I must wait on myself, must I?
On the rise of pragmatic markers at
right periphery of the clause in
English
Elizabeth Closs Traugott
traugott@stanford.edu
Lund University, Sept. 4th 2013
What is periphery?
• Periphery often associated with core
clause/proposition/argument structure, especially
topic, focus, left-dislocation, right-dislocation (cf. the
cartography project, Cinque & Rizzi 2008):
(1) a. That guy over there we like.
b. That gal over there, she’s smart.
c. She’s smart, that gal over there.
d. It’s smart she is, that gal over there.
2
• But I am concerned with pragmatic markers (PMs)
“outside” the dependency structure of the core
clause, especially those at right periphery (RP), when
and how they came into being:
(2) a. She’s smart, no doubt. (epistemic)
b. She’s smart, I guess. (comment clause)
c. She’s smart, isn’t she? (question tag)
d. She’s smart or something. (general extender)
e. She’s smart then. (retrospective contrastive)
• RP is not necessarily “right edge”; address forms
typically occur there, cf.
f. She’s smart, isn’t she, John?
3
Road map
• Why investigate right periphery?
• Outline of incremental development of pragmatic
marker (PM) classes in English occurring at RP
• Relevant systemic changes
• Issues: - development of PMs as procedural
constructionalization
- challenges to generalizations about PMs
• Envoi
4
Why investigate Right Periphery?
• PMs structure discourse, often evaluatively. Essential
component of interaction and rhetorical practices.
• Focus has been on PMs at left periphery (LP); PMs at RP
largely ignored, perhaps because infrequent.
• Much that has been said about English PMs is challenged
by PMs at RP, e.g.
Claim A. Allegedly defining features of PMs include (see
Schiffrin 1987, Brinton 2008, Kaltenböck, Heine, & Kuteva
2011):
- PMs do not form an immediate constituent of
the core clause
- PMs are disjunct
- PMs have no impact on the truth value of the
utterance
5
Claim B. There is a division of labor between markers at
LP and at RP.
• e.g. Beeching and Detges ( Forthc) explores the
hypothesis that:
- LP is linked to subjectivity
- RP is linked to intersubjectivity
- Therefore elements recruited to LP undergo
Subjectification, those recruited to RP undergo
InterSubjectification.
6
Claim C. Most PMs appear at left periphery (LP) in
English.
• e.g. Discourse markers (PMs) are “commonly used in
initial position of an utterance” (Schiffrin 1987: 328).
• Auer (1996: 297): LP “is a preferred locus for
processes of grammaticalization; by this I mean …
processes by which adverbials turn into discourse
markers”.
• Onodera (2011: 620): “I propose that the initialness
of discourse markers is universal”.
7
• BUT appearance at LP not universal:
• “ English discourse markers typically occur at the
beginning of an utterance, German and Dutch modal
particles are positioned in the middle field, in
classical Greek the particles were attracted by the
second position, whereas East Asian languages
typically have their pragmatic particles at the end of
the utterance”. (Van der Wouden & Foolen 2011)
• Note also some PMs cannot occur at LP:
- question tags (must I?)
- general extenders (and stuff)
so generalizations from LP do not necessarily apply at
RP and Claim C is counterevidenced.
Claims A and B are also challenged by PMs at RP.
8
Development of PM classes at RP
• Development of classes of PMs available at RP is
incremental, though individual members have
changed:
“Despite the changes in discourse forms over time or
their loss, there would nonetheless seem to be a
continuity of pragmatic functions over time, with the
forms expressing discourse functions … continually
being replaced”. (Brinton 2001: 151, italics original)
• Continuity once the category has come into being.
9
Old English
• Most PMs at LP (Hwæt ‘lo!, listen up!’, gelamp ‘it
happened’, Brinton 1996).
• Many Epistemic Adverbs at LP, e.g. witodlice ‘truly’
(Swan 1988), but some occasionally at RP where they
serve to comment on the speaker’s commitment to
the truth of or belief in the proposition denoted in
the core clause.
