’s in what’s more, though, cannot be ignored in this section. It must be questioned whether Consistency is still valid or the mechanism has to be adapted due to the phonological reduction at hand. Recapitulating the instances of reduced PDE DMs in this work, you know, indeed and what is more served as examples (cf. Sect. 3.1.3.4). During phonological changes, their substance was altered only on a small scale: you know > y’know: /ju: n@U/ > /j@ n@U/ indeed: /In’di:d/ > /n’di:d/ what is more > what’s more: /w6t Iz mO:/ > /w6ts mO:/ The presented forms exhibit little and rather conventional syntagmatic phonological changes such as reductions to schwa, vowel elision and fortition. Examining the phonetic material of what’s more, devoicing (/z/ > /s/) and vowel lost (/I/ > ø) can be detected. Comparing these minor reductions to the changes of e.g. going to > gonna, the paradigm example of Gmz, the phonological changes of the above presented DMs become infinitesimal small. morphological erosion: be going to > ’m/’re/’s gonna phonological erosion: /’g@UIn t@/ > /’g6n@/ What’s more does not demonstrate such systematic, gradual phonological alienations but largely retains the substances of what is more. This indicates that what’s more is not an instance of Attrition (cf. Sect. 3.1.1.1) or Erosion (cf. Sect. 3.1.3.4) in terms of Gmz. Furthermore, it is most likely that the phonological changes, which occurred to the MWDM, can be explained by the Principle of Least Effort and analogy. On the one hand, the Principle of Least Effort and human language economy (which relate to the Gricean maxim of quantity, cf. Kortmann 2020: 189 ff.)

6.3 What is more

151

explain that the speaker has to provide as much information as is needed and no more. Transferred to what’s more, what is more and what’s more express same morphological characters and consequently the same information. /I/ in /Iz/ would only be unnecessary information and effort for the speaker. On the other hand, what + is is a high-frequency combination in the English language and is cliticised to what’s in numerous cases. In the same way, other pronouns such as who + is or that + is are contracted to who’s and that’s. Examining the phonological substance of what is more and its reduced companion, the vowel /I/ tends to be erased in the sound consequence /tIz/ > /ts/ because /t/ is partially assimilated to /s/ as both share the same place of articulation (alveolar consonants)32 . This combination requires less effort and subsequently complies with the Principle of Least Effort. Thus, what’s more is contracted simply by habit and human laziness. Larger numbers of cliticised MWDM what’s more than of what is more (cf. Table 6.7) are more likely to emerge from this maxim and rather not from an ongoing Gmz process with reduction and fusion, as Brinton proposes in her work (cf. 2017: 267 f.). The preceding analyses have indicated that Pmz does not conduct paradigmatic, unconditional phonological changes. Pragmaticalised items may show slightly phonologically reduced variants. Nevertheless, these shortened forms do not express a higher degree of Pmz but rather a synchronically, parallel existing variant. It neither competes with the construction in full phonological length, nor does it discount the pragmaticalised MWDM status. This also explains why it was justified to use what is more as the representative for both forms of the MWDM and vice versa why what’s more could be used in example sentences throughout Sect. 6.3.

6.3.3.2 Prosodic Accentuation As what is more has obviously shown traces of Syntactic Isolation and comma intonation, the MWDM also enters autonomous stress patterns and consequently special prosodic status. Previous examples of authentic MWDM usages of the form have already hinted in this direction. This section will analyse the exact discursive and pragmatic implications. Reminding that Fraser characterised what is more as a marker with elaborative discursive functions (cf. Sect. 2.2), these capacities are also articulated by the phonological contours of the MWDM. The form enables the speaker to gain

32

For explications of the terms and more information on sound changes cf. e.g. Millar & Trask (2015).

152

6

Applying the Mechanism-based Framework …

room for contemplation. This break in discourse flow can be quite striking as (6.80) demonstrates. (6.80) I think the more...what’s more, like, upsetting is the fact that... just the words, you know what I mean? (TV Corpus 2015: Keeping Up with the Kardashians) Actually, the whole utterance conveys little to no information to the outside observer. Seen from another perspective, this means that (6.80) is highly charged with interpersonal meanings because the speaker assumes that his or her way of communicating is effective enough to understand the message33 . This instance also shows redundancy. In (6.80) the MWDM co-occurs with the PMs I think and like. This conglomerate of PMs emphasises their isolation and subsequently provides the forms with further Prosodic Accentuation. Besides, this is also an explanation why (6.80) lacks propositional content. Redundancy and the frequent co-occurrence of what is more and the conjunction and further underlines its elaborative features. (6.81) I will not give her up, i love her! And what’s more, and I’m going to make her love me. (TV Corpus 1964: The Twilight Zone) In (6.81), the first and accentuates the pause for elaboration, and the second and ensures the grammatical embedding of the isolated, preposed clause. As a consequence, what is more does not only acquire special syntactic status but also extraordinary prosodic contours. Another pragmatic implication resulting from this elaborative break may be the “[use] to add something surprising or interesting to what you have just said” (cf. Walter 2008: 1654). Sentence (6.82) exhibits a break and explains by itself that the addition is something “interesting.” (6.82) Then what’s in that blood doesn’t even exist. That is odd, perhaps...What’s more, that sample doesn’t contain any of the blood cells a human should have. Ah, then, that is interesting. (TV Corpus 1980: Galactica 1980) 33

The provided context of the TV Corpus does not explain what exactly the speaker in (6.80) is referring to. Probably, actual footage with gestures and facial expressions would offer more information on the interpersonal relationship. However, these analyses are not pursued in this thesis and are intentionally left open for further studies with stronger para-linguistic foci.

