1.5 Processes of Change 27pragmatic markers. In fact, pragmatic markers provide an interesting test case
for understanding a number of historical processes, namely, grammatical-
ization, lexicalization, and pragmaticalization.
1.5.1 Grammaticalization
Much of the work on pragmatic markers – including my own – has been under-
taken within the grammaticalization framework.^28 Traugott ( 1995a : 15) con-
cludes her important article on pragmatic markers as follows:
In sum, the development of [pragmatic markers] is consistent with prototypical gram-
maticalization in its early stages, except that in some languages and in some subareas
of the grammar it involves increased syntactic complexity and even freedom, as well
as the morphosyntactic bonding within a construction with which we are so familiar.
To treat it as a case of something other than grammaticalization would be to obscure its
similarities with the more canonical clines.
The development of pragmatic markers exhibits many – but not all – of
the changes characteristic of grammaticalization. Like grammaticalizing
items, pragmatic markers arise from verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs of
very broad meaning (e.g., say , see , look , mean , know , think , fact , deed , stuff ,
things , right , well , right , now , then ). They change from major (open) to minor
(closed) word classes. Syntactically, they become fi xed and (partially) fossil-
ized. Some pragmatic markers show a certain degree of fusion and coales-
cence , as noted above (e.g., y’know , ’fact , ’mean , sorta , kinda , lookit/ looky ,
harky ). Semantically, pragmatic markers are “bleached” of concrete, proposi-
tional meaning (“desemanticized”). Thus, they conform to some of Lehmann’s
( 2002b ) parameters of grammaticalization, including semantic attrition and
coalescence.^29
Perhaps more importantly, the development of pragmatic markers conforms
to Hopper’s ( 1991 : 22) principles of grammaticalization:^30
(a) Decategorialization , or loss of the morphological and syntactic character-
istics of the full category. Nouns that evolve into pragmatic forms lose the
28 On grammaticalization, see, e.g., Narrog and Heine (eds.) ( 2011 ). Grammaticalization has
been defi ned as “[t] he change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguis-
tic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop
new grammatical functions” ( Hopper and Traugott 2003 : xv).
29 Cf. Waltereit ( 2006 : 73– 74; also Günthner and Mutz 2004 : 86), who sees attrition as the only
of Lehmann ’s parameters which applies to pragmatic markers, and concludes that “[t] his poor
score should exclude them from grammaticalization.” Tying grammaticalization so closely to
Lehmann ’s parameters, however, is a limited view of the process (cf. Degand and Simon-
Vandenbergen 2011 : 290– 291).
30 Hopper’s ( 1991 : 25– 28) principle of “specialization,” or the narrowing of formal choices, is not
evident in the case of pragmatic markers.