• It is not possible to assess to what extent Epistemic
Adverbs at RP are syntactically and prosodically
integrated in the core clause.
10
(3) a.Ða gegrap Zosimus swiðlic ege and fyrhtu
then seized Zosimus great fear and terror
witodlice.
truly (LS Mary of Egypt B3.3.23 [DOEC])
b. & ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys
and not lead thou us in temptation but release
us of yfele soþlice.
us from evil truly (Mt (WSCp) B8.4.3.1 [DOEC])
11
• Interjection la ‘lo, behold!’ was favored at LP, either
alone or with a PM, cf. hwæt la,! hu la! ‘how now!’,
la hu! (Hiltunen 2006). But could occur clause-finally:
(4) Geþenc þu nu be ðe selfum, la, Boetius, hwæðer …
think thou now about you self LA, Boethius,
whether … (Bo B9. 3.9 [DOEC])
• In sum, in OE main RPPMs are Epistemic Adverbs
(rarely attested):
• Other categories appearing clause-finally:
Interjections
Address terms
12
Middle English
• Period of expansion, perhaps because of contact
(with Scandinavian, French) and development of new
genres, especially drama.
• New at RP are Comment Clauses (Brinton 2008):
(5) Vxor: We bowrdre al wrange, I wene…
we jest all idly I think…
Filius: My modir comes to you this daye.
my mother comes to you this day
Noe: Scho is welcome, I wele warrande.
she is welcome I well affirm
(1463-77 The Flood [YP, p. 82. 66])
13
• Also General Extenders
• Pichler & Levey (2010: 20) hypothesize
development in (6):
(6) Stage 0: final, indefinite, member of a set
Stage 1: textual marker of a set, implicating
a larger category; backward-looking
and topic closing
Stage 2: interpersonal, backward-looking hedge;
turn-yielding.
• Stage 0 attested in OE (Carroll 2008).
• Stage 1 attested in ME.
14
• Clearest exs with etc., and so forth, as no ellipsis:
(7) Bi resun of the goldfoyl, ant so vorth
by reason of the gold-foil, and so forth,
as I seyde er
as I said earlier (1325 Recipe Painting [MED and 1c. (b)])
• Others often ambiguous with elliptic indefinites
(“bridging” examples, Evans & Wilkins 2000):
(8) or he may passe to Ieen or Vinice or some oþer.
or he may go to Genoa or Venice or some other
(a1425 Mandeville’s Travels [Carroll 2008: 13])
15
Early Modern English
• In addition to Epistemic adverbs, Comment Clauses,
General Extenders, in EModE we find Question Tags
(Hoffmann 2006, Tottie & Hoffmann 2009).
• As PMs many Question Tags do not ask for
information and do not get or expect yes-no answers
but may:
- ask for confirmation (i.e. anticipate a Yes)
- express speaker opinion or attitude without
anticipating an answer (9), (10)
16
(9) Esau: Come out whores & theues, come out,
come out I say.
Ragau: I told you, did I not? that there would
be a fray.
Esau: Come out litle whoreson ape, come out of
thy denne.
(1550 Iacob and Esau [Tottie & Hoffmann 2009: 142])
• Shakespeare preferred positive-positive polarity
(Tottie & Hoffmann 2009):
17
(10)
a. Ford: Have I not forbid her my house? She
comes of errands, does she? We are simple
men, we do not know what’s brought to pass
under the profession of fortune-telling.
(1602 Shakespeare, Merry Wives of Windsor IV. Ii. 173)
b. Slender: How now, Simple! Where have you
been? I must wait on myself, must I? You
have not the Book of Riddles about you,
have you?
(1602 Shakespeare, Merry Wives of Windsor I. i. 200)
18
• Use of positive-positive has decreased over time and
a new facilitative use has arisen, as in parent or
teacher question tags (Tottie & Hoffmann 2009).
• Here SP knows and is known to have the information,
and only a minimal response is expected:
(11) Two and two make four, don’t they.