6.3 What is more

153

Although being semantically, syntactically and phonologically alienated from the lexical usage, some of its original notions seem to glimmer through. In (6.82), the persisting meaning of more causes Prosodic Accentuation because it literally demands ‘more’ emphasis. Stress on the MWDM is particularly observed when what is more is applied in utterances that resemble lists. Here, what is more introduces the climax. (6.83) Too bad Dan Rodin’s life wasn’t of more concern to Chen Yi. Shot him dead. It is difficult to believe. Well, it was easy enough to prove, which we did. He had a fair trial and was found guilty. And what’s more, he confessed. (TV Corpus 1974: Kung Fu) The actions in (6.83) rise from the gathering of evidence to the trial and finally to the confession of the culprit. Accentuated what is more highlights the climax. The succeeding proposition (“he confessed”) thus receives a more dramatic and tragic tone. One last point, which is also intriguing in terms of Persistence, is the use of what is more in interrogative constellations. At this place, it is interesting to reconsider (6.67) because the MWDM seems to reapply its former question character. However, this instance inverts the interrogative character as what is more unambiguously conveys sarcastic notions in (6.67). The MWDM does therefore not operate in conventional questions but in rhetoric questions where pragmatic and inter-textual notions reveal the actual message of the sentence. Prosodic Accentuation of such usages further underpins the pragmatic functions of MWDM what is more and distinguishes these applications from factual, semantic instances.

7

Conclusion

This study has suggested a mechanism-based Pmz framework for the analysis of MWDMs which based upon a critically discussion of approaches towards the linguistic form and the linguistic framework. Applying a corpus-informed approach and six elaborated Pmz mech-anisms, three representative MWDMs have been analysed to support the idea of the initially established framework. The conclusion provides a final reflection on the implications for the linguistic form, framework and the analysed MWDMs. Sect. 7.1 will concisely and conclus-ively answer research questions i)–iii). Finally, the study discusses possible limitations (Sect. 7.2) and potential areas for further research (Sect. 7.3).

7.1

Results

The succeeding sections conclude the thesis’ findings. In line with the three research aims (cf. Sect. 1.1), Sect. 7.1.1 to Sect. 7.1.3 summarise the results of the previous analyses and gather the implications for the linguistic form and framework. According to the initial conception of MWDMs (cf. Chap. 2) and their relation to Pmz (cf. Chap. 3 and Chap. 4), by the way, all the same and what is more have decisively revealed features of language change and Pmz. Polysemy, Divergence, Persistence, Reanalysis, Abstraction and further developments were introduced in Table 3.1 as general characteristics of language change. MWDMs do not only adhere to these characteristics but also exhibit further features that are distinct for Pmz. The six mechanisms allowed to detect and systematically investigate these features. Results and implications for Pmz as the approach towards MWDMs (Sect. 7.1.1), for the Pmz mechanisms (Sect. 7.1.2) and the cases of pragmaticalised by the way, all the same and what is more (Sect. 7.1.3) were gained during the previous analyses and are now conclusively composed. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 J.-F. Heeren, Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39507-0_7

155

156

7.1.1

7

Conclusion

Implications for Pmz as the Approach Towards MWDMs

MWDMs have been discussed in the frameworks of Gmz, Pmz and, to some extent, Lxz. Chap. 3 has comprehensively expounded MWDMs’ features consorting but also conflicting with the ideas of Gmz. Establishing Pmz as a framework for DMs and as a subprocess of Gmz, commonalities and differences of MWDMs have been effectively investigated. Analyses of selected MWDMs (Chap. 6) justified this initial theoretical conception. The following paragraphs will briefly summarise why this combination and subclassification of Gmz and Pmz delivers fruitful results with regard to the first research question. Which framework can best describe the developments of MWDMs? On the one side, Pmz and Gmz share general characteristics. Semantic changes and abstraction of original meanings accompany both language change processes. Forms with functionalised meaning arise from Pmz and Gmz processes. Use in a larger range of contexts and categorial shifts towards the direction of minor morpho-syntactic classes equally signify the two strands. MWDMs, hence, clearly obey to developments that qualify as Gmz. Analysing characteristics of Gmz and MWDMs in more detail, on the other side, demonstrates that a separate approach is useful and necessary. MWDMs exhibit discursive functions such as topic shift, contrast or elaboration (cf. Fraser 1996) and pragmatic functions such as irony or sarcasm. These functions suppress conventional propositional and grammatical meanings. Simultaneously, MWDMs do not fit into conventional morpho-syntactic categories and can therefore not be explained by shifts related to Decategorialization. Contributing to this special syntactic status of MWDMs is the disintegration of the units as clausal fragments with low bondedness to the sentence (cf. Dostie 2009). As a result, pragmaticalised constructions are, completely contrary to grammatical markers, neither semantically nor grammatically obligatory. Additionally, MWDMs are not subject to phonological reductions, which are usually related to Gmz (cf. Sect. 3.1 and 3.2) and signify accentuated prosodic contours, which, in turn, are usually not related to Gmz. In sum, MWDMs should be considered in an approach that recognises the apparent relations as well as the striking deviations from Gmz. Pmz as a subprocess of Gmz provides this perspective.

