26 Pragmatic Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic
Traugott ( 2003b : 127– 128) points to the development of only (see Chapter 4 )
as an interesting example of subjectifi cation. First the development of the
‘exclusive’ sense of only (as in only my friends know ) indicates the speaker’s
exclusion of other possibilities from a set; then its pragmatic use as a clausal
connective with ‘adversative’ meaning (as in I would love to attend; only I will
be out of town ) signals the speaker’s attitude toward the nature of the connec-
tion between the two clauses. Traugott ( 1995b ) focuses on the increasing sub-
jectivity of let’s , let alone , and I think as they are grammaticalized. Let alone ,
for example, shifts from an imperative directed at an addressee to an expres-
sion of speaker attitude regarding possible alternatives on a scale of inclusion
(37– 38), while let’s has undergone increasing subjectivity and intersubjectivity
over time, from a second- person imperative to a hortative to an expression of
the speaker’s “condescending support- style” (36– 37) (see also Traugott and
Dasher 2002 : 176– 177).
Fitzmaurice ( 2004 ) traces forms with know , see , and say , seeing them as fi rst
acquiring subjective force in the fi rst person ( I know , I see , I say ), then inter-
subjective force in the second person ( you know , you see , you say ), and fi nally
interactive functions ( you know , you see/ see , (as) you say/ say ). Fitzmaurice
sees interactive meaning as associated with the dynamics of the communica-
tive process. The semantic change is accompanied by a syntactic change from
main clause to pragmatic marker/ comment clause (433, 445).^27
Hansen ( 2005 ) sees the rise of the French pragmatic marker enfi n ‘at last’
as a clear case of (inter)subjectifi cation. From an original temporal meaning
‘in the end,’ enfi n develops a synthesizing use (summing up the previous dis-
course) and then an epistemic use (in which the speaker draws a conclusion
based on available evidence); the form is both subjective and procedural in
nature. Further development of an aspectual use also represents subjectifi ca-
tion (55). More recent semantic changes in enfi n , what Hansen calls “inter-
jectional” uses, expressing impatient dismissal, indignation, relief, repair,
interruption, and hesitation, represent intersubjectifi cation.
On the ubiquity of (inter)subjectifi cation, with further examples of prag-
matic markers, see López- Couso ( 2010 : 132– 139).
1.5 Processes of Change
In the historical study of pragmatic markers, the issue that has generated the
most controversy has been the question of “process,” i.e., the process that
most accurately describes changes undergone by forms as they develop into
27 See Brinton ( 2008 : 100– 104, 154– 157), which brings into question the syntactic development
suggested by Fitzmaurice. López- Couso ( 2010 : 132) questions whether “interactive” actually
results in newly coded meaning.