• Note question tags occur at RP, or sometimes
medially, not at LP:
(12) It’s a mixture isn’t it of original instruments.
(ICE-GB: s1b-023 #140) (Dehé & Braun 2013: 131)
19
Modern English
• In ModE a new PM category also occurring mainly at
RP (occasionally medially) is RetrospectiveContrastive (Retro-Cont) (then, however, though,
actually) (Lenker 2010, Haselow 2012a, b). More
recently, final but, Mulder & Thompson (2008).
• As a PM final then “expresses an inference drawn by
the speaker that needs to be confirmed by the
addressee in order to be added to the common
ground shared by the participants” (Haselow 2012a:
186):
(13) A. I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking
about
B. well you have to listen to the tape then
(ICE-GB s1a-085 [Haselow 2012a: 190])
20
• Haselow (2012b: 163) treats such turns as
conditional pairings in which A.’s condition is
contrasted by B.’s utterance and refuted. Then is
“part of a paratactic structure in which it
retrospectively links the proposition it accompanies
to an immediately preceding propositional unit,
creating an implicit conditional relation between
them”.
• He formulates (13) as (Haselow 2012a: 191):
A: = if you I haven’t the faintest idea
what your’re I am talking about
B:
as is the case
Well you have to listen to the tape then
__________________________________
21
• Haselow argues that RPPM then originates in
conditionals with clause-final then:
(14) For if we be clene in levyng
for if we be clean in living
Oure bodis are Goddis tempyll þan
our bodies are God’s temple then
In the whilke he will make his dwellyng.
in the which he will make his dwelling
(The Baptism [YP p. 182. 36; Haselow 2012b: 164])
22
• Haselow cites several exs. of what he says are RPPM
uses of then in the York Plays and Shakespeare, e.g.:
(15) Mrs Ford: [...] There is no hiding you in the house.
Falstaff:
I’ll go out then.
(Shakespeare, Merry Wives of Windsor IV. ii. 63
[Haselow 2012b: 168])
• These appear to be bridging exs. because can be
understood as resultative (not contrasting SP A).
• Unambiguous exs. late 17thC, early 18thC when
extended from assertions to questions:
23
(16) Lord Foppington: Why, that's the Fatigue I
speak of, Madam: For 'tis impossible to be quiet,
without thinking: Now thinking is to me, the greatest
Fatigue in the World.
Amanda: Does not your Lordship love reading then?
Lord Foppington: Oh, passionately, Madam - But I
never think of what I read. (1696 Vanburgh, The Relapse
[HC ceplay3a; Lenker 2010: Appendix B])
• Haselow (2012b: 191) finds that in contemporary
conversation yes-no questions ending in Retro-Cont
then with falling intonation anticipate confirmation.
Answer in (16), but we cannot tell about prosody.
24
• Lenker (2010) focuses on RPPMs, especially RetroConts originating in concessives. Says however
developed in 18thC, though in 19thC:
(17) Dorinda: O, Madam, had I but a Sword to help
the brave Man?
Bountiful: There’s three of four hanging up in the
Hall: but they won’t draw. I’ll go fetch one
however. (1707 Farquhar, The Beaux Stratagem
[HC ceplay3b [Lenker 2010: 196])
• I’ll go fetch one contrasts with the possible
conclusion ‘therefore I won’t get one’, forcing a
reinterpretation as ‘despite the fact that they won’t
draw, may be one will be useful after all’.
25
Summary
• Incremental development of RPPMs:
OE
ME
EModE ModE
1000 1300 1500
1700
Epist Adv
___________________________
Comment
______________________
Gen Extend
______________________
Question Tag
_______________
Retro-Cont
________
• Epistemic Adverb, Comment Clause typically occur at LP.
• General Extender, Question Tag, Retrospective Contrast
may not. Preferred at RP, but may occur medially.