7.1 Results

7.1.2

157

Implications for Pmz Mechanisms

This thesis has suggested six Pmz mechanisms which specifically describe the developments distinguishing MWDM usages from other polysemous, lexical instances. Existing literature does not present distinct and acknowledged mechanisms for DMs. As Chap. 3 has emphasised the importance of mechanisms for a successful analysis, Chap. 4 carried out this intention. The second research question Which mechanisms distinguish the rise of MWDMs? was answered on a theoretically, intuitionally based performance. Analysing MWDMs with the help of a corpus-informed, mechanism-based approach tested these ideas against instances of authentic language use. The succeeding part will summarise the findings of the six mechanisms and conclude why such a multiperspective linguistic analysis towards MWDMs is crucial to receive a holistic picture of these intriguing forms. Discursivization allowed investigating the semantic abstraction of MWDMs. While Dese-manticization (cf. Heine & Kuteva (2002) and Sect. 3.1.3.1) leads to grammatical markers in Gmz, Discursivization leads to discourse markers in Pmz. The analysed MWDMs show traces of persisting semantic origins. Their propositional meaning, though, is entirely substituted by discursive and metacommunicative functions (cf. Schiffrin 1987). Lexical meanings of by the way, all the same and what is more vanish and functionalise during Pmz. Discursivization identifies these semantic shifts. Further meaning-related alterations during Pmz are discovered by Scope Extension. The referential range of MWDMs is significantly more far-reaching than the scope of their polysemous counterparts. The exact length and direction can vary depending on the MWDM. By the way, for instance, introduces digressive text passages while what is more cataphorically and anaphorically elaborates on surrounding arguments (cf. Fig. 6.8). Scope Extension is therefore not addressed to a precise orientation of the scope, but expresses the MWDM’s scope on larger neighbouring strings of text. Here, all three MWDMs exhibit striking differences compared to the lexical usages with restricted semantic referentiality on adjacent phrases. Be it in initial, medial or final position, MWDMs are applied without adhering to syntactic conventions. All the same and especially what is more have indicated that some positions may be preferred. However, all of the investigated MWDMs form rather isolated clause fragments. They do not depend on main- or subordinate clause constructions or declarative or interrogative sentence types. Syntactic Isolation identifies this characteristic displacement that lexical instances cannot

158

7

Conclusion

assume. Punctuation use during the scanning of the TV Corpus served as an extremely useful method to detect MWDM instances manifesting Syntactic Isolation. Acategorialization represents the second tool to investigate syntactic Pmz patterns. Neither the semantic nor the grammatical constituents of the three-word forms show their conventional morpho-syntactic features within MWDM use. Moreover, the multi-word constructions became fixed as one unit. Having passed through these categorical shifts, the arising forms are treated as MWDMs. In combination with the resulting syntactic optionality, the mechanism emphasises again why DMs form a distinct morpho-syntactic category and why their development needs a separate path of change—namely Pmz. Consistency is probably the most difficult to recognise but simultaneously the most as-tonishing Pmz mechanism. While Gmz mechanisms typically describe phonological changes, Consistency has demonstrated the contrary: MWDMs cannot be phonologically reduced, enlarged or altered without losing its DM functions. What is more indicated that Pmz of MWDMs may involve some marginal phonological changes. However, there has been ample proof that the MWDM must express the exact number and shape of their lexical counterparts. Consistency is therefore seen as one of the reasons why lexical and DM usages co-exist and depict polysemous variants. The phonological dimension of MWDM manifests itself also due to Prosodic Accentuation. Usages of MWDMs are frequently accompanied by breakes in discourse flow and by specific intonations (cf. Hirschberg & Litman 1993, Traugott 1995). These can especially trigger meta-communicative and interpersonal connotations. The analysis has illustrated that sarcasm, scepticism, relief or other non-verbal implications follow on accentuations of MWDMs. In sum, the Pmz mechanisms were applicable to by the way, all the same and what is more to their full extent. They served as a tool to investigate general features of MWDMs as well as individual characteristics. The six parameters enable the researcher to analyse MWDMs on different dimensions. As a result, linguists gain a multi-layered perspective on pragmaticalised forms. By orienting to the mechanisms and the case studies of the three forms, a manual to a holistic mechanism-based Pmz approach towards further MWDMs is provided.

7.1 Results

7.1.3

159

Implications for by the Way, all the Same and What is More as Pragmaticalised MWDMs

By the way, all the same and what is more were chosen as MWDMs for this study because they represent three different kinds of DMs according to Fraser—elaborative, contrastive and commentary markers (cf. Fraser 1996, Sect. 2.2, Table 2.5). Furthermore, the analysis (cf. Chap. 6) has revealed that the three forms express different primary lexical meanings and morpho-syntactic features. By the way refers to incidents alongside the road, all the same to numerically identical objects, and what is more introduces something of a higher significance than the preceding argument. Discussions within the scope of syntactic Pmz mechanisms identified their different categorical and grammatical backgrounds. One is considered as a prepositional phrase, the other as an attributive or predicative expression and yet another as a wh-clause fragment. Thus, the third research question seems even more challenging. Can the development of the MWDMs by the way, all the same and what is more effectively and comprehensively confirm the conception of the mechanismbased approach? Despite all these different original backgrounds of the three-word constructions, discourse-structuring and pragmatic-interactional functions have been conclusively analysed for each of the three MWDMs. The specific functions of the three MWDMs may be different: by the way introduces a new idea that has little to no reference to the preceding happenings; all the same contrasts preceding and succeeding actions; what is more refers back to the given storyline and elaborates on the statements. Nevertheless, all three units acquired text-organising functions with an enlarged scope on whole text passages. In addition, the pragmaticalised forms express extra-textual notions. As Chap. 2 has already emphasised, these meta-communicative, non-verbal notions are strongly context-dependent. It can therefore be summarised that original meanings functionalise. Since the concepts of ‘something near the road’, ‘equal status’ and ‘more significant’ are still needed in PDE, lexical usages of the constructions do not vanish—MWDM and literal usages co-exist as polysemous variants of the same form. English language speakers can still identify whether a construction is used as a DM or in literal use thanks to complementary distributions (especially obvious due to Syntactic Isolation and Prosodic Accentuation). The three MWDMs add a function to the language system and extend the portfolio of the English language by a topic shift, a contrastive and an elaborative MWDM. How MWDMs

