On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?

Abstract

Discourse markers have been the subject of a considerable body of recent research. Most commonly, their genesis and development was described in terms of grammaticalization. But there were also alternative approaches to deal with their development, and the term pragmaticalization was proposed to account for features of discourse markers that pose a problem to grammaticalization theory.In the present paper it is argued that neither grammaticalization nor pragmaticalization are entirely satisfactory in the understanding of the nature of discourse markers. On the basis of recent work on Discourse Grammar (Kaltenböck et al. 2011; it is argued that the rise of discourse markers involves an operation called cooptation, whereby information units such as clauses, phrases, or words are transferred from the domain of sentence grammar to that of discourse organization.

Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers?

“…It follows that we see DMs as a part of the grammar. This implies that our view is also in opposition to Heine's distinction between a traditional "sentence grammar" and a "thetical grammar" for linguistic expressions that handle the immediate communicative and cognitive needs arising from the discourse situation (Heine 2013;Heine et al 2013).…”

“…Another alternative is the recent proposal by Heine (2013). On the basis of work on thetical grammar, Heine and his colleagues (Kaltenböck et al 2011;Heine et al 2013) argue that neither grammaticalization nor pragmaticalization are entirely satisfactory to understand the nature of discourse markers.…”

“…According to them, the main difference between grammaticalization and cooptation is one of pace and gradualness: "Grammaticalization is a gradual process that may take centuries to be accomplished. Cooptation, by contrast, is spontaneous rather than gradual, it can take place any time and in any situation" (Heine 2013(Heine : 1222.…”

La Conformaciã“n Diacrã“nica De Marcadores Del Discurso: Teorãa De La Gramaticalizaciã“n Y Explicaciã“n Racional

“…Al mismo tiempo, muchos de los estudios que han sido objeto del análisis epistemológico que vertebra estas páginas se citan, precisamente, por la manera en que rehúyen este tipo de explicaciones causalistas que más adelante sostendremos que resultan inapropiadas para dar cuenta de los procesos de gramaticalización de MD y abrazan, en cambio, el tipo de explicación racional por el que entendemos deseable decantarse. 8 Cf., a este respecto, entre otros, Erman/Kotsinas (1993), Company (2004a, Dostie (2004), Brinton -(2006), Pons Rodríguez (2010, Diewald (2011aDiewald ( , b, 2012, Degand/SimonVandenbergen (2011), Beijering (2012, Boye/Harder (2012), Heine (2013), Degand/EversVermeul (2015), Detges/Waltereit (2016). 9 Dado el carácter metateórico de este artículo, así como el grado de generalización concomitante a la perspectiva epistemológica adoptada en él, en lo que sigue se hará abstracción del debate teórico atingente a la pertinencia de diferenciar estrictamente entre los dos tipos de gramaticalizaciones aludidas --gramaticalizaciones primarias (del léxico a la gramática, que hemos mencionado en relación con la creación de nuevas unidades gramaticales) y gramaticalizaciones secundarias (de la gramática a la gramática, a las que se ha hecho referencia al hablar de unidades ya gramaticales que asumen nuevas funciones gramaticales)--, por más que este debate pueda ser de interés en relación con aspectos, como el de la unidireccionalidad del cambio, que se abordarán más adelante.…”

Grammaticalization of complex items: Estonian <i>nii et</i> ‘so that’, ‘so’

“…In the recent decades, the relationship of grammaticalization and pragmaticalization has been in the focus of a number of studies (Barth, Couper-Kuhlen 2002, Traugott, Dasher 2002, Brinton 2010, Diewald 2011, Heine 2013, Degand, Evers-Vermeul 2015. However, less attention has been paid to these phenomena in the development of complex grammatical items, e.g.…”