26
Sequences at periphery
• Sequences at LP have been attested mainly from ME
on:
(18) a. Owe, certes, what I am worthily wroghte with
Oh, certainly, what, I am well created with
wyrschip, iwys!
honor truly (1463-77 Fall of the Angels [YP, 51. 81])
b. Why, surely, man, thou forgettest whom thou
talkest to. (1740 Richardson, Pamela [CL I])
27
• Likewise at RP (though rare):
(19) a. Mankynde louyth me wel, wys, as I wene.
mankind loves me wel, for-sure, as I think
(a1450 Castle Persev. 985 [MED])
b. They were probably gipsies or something,
I dunno. (Pichler & Levey 2010: 21)
• RPPMs may be followed by an interjection and/or
address term:
(20) Why, if she should be innocent, if she should be
wronged after all, ha? I don't know what to think
(1700 Congreve, The Way of the World, Act V)
28
Relevant systemic changes
• Epistemics: Socio-cultural changes in ideology from
“faith” to “evidence” may have led to loss (and
replacement) of many epistemic PMs, e.g. in truth,
sothly, ic wene (Wierzbicka 2006, Bromhead 2009).
• Question Tags: Tottie & Hoffmann (2009) link their
rise of to the development of not as the default
negator:
“It appears unlikely that tag questions would have
begun to be used when the sole negator was ne,
which normally preceded the verb in Old English. As
the negator provides the new information and would
require end-weight, ne could not have fulfilled this
function”. (p. 156)
29
• General Extenders: These developed in ME, but
appear to have used with increased frequency in
ModE. Their paratactic structure and association
with colloquial lg., may be related to colloquialization
of styles over the last two centuries.
• Colloquialization is the change by which linguistic
features characteristic of informal, spoken discourse
become more frequent and acceptable in written,
especially printed, texts (Mair 1997; see Kytö, Rydén
& Smitterberg 2006 for the 19thC, Leech, Hundt, Mair
& Smith 2009 for the “multifarious and scalar nature
of the difference between ‘oral’ and ‘literary’ style”
(p. 247) in the 20thC).
30
• Retro-Cont: Lenker (2010: 9) notes its development
is unusual in the lgs. of Europe. She links it to a
“typological change” in English in the late 18thC and
19thC: a growing preference for adverbial
connectives over coordinating conjunctions.
• Haselow (2012b: 154) argues that this syntactic
change is interwoven with ongoing changes in
discourse organization in spoken English, which
continue “as the gravitation of an increasingly high
number of lexemes towards the right periphery of an
utterance shows”.
31
• Los and Dreschler (2012) note gravitation to the end
of the clause and favoring of adverbial anchors in
clause-final position in EModE after the loss of verbsecond, cf. preference for (21a) over (21b):
(21) a. he can see the water down below through
the grid
b. through the grid he can see the water down
below
32
Development of PMs as procedural
constructionalization
• There has been much debate on whether the rise of
PMs is a case of grammaticalization (Gzn). Much
depends on one’s theory of grammar and of Gzn.
• If grammar excludes pragmatics and if Gzn is
bleaching, reduction, paradigmatization (Lehmann
1995), the rise of PMs cannot be Gzn, but
“pragmaticalization” (Erman & Kotsinas 1983).
• If grammar includes pragmatics, and Gzn is seen as
context expansion (Himmelmann 2004), because
bleaching, paradigmatization lead to increased use,
then probably Gzn (Traugott 1997, Brinton 2008,
Degand & Simon-Vandenbergen 2011).
33
• PMs often said to be “procedural”, cueing speaker
stance/attitude, metatextual comment, etc. (Hansen
1998).
• I suggest PMs are the outcome of procedural
constructionalization (Cxzn): development of
formnew-meaningnew pairs (Traugott & Trousdale
Forthc) with distinctive grammatical, pragmatic and
discourse functions.
• A Construction (Cxn) consists minimally of (Croft
2001):
F: syntax, morphology, phonology
M: semantics, pragmatics, discourse function.
34
• General Extenders have new F because:
- limited to final position
- do not occur with focal stress.