160

7

Conclusion

gain these functions and develop from literal applications can be systematically analysed by the presented mechanism-based Pmz framework. Research questions one, two and three have been answered to an entirely satisfactory extent. The approach, the mechanisms and the case studies executed the study’s interests and filled in the research gaps. As there has only been little research in the area of mechanism-based Pmz approaches and MWDMs, this work cannot and will not be the final answer to the treatment of Pmz and MWDMs. Nevertheless, this study has coped with the huge definitional fuzziness in this area of investigation and specified the notion of MWDMs and their respective framework. Simultaneously, this work recognises the numerous still unexplored domains in this field.

7.2

Limitations of the Study

All in all, the established framework and the applied methodology allowed for a sophisticated analysis of MWDMs. The chosen approach, definitions and discussions of previous literature, though, automatically entail limitations the study has to face. Since this thesis cannot definitely and universally answer all the questions related to the investigated research area, the following paragraphs reflect on present limitations. Based on these constraints, Sect. 7.3 then deduces further research proposals. The first point that could be considered controversial is the usage of the Pmz framework. Although this thesis tries to find a compromise between conventional Gmz, Gmz in a broader sense and Pmz as an independent approach towards DMs (cf. Chap. 3), the very use of Pragmaticalization may trigger criticism. To define this work’s approach towards DMs, several previous conceptions of DMs had to be critically scrutinised (i.a. Traugott, Brinton, Diewald, Aijmer in Chap. 3). The results have been comprehensive and conclusive, still, other linguists might have chosen a different path to investigate the developments of e.g. by the way, all the same or what is more (e.g. Brinton 2017). Another, albeit deliberately selected limitation of this study is its very specific scope. MWDMs were defined as a formal subcategory of DMs and PMs (cf. Chap. 2) and Pmz as a subprocess of Gmz. Consequently, this thesis offers a relatively narrow perspective on DMs with focus on MWDMs in a Pmz approach but cannot claim a universal validity for all the other DMs and PMs. Besides, the forth category of Fraser’s classification of DMs (inferential markers, cf. Fig. 2.3) was not discussed due to the scope of the study. Remembering Fig. 2.5, this study does not investigate the whole dimension of PMs and DMs but focuses on one part.

7.2 Limitations of the Study

161

The Pmz mechanisms served as a systematic guideline to scrutinise MWDMs. As it is quite common in Gmz studies, Chap. 6 and the different mechanisms were oriented to the linguistic dimensions of semantics, syntactics and phonology (cf. Table 4.1). However, it was not always possible to analyse the MWDMs’ characters entirely separately without any influences of the other linguistic spheres. Scope extension, for instance, exhibits relations to syntax while Syntactic Isolation, vice versa, shows nuances of semantic change. In the same way, the mechanisms interact among themselves as especially Syntactic Isolation and Prosodic Accentuation have demonstrated. The assignment of mechanisms to linguistic dimensions does not forbid overlaps but should encourage researchers to investigate MWDMs through a multi-dimensional lens. Without respecting this tolerance, however, the formation and analysis of the classified mechanisms may evoke criticism. Additionally, it may amaze that, when discussing MWDMs as PMs, the linguistic dimension of pragmatics appears to be neglected. At this point, it must be considered that the analysis interprets pragmatics according to Verschueren (1987, cf. Sect. 2.1.1) as a perspective on various linguistic levels. It might be the case that other linguists disagree with this treatment and would have preferred a more conventional perspective (i.e. pragmatics as an independent dimension next to semantics et al., cf. e.g. Heine & Kuteva in Sect. 3.1.3 and Table 3.4). Also, it could be argued that comma intonation and punctuation would not suffice to analyse Prosodic Accentuation. Although this method delivered valid results on pragmatic implications of Prosodic Accentuation, these limitations were tolerated because further analyses of spoken data would have gone beyond the scope of this study. Despite elaborative explanations why Consistency is assigned to the phonological dimension, it may still be criticised that Consistency does not represent a change of the phonological system. Trying to circumvent this dispute, the terms semantic, syntactic and phonological dimension and not change were applied. Readers of this study have to adapt their conventional thinking in linguistic dimensions to the unconventional case of MWDMs. Only then can Consistency be entirely understood. In the same fashion the discussed linguistic forms and frameworks entail limitations, the applied corpus-informed methodology may face critique. Some results of this study probably would not have been noticed at all if the analyses had not been conducted corpus-informed. Nevertheless, the findings are based upon a particular corpus and can therefore only reveal what is true in that corpus. This dilemma of generalisation vs representativeness, though, always defines the boundaries of studies working with corpus data (cf. e.g. Dash 2010: 22). Since the TV Corpus represents a very special kind of language (TV Series, written

162

7

Conclusion

to be spoken, cf. Sect. 5.1) the findings and statistical data may have been different when another corpus would have been consulted (cf. e.g. Kim 2018 in Sect. 6.1.2.1). Reflecting on the concrete work with the TV Corpus, concordances did sometimes not represent contemporary language use (cf. Sect. 6.3.3.1) and did therefore not fully correspond with the research goals. Aside from that, the concordances’ context does not always clearly indicate who is speaking and who is addressed by the utterances; however, this thesis always tried to identify the speaker (cf. e.g. concordance (6.6)). Operating corpus-informed, this study combines corpus data and linguistic intuition to handle issues of corpora in general and of the composition of the TV Corpus.