They have new M because:
- have non-specific indefinite semantics
- serve backward-looking functions.
• Question Tags have new F because:
- occur at RP, not independently
- normally used with falling intonation, especially if
positive-negative (Dehé & Braun 2013: 148-149).
They have new M because:
- they are not information-seeking
35
• Retro-Cont then has new F because:
- restricted to RP, or medial
- cannot have focal stress.
It has new M is because:
- new discourse-function: retrospective
contrastiveness; preferred in turn-final use.
• PMs are the outcome of changes from the
contentful/lexical pole of the constructicon to the
end of the procedural/grammatical pole.
• Like other Cxzns they need to be thought of in terms
of sets as well as of individual Cxns.
36
Reviewing claims A, B about PMs
Claim A. Supposedly defining features of PMs (beyond
being pragmatic, largely metatextual) include:
(a) cannot be interrogated, negated or focused,
(b) have wide scope (modify the whole utterance and
not single segments),
(c) are positionally mobile,
(d) do not form an immediate constituent of the
core clause but are syntactically loosely connected
to it,
(e) have no impact on the truth value of an
utterance.
37
(c)-(f) have been challenged with reference to LPPMs,
and are definitely challenged by RPPM data.
(c) Mobile—only marginally true for General Extenders,
Question Tags, Retro-Cont, since never at LP.
(d) Not an immediate constituent—unclear for
General Extenders and Retro-Cont
(e) No impact on truth-value—not true of evidentials
(Ifantidou 1994), Comment Clauses I think/believe
(Aijmer 2002, Dehé & Wichmann 2010: 18), RetroConts (Haselow 2012a, b). These have a mixture of
+/-T-values.
38
Claim B. There is a division of labor between LP and RP.
• Beeching and Detges (Forthc) suggest:
– LP is linked to subjectivity (locus for topic
continuity or change)
– RP is linked to intersubjectivity (locus for turnyielding, evaluation of what precedes, modality)
– Therefore elements recruited to
LP undergo Subjectification (Sbfn)
RP undergo InterSubjectification (InterSbfn)
39
• Regarding modality, sentential modals have been
used at LP since OE (e.g. witodlice, Swan 1988).
• Regarding Sbfn and InterSbfn, much depends on
definitions (for an extensive survey, see López-Couso
2010; also Nuyts 2012).
• For me Sbfn is the development of meanings that
index speaker attitude or viewpoint, among them
modals and metatextual markers.
• InterSubfn is the development of meanings that
index speaker’s relation and attention to the
addressee (e.g. Traugott 1989, 2010, Traugott &
Dasher 2002).
40
• A distinction needs to be made between
- change (Inter)Subjectification
- the ambient (Inter)Subjectivity present in lg. use
(Benveniste 1971) because in communication
speakers frame what they have to say, provide
cues to what they mean for addressees. This is as
true of The cat sat on the mat as of Well, you won,
I guess.
41
• In Sbfn a new M is more based in the speaker’s
perspective than the earlier M (e.g. originally spatiotemporal after all is used with meanings such as
‘additionally, despite expectations’).
• In InterSbfn a new M more directly cues speaker’s
attention to addressee than the earlier M (e.g.
originally spatio-temporal and bounded surely
‘securely’ is used to mean not only ‘certainly’ but
also ‘I speaker want you addressee to confirm my
certainty’, Traugott 2012).
• By hypothesis the development of a PM always
entails Sbfn since PMs are speaker cues to
organization of text, speaker stance, etc.
42
• BUT because cueing metatextual organization is
always intersubjective, that does not necessarily
mean that InterSbfn has occurred.
• Question Tags originate in intersubjective yes-no
questions.
• But PM use of Q Tags in EModE as attitude markers
involves loss of intersubjectivity (it is Sbfn at RP).
• Confirmation-seeking and facilitative uses elicit
rapport; suggest continued InterSubectivity, but not
InterSbfn.
43
• Contra Beeching and Detges’ (Forthc) hypothesis,
some PMs at LP may be used intersubjectively (e.g.
surely), some at RP may be used subjectively (e.g. no
doubt) (Traugott 2012).