7.3

Outlook and Further Research

This study achieved its initial goals and established a mechanism-based research framework for the analysis of MWDMs. Throughout the analysis and once again summarised in Sect. 7.2, this thesis cannot answer all the questions related to Pmz and MWDMs. By identifying one path to pursue the research goals, many other pathways arise at the end of this work. Simultaneously, the following outlook on further research interests is another accomplishment of this study. Linguists can base their upcoming works on the presented findings and investigate further traces. Some of these will be indicated in this last paragraph. Considering the thesis’ methodological approach, corpus-driven analyses can provide deeper insights into the distribution of MWDMs. Corpus-based approaches may discover further causes and implications for Pmz and MWDMs. One idea, for instance, could be to investigate MWDMs in different English varieties and dialects. Another intriguing point would be the use of corpus data to scrutinise more closely diachronic developments of the pragmaticalised MWDMs by the way, all the same and what is more (similar to Brinton 2017). OED, English-corpora.org and other historical corpora (e.g. the Helsinki Corpus) provide access to such data and studies. Interdependencies between syntactic positioning and pragmatic and discursive notions were not extensively discussed in this study. Linguists with higher interest in this corpus-pragmatic intersection may identify general tendencies of certain pragmatic-semantic meaning tendencies in relation to their syntactic environment (Kim’s findings on by the way represent such an approach). The area of corpuspragmatics (cf. Sect. 1.1) could therefore be enriched with further studies on PMs and MWDMs. The analysis has provided first insights into the shifts and characteristics of the three MWDMs. Each form, however, deserves more in-depth analysis. Chap. 6

7.3 Outlook and Further Research

163

has drawn attention to some selected features of the MWDMs, which promise even more implications—not only within a Pmz approach. For instance, connections between by the way and by way of were addressed in Sect. 6.1.3.1. All the same expressed the interesting meta-communicative notion of scepticism, which could be further investigated in terms of semantic prosody and preference (cf. e.g. Partington 2004). Studies with focus on variety or text type can examine further implications concerning the differences between what is more and contracted what’s more. Beyond these primal suggestions, each multi-word construction certainly hides more intriguing clues which have not been discovered so far. Another interesting area is the relationship between collocations and MWDMs. In the analyses (cf. Chap. 6), several collocational patterns were identified (e.g. what is more interesting, cf. Sect. 6.3.3.1)—but not as Pmz. At this point, a closer difference between MWDMs and strong collocations could be elaborated. Since four-grams (e.g. as a logical conclusion, on the other hand) and five-grams (e.g. to cap it all off , on top of it all) also function as MWDMs according to Fraser (1996), the possible length of MWDMs could be analysed. As a result, it would also be conceivable that the notion of multi-word discourse markers needs to be adjusted or even further subclassified. To apply and support the established Pmz framework, further MWDMs and also inferential MWDMs (e.g. as a consequence, because of this, for this reason) could be tested against the six mechanisms. DMs and also MWDMs are a cross-linguistic phenomena (e.g. French pour être complet, German halten wir fest). Therefore, it appears that the mechanisms-based framework will also apply to these forms. Studies in other languages could consequently check the applicability of this thesis’ conception within other linguistic systems. In order to distinguish Pmz even further from Gmz, other case studies of grammaticalised and pragmaticalised items could be assessed. During these surveys, further implications for the degree of Pmz, perhaps in connection with Persistence, may be detected. Chapter 3 has discovered that no distinct and acknowledged mechanisms for PMs and DMs have existed until no. To address this research gap, the six Pmz mechanisms (established in this thesis) could be tested, discussed and/or adapted to other PMs and one- or two-word DMs. It is likely that the single Pmz mechanisms bear even more information and ways to approach forms with pragmatic and discursive functions. This thesis has offered a substantial contribution to the linguistic framework of Pmz and the linguistic form of MWDMs. By the way, all the same and what is more served as prag-maticalised MWDMs and have shown the advantages of the

164

7

Conclusion

study’s theoretical approach. Comprehensive and conclusive findings responded to the research questions. With reference to the reflections on limitations and recommendations for further research, this study hopes to not just having introduced the idea of a mechanism-based approach towards MWDMs but also to encourage more linguists to continue research in this intriguing field of investigation.

Bibliography

Aarts, B., Chalker, S., & Weiner, E. (2014). The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Oxford University Press. Ahn, M. (2010). From favor to cause: The English causal adposition thanks to and its Korean counterpart tekpwuney. Language Sciences, 32. 5, 579–587. Aijmer, K. (1997). I think—an English modal particle. In T. Swan & O. Jansen-Westvik (Eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and comparative perspectives (pp. 1–47). De Gruyter Mouton. Aijmer, K. (2011). W ell I 0 m not sure I think—The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16. 2, 231–254. Aijmer, K. (2016). Pragmatic markers as constructions. The case of anyway. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the Clause (pp. 29–58). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Aijmer, K. & Rühlemann, C. (2015). Corpus Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Andersen, H. L. (2007). Marqueurs discursifs propositionnels. Langue Française, 2. 154, 13– 28. Barth-Weingarten, D. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2002). On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization? In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), Typological Studies in Language (pp. 345–362). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Beeching, K. (2016). Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press. Beijering, K. (2015). The lexicalization-grammaticalisation-pragmaticalization interface. In A. Smith, G. Trousdale, & R. Waltereit (Eds.), New Directions in Grammaticalisation Research (pp. 67–92). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Biber, D. & Quirk, R. (2000). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman. Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press. Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. De Gruyter Mouton. Brinton, L. J. (2001). Historical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 138–160). Blackwell. Brinton, L. J. (2008). The Comment Clause in English. Cambridge University Press. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 J.-F. Heeren, Establishing a Mechanism-Based Framework for the Corpus-Informed Analysis of Multi-Word Discourse Markers, BestMasters, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39507-0

165

166

Bibliography

Brinton, L. J. (2017). The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge University Press. Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge University Press. Brown, K. & Miller, J. (2020). Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure. Routledge. Bybee, J. & Pagliuca, W. (1987). The Evolution of Future Meaning. In A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba, & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 109–122). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. Woodbridge Lectures delivered at Columbia University in November 1978. Columbia University Press. Claridge, C. & Arnovick, L. (2010). Pragmaticalisation and Discursisation. In A. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Historical Pragmatics (pp. 165–192). De Gruyter Mouton. Coll, M. U. (2009). “Anyway”—a Formal Approach to the Syntax and Semantics of Discourse Markers. University of Essex. Collins (2018). Cobuild Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of English. Langenscheidt. Collins, P. (2009). Modals and Quasi-modals in English. Rodopi. Coussé, E., Andersson, P., & Olofsson, J. (2018). Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar: Opportunities, challenges and potential incompatibilities. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 3–20). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Croucher, S. M. (2004). Like, you know, what I 0 m saying: A study of discourse marker frequency in extemporaneous and impromptu speaking. National Forensic Journal, 22. 2, 38–47. Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford University Press Oxford. Crystal, D. & Davy, D. (2016). Investigating English Style. Routledge. Dailey, R. M. & Palomares, N. A. (2004). Strategic topic avoidance: An investigation of topic avoidance frequency, strategies used, and relational correlates. Communication Monographs, 71. 4, 471–496. Dash, N. S. (2010). Corpus Linguistics : A General Introduction. Central Institute of Indian Languages. Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H. (2010). Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization. De Gruyter Mouton. Davies, M. (2019). The TV Corpus. Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/tv/. Last accessed: 25 June 2021. Dedai´c, M. N. (2005). Ironic denial: T obože in Croatian political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37. 5, 667–683. Dér, C. (2010). On the Status of Discourse Markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 57. 1, 3–28. Detges, U. & Waltereit, R. (2016). Grammaticalization and Pragmaticalization. In S. Fischer & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance (pp. 635–658). De Gruyter Mouton. Diewald, G. (2010). On some problem areas in grammaticalization studies. In K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler, & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 17–50). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bibliography

167

Diewald, G. (2011). Pragmaticalization (defined) as Grammaticalization of Discourse Functions. Linguistics, 49. 2, 365–390. Dostie, G. (2009). Discourse Markers and Regional Variation in French. In K. Beeching, N. Armstrong, & F. Gadet (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Variation in Contemporary French (pp. 201–214). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Erman, B. (1987). Pragmatic Expressions in English. A Study of you know, you see and I mean in Face-to-Face Conversation. Stockholm Studies in English, 69, 1–238. Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 33. 9, 1337–1359. Erman, B. & Kotsinas, U.-B. (1993). Pragmaticalization: The case of ba0 and you know. Studier I Modern Språkvetenskap, 10, 76–93. Fagard, B. (2010). E vida, olha: Imperatives as discourse markers and grammaticalization paths in Romance. Languages in Contrast, 10. 2, 245–267. Fischer, O. (2007). The development of English parentheticals: A case of grammaticalization? In S. Smit, H. Dollinger, & J. Kaltenböck (Eds.), Tracing English Through Time: Explorations in Language Variation. Australian Studies in English (pp. 99–114). Braumüller. Frank-Job, B. (2006). A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles (pp. 395–413). Elsevier. Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 38. 1, 19–33. Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics, 6. 2, 167–190. Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31. 7, 931–952. Fung, L. & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse Markers and Spoken English: Native and Learner Use in Pedagogic Settings. Applied Linguistics, 28. 3, 410–439. Furkó, P. (2009). The Pragmatic Marker—Discourse Marker Dichotomy Reconsidered—The Case of “well” and “of course”. University of Debrecen. Furkó, P. (2020). Discourse Markers and Beyond. Springer. Gove, P. B. (1976). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged. Merriam-Webster. Gries, S. T. (2015). Quantitative designs and statistical techniques. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 50–71). Cambridge University Press. Günthner, S. (1999). Entwickelt sich der Konzessivkonnektor obwohl zum Diskursmarker? Grammatikalisierungstendenzen im gesprochenen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte, 180, 409–446. Günthner, S. & Mutz, K. (2004). Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization (pp. 77–107). De Gruyter Mouton. Hansen, M.-B. M. (1997). Alors and donc in Spoken French: A Reanalysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 28. 2, 153–187. Heine, B. (2013). On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics, 51. 6, 1205–1247. Heine, B. (2016). Are there two different ways of approaching grammaticalization? In S. Hancil, T. Breban, & J. Lozano (Eds.), New Trends on Grammaticalization and Lan-guage