• Similarly alors in French may be used in both ways at
both peripheries (Degand & Fagard 2011).
• In the Bantu language Makhuwa “interpersonal
aspects [of va and vo] surface in both peripheries”
(Van der Wal 2013: 23-24).
• The extent to which a particular PM will be
subjectified or intersubjectified is item-specific.
There does not seem to be any strict division of labor
between LP and RP in English, let alone universally.
44
Envoi
• I have argued that RP is an important site for the
development of PMs and should not be neglected.
• It challenges some hypotheses about PMs.
• If there is indeed “gravitation of an increasingly high
number of lexemes towards the right periphery” we
can expect RP to become an increasingly used site.
The hypothesis of gravitation to the right needs more
work.
• Serious study of the use of PMs at medial and other
positions is also needed.
45
• A complete study of PMs would need to investigate:
- which positions a particular PM can occur in,
- which are preferred,
- what the meaning in each position is,
- and what differences there are among varieties
of English.
• Advocating just such as study, for actually in spoken
English, Aijmer (1986: 121) identified ten slots, of
which only three are used extensively: initial, final, and
medial after the focalized element as in:
 She  is  not  as pretty  as  she might  have  been 
46
I thanke ʒow sothly
47
Data Sources
CL The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts Extended Version, compiled by
Hendrik de Smet. https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428/clmet.htm.
DOEC Dictionary of Old English Corpus. 2011.
http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/DOEC/index.html.
HC Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991.
http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/index/html
ICE-GB International Corpus of English-Great Britain. http://icecorpora.net/ice/.
MED
The Middle English Dictionary. 1956-2001. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press. http://www.hti.umich.edu/dict/med/.
Shakespeare
G. Blakemore Evans et al., eds. 1974. The Riverside
Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
YP The York Plays. 1982. Richard Beadle, ed. London: Arnold.
48
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1986. Why is actually so popular in spoken English? In G. Tottie
& I. Bäcklund, English in Speech and Writing: A Symposium, 119-127.
Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus.
Amsterdam: Benjamins
Ameka, F. K. 1999. Interjections. In K.Brown & J. Miller, eds., Concise
Encyclopedia of Grammatical Categories, 213-216. Oxford: Elsevier.
Auer, Peter. 1996. The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a
grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 6: 295-322.
Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges, eds. Forthc. The Role of Left and Right
Periphery in Semantic Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Benveniste, Émile. 1971[1958]. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in
General Linguistics, 223-230, trans. by Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables:
FL: U of Miami Press.
Brems, Lieselotte, Lobke Ghesquière & Freek Van de Velde, eds., 2012.
Intersections of Intersubjectivity, special issue English Text Construction 5.
49
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and
Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-----. 2001. Historical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E.
Hamilton, eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 138-150. Malden,
ME: Blackwell.
-----. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic
Development. Cambridge: CUP.
Bromhead, Helen. 2009. The Reign of Truth and Faith: Epistemic Expressions in
16th and 17th Century English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Carroll, Ruth. 2008. Historical English phraseology and the extender tag.
Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and
Literature (SELIM) 15: 7-38.
Cinque, Giulielmo & Luigi Rizzi. 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures.
Studies in Linguistics 2: 42-58.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in
Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.
Culpeper, Jonathan & Merja Kytö. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken
interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1: 175-199.
Degand, Liesbeth and Benjamin Fagard. 2011. Alors between discourse and
grammar: The role of syntactic position. Functions of Language 18: 29-56.
50
De Smet, Hendrik. 2012. The course of actualization. Language 88:
601-633.
Degand, Liesbeth & Anne-Marie Simon Vandenbergen, eds. 2011.
Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers.
Special issue of Linguistics 49 (2).
Dehé, Nicole & Bettina Braun. 2013. The prosody of question tags.
English Language and Linguistics 17: 129-157.