168

Bibliography

Change. Amsterdam, Philadelpha: Benjamins (pp. 23–54). John Benjamins Publish-ing Company. Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2002). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2007). The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford University Press. Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization (pp. 21–42). De Gruyter Mouton. Hinde, R. A. (1972). Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge University Press. Hirschberg, J. & Litman, D. (1993). Empirical Studies on the Disambiguation of Cue Phrases. Computational Linguistics, 19. 3, 501–530. Hölker, K. (1991). Französisch: Partikelforschung. Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik, 5. 1, 77–88. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. Longman. Hopper, P. (1991). On Some Principles of Grammaticization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization (pp. 17–35). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press. Hornby, A., Cowie, A., & Gimson, A. (1986). Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30. 4, 437–455. Jucker, A. (2017). Pragmatics and Discourse. In L. J. Brinton & A. Bergs (Eds.), The History of English. Historical Outlines from Sound to Text (pp. 165–184). De Gruyter Mouton. Jucker, A. & Taavitsainen, I. (2013). English Historical Pragmatics. Edinburgh University Press. Jucker, A. H. & Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Killie, K. (2007). On the Sources and Grammaticalization of the Germanic −lik Suffix. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 108. 4, 659–682. Kim, Y. (2018). By the way as a Multifunctional Discourse Marker. SNU Working Papers in English Linguistics and Language, 16, 57–82. Koike, D. A. (1996). Functions of the adverbial ya in Spanish narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 25. 2, 267–279. König, E. & Traugott, E. C. (1988). Pragmatic Strengthening and Semantic Change: The Conventionalizing of Conversational Implicature. In W. Hüllen & R. Schulze (Eds.), Understanding the Lexicon: Meaning, Sense and World Knowledge in Lexical Semantics (pp. 110–124). Niemeyer. Koops, C. & Hilpert, M. (2009). The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity. In T. Givón & M. Shibatani (Eds.), Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, neurocognition, evolution (pp. 215–238). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kortmann, B. (2020). English Linguistics: Essentials. J.B. Metzler Verlag. Kroon, C. (1995). Discourse Particles in Latin. Gieben. Künzli, M. V. & Meli, M. (2007). Vom Gatter zu VHDL: Eine Einführung in die Digitaltechnik. VDF Hochschulverlag AG.

Bibliography

169

Kuryłowicz, J. (1965). The evolution of grammatical categories. Diogenes, 13. 51, 55–71. Langacker, R. W. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1. 1, 5–38. Leech, G. & Smith, N. (2009). Change and Constancy in Linguistic Change: How Grammatical Usage in Written English Evolved in the Period 1931–1991. In R. Antoinette & A. Kehoe (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments (pp. 173–200). Rodopi. Lehmann, C. (2015). Thoughts on Grammaticalization, volume 3. Language Science Press. Lenker, U. (2000). Sothlice and witodlice: Discourse markers in Old English. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. (pp. 229–249). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Lewis, D. M. (2011). A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics, 49. 2, 415–443. Maschler, Y. & Schiffrin, D. (2015). Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning, and Context. In D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 189–221). Wiley. McEnery, T. & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-Based Language Studies: An advanced resource book. Routledge. Meillet, A. (1912). L’evolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia (Rivista di Scienza), 12. 26, 130–148. Méndez-Naya, B. (2006). Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: On the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica, 40. 27, 141–169. Millar, R. M. & Trask, L. (2015). Trask’s Historical Linguistics. Routledge. Mroczynski, R. (2012). Grammatikalisierung und Pragmatikalisierung: Zur Herausbildung der Diskursmarker “wobei”, “weil” und “ja” im gesprochenen Deutsch. Narr Verlag. Müller, S. (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Narrog, H. & Heine, B. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press. Nevalainen, T. & Palander-Collin, M. (2011). Grammaticalization and sociolinguistics. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 118–129). Oxford University Press. Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization. Oxford University Press. Norde, M. (2012). Lehmann’s parameters revisited. In K. Davidse, T. Breban, L. Brems, T. Mortelmans (Eds.), Grammaticalization and Language Change: New reflections (pp. 73– 109). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ocampo, F. (2006). Movement Towards Discourse is Not Grammaticalization: The Evolution of claro from Adjective to Discourse Particle in Spoken Spanish. In N. Sagarra & A. J. Toribio (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 9th Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 308–319). Cascadilla Proceedings Projekt. OED (2021). Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, https://www.oed.com/. Last accessed: 25 June 2021. Onodera, N. O. (1995). Diachronic Analysis of Japanese Discourse Markers. In A. Jucker (Ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English (pp. 393– 438). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