---- & Anne Wichmann. 2010. The multifunctionality of epistemic
parentheticals in discourse: Prosodic cues to the semanticpragmatic boundary. Functions of Language 17: 1-28.
Erman, Britt & Ulla-Britt Kotsinas. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of
ba’ and you know. Studier i Modernspråkvetenskap 10: 76-93.
Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic
extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language
76: 546-592.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 1998. The Function of Discourse
Particles. A Study with Special Reference to Spoken Standard French.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
51
Haselow, Alexander. 2012a. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation
of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English.
Language & Communication 32: 182–204.
----. 2012b. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of
English. In I. Hegedüs & A. Fodor, eds., English Historical Linguistics 2010,
153-175. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hiltunen, Risto. 2006. Eala, geferan and gode wyrhtan: On interjections in Old
English. In J. Walmsley, ed., Inside Old English: Essays in Honor of Bruce
Mitchell, 91-116. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite
or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann, & B. Wiemer, eds., What
Makes Grammaticalization - A Look from its Fringes and its Components,
21-42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hoffmann, Sebastian. 2006. Tag questions in Early and Late Modern English:
Historical description and theoretical implications. Anglistik 17: 35-55.
Ifantidou, Elly. 1994. Evidentials and Relevance. PhD thesis. UC London.
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva. 2011. On thetical grammar.
Studies in Language 35: 852-897.
52
Kytö, Merja, Mats Rydén & Erik Smitterberg. 2006. Nineteenth-Century
English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: CUP.
Leech, Geoffrey, Marianne Hundt, Christian Mair & Nicholas Smith. 2009.
Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP.
Lehmann, Christian. 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich:
LINCOM EUROPA.
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric. Adverbial Connectors in the
History of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
López-Couso, María José. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In A.
H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen, eds., Historical Pragmatics, 127-163. Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton.
Los, Bettelou & Gea A. Dreschler. 2012. The loss of verbal anchoring: From
adverbial local anchors to permissive subjects. In T. Nevalainen & E. C.
Traugott, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, 859-872. NY:
OUP.
Mair, Christian. 1997. Parallel corpora: A real-time approach to the study of
language change in progress. In M. Ljung, ed., Corpus-based Studies in
English, 195-209. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
53
Mulder, Jean & Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. The grammaticalization of but as a
final particle in conversation. In L. Ritva, ed., Crosslinguistic Studies of
Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctiosn, 179-204.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nuyts, Jan. 2012. Notions of (inter)subjectivity. In Brems, Ghesquière & Van
de Velde, eds., 53-76.
Onodera, Noriko O. 2011. The grammaticalization of discourse markers. In H.
Narrog & B. Heine, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization,
614-624. NY: OUP.
Pichler, Heike & Stephen Levey. 2010. Variability in the co-occurrence of
discourse features. University of Reading Language Studies Working
Papers 2: 17-27.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.
Swan, Toril. 1988. Sentence Adverbials in English: A Synchronic and Diachronic
Investigation. Oslo: Novus.
Tottie, Gunnel & Sebastian Hoffmann. 2009. Tag Questions in English – The
First Century. Journal of English Linguistics, 37: 130-161.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English:
An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31-55.
54
----. 1997. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of
grammaticalization. Paper presented at ICHL XII, Manchester, 1995.
----. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In K. Davidse, L.
Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens, eds., Subjectification, Intersubjectification
and Grammaticalization, 29-71. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
----. 2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. In Brems, Ghesquière &
Van de Velde, eds., 7-28.
---- & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. CUP.
---- & Graeme Trousdale. Forthc. Constructionalization and Constructional
Changes. Oxford: OUP.
Van der Wal, Jenneke. 2013. (Inter)subjectification in Makhuwa: From
demonstrative to pragmatic particle. Journal Historical Pragmatics 14: 144.
Van der Wouden, Ton & Ad Foolen. 2011. Dutch particles in the right
periphery.http://www.tonvanderwouden.nl/index_files/papers/fipa-201105b.pdf.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: OUP.
55