170

Bibliography

Palmer, F. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. Longman. Partington, A. (2004). “Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9. 1, 131–156. Pérez, A. (1990). Time in motion: Grammaticalisation of the be going to construction in English. In V. Bundoora (Ed.), La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics (pp. 49–64). Linguistics Program, La Trobe University. Pérez-Paredes, P. (2020). Corpus Linguistics for Education: A Guide for Research. Routledge. Pinto de Lima, J. (2002). Grammaticalization, subjectification and the origin of phatic markers. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), Typological Studies in Language: New Reflec-tions on Grammaticalization (pp. 363–378). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Polanyi, L. (1985). A Theory of Discourse Structure and Discourse Coherence in Papers from the General Session at the Twenty-First Regional Meeting. Papers from the General Session at the Regional Meeting, 21. 1, 306–322. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman. Ramat, P. (2001). Degrammaticalization or Transcategorization? In C. Schaner-Wolles, J. Rennison, & F. Neubarth (Eds.), Naturally. Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler presented on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 393–401). Rosenberg & Sellier. Rayson, P. (2015). Computational tools and methods for corpus compilation and analysis. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 32–49). Cambridge University Press. Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29. 6, 1139–1172. Reed, B. S. (2010). Analysing Conversation. An Introduction to Prosody. Palgrave Macmillan. Rosenkvist, H. & Skärlund, S. (2013). Grammaticalization in the present—The changes of Modern Swedish typ. In A. G. Ramat, C. Mauri, & P. Molinelli (Eds.), Synchrony and Diachrony: A dynamic interface (pp. 313–338). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Rundell, M. (2013). Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Hueber. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press. Schmid, H.-J. (2016). English Morphology and Word-Formation. Erich Schmidt Verlag. Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107. 3, 227–265. Schourup, L. C. (1985). Common Discourse Particles in English: “Like”, “well”, “y’know”. Garland. Siepmann, D. (2000). Second-level Discourse Markers Across Languages. Languages in Contrast, 3. 2, 253–287. Siepmann, D. (2005). Discourse Markers Across Languages: A contrastive study of secondlevel discourse markers in native and non-native text with implications for general and pedagogic lexicography. Routledge. Smith, A. D., Trousdale, G., & Waltereit, R. (2013). New Directions in Grammaticalization Research. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Stenström, A.-B. (1994). An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. Longman. Stenström, A.-B. (1998). From Sentence to Discourse: Cos (because) in Teenage Talk. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers (pp. 127–146). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Bibliography

171

Svartvik, J. & Stenström, A.-B. (1985). Words, words, words: The rest is silence. In S. Bäckmann & G. Kjellmer (Eds.), Papers on language and literature presented to Alvar Ellegård and Erik Frykman (pp. 342–353). Gothenburg Studies in English. Taavitsainen, I. & Jucker, A. H. (2015). Twenty years of historical pragmatics: Origins, developments and changing thought styles. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 16. 1, 1–24. Tagliamonte, S., Durham, M., & Smith, J. (2014). Grammaticalization at an early stage: Future be going to in conservative British dialects. English Language and Linguistics, 18. 1, 75–108. Tagliamonte, S., Fischer, O., Rosenbach, A., & Stein, D. (2000). The grammaticalization of the present perfect in English. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, & D. Stein (Eds.), Path-ways of Change: Grammaticalization in English (pp. 329–354). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Toupin, F. & Lowrey, B. (2015). Studies in Linguistic Variation and Change: From Old to Middle English. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Traugott, E. C. (1988). Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, volume 14 (pp. 406–416). Traugott, E. C. (1995). The Role of the Development of Discourse Markers in a Theory of Grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester. Traugott, E. C. (1997). The Discourse Connective “after all”: A historical pragmatic account. Paper presented at the 10th International Congress of Linguistics in Paris. Traugott, E. C. (2002). From Etymology to Historical Pragmatics. In D. Minkova & R. Stockwell (Eds.), Studying the History of the English Language: Millennial perspectives (pp. 19–50). de Gruyter Mouton. Traugott, E. C. (2003). Constructions in Grammaticalization. In R. Janda, B. Joseph, & B. Vance (Eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics (pp. 624–647). Wiley. Traugott, E. C. (2004). Historical pragmatics. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 538–561). Blackwell. Traugott, E. C. (2007). Discussion Article: Discourse Markers, Modal Particles, and Contrastive Analysis, Synchronic and Diachronic. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 6, 139–157. Traugott, E. C. (2010). (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 29–74). De Gruyter Mouton. Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge University Press. Traugott, E. C., Stein, D., & Wright, S. (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives. Subjectification in Grammaticalisation, (pp. 31–54). Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford University Press. van der Auwera, J. (2002). More thoughts on Degrammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), Typological Studies in Language: New Reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 19–30). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Verschueren, J. (1987). The pragmatic perspective. In J. Verschueren & M. B. Papi (Eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective (pp. 3–8). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Walter, E. (2008). Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes. Norton.

172

Bibliography

Wegener, H. (2000). Da, denn und weil: Der Kampf der Konjunktionen; zur Grammatikalisierung im kausalen Bereich. In R. Thieroff & N. Fuhrhop (Eds.), Deutsche Gram-matik in Theorie und Praxis (pp. 69–81). Niemeyer. Werner, V. & Tegge, F. (2020). Pop Culture in Language Education: Theory, Research, Practice. Routledge. Wiemer, B. & Bisang, W. (2004). What makes grammaticalization? An appraisal of its components and its fringes. In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components (pp. 3–20). De Gruyter Mouton. Wischer, I. (2000). Grammaticalization versus lexicalization. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of Change, Grammaticalization in English (pp. 355–370). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Yao, X. (2014). Developments in the Use of the English Present Perfect: 1750-Present. Journal of English Linguistics, 42. 4, 307–329. Yoon, J. & Gries, S. T. (2016). Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar. John Benjamins Publishing Company.