28 Pragmatic Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic
ability to be modifi ed by adjectives or to pluralize (e.g., indeed , in fact )
or are invariable in form (e.g., and things / stuff like that ). Verbal forms in
comment clauses are typically restricted to fi rst- or second- person forms
in the simple present tense, lose the behavioral characteristics of a fully
formed and complement- taking clause, and exist as a syntactically frozen
or defective clause, with a particle- like quality (e.g., I mean , I think , you
know ).
(b) Persistence , or retention of some trace of the original meaning. For exam-
ple, well as a pragmatic marker retains much of its meaning of ‘accept-
ability,’ while the comment clause I fi nd retains some sense of ‘discover
by experience’ (see Brinton 2008 ). In all cases the meanings of pragmatic
markers can be seen as deriving from the meanings of their original lexical
forms, with much of the lexical meaning remaining in place and in fact
dictating the direction of any future developments. That is, a pragmatic
marker is never entirely divorced from its semantic source.
(c) Divergence , or the continued existence of the original lexical forms or
constructions. Forms such as thing , deed , sort , or kind remain as fully
constituted nouns, well , now , then , right , so , actually continue to function
as manner and time adverbials, right is a proper adjective occurring in
predicate and attributive position, sort of/ kind of may be nominal heads, in
fact/ in deed may function as prepositional phrases, and I think / I believe/
I guess continue to serve as matrix clauses governing a complement (vari-
able in respect to subject/ tense/ aspect).
(d) Layering , or the coexistence of older and newer grammaticalized forms.
We see this, for example, in the use of the newer appositional marker I
mean coexistent with the older forms that is to say or to wit.
In their semantic development, pragmatic markers undergo the changes
typical of grammaticalization. First, the acquisition of non- propositional
(procedural , metalinguistic, metatextual, politeness , etc.) meanings consti-
tutes “semantic– pragmatic context expansion,” which Himmelmann ( 2004 :
32– 33) identifi es as “the core defi ning feature of grammaticalization pro-
cesses.” Second, the pragmatic “enrichment” or “strengthening” of these forms
comes about through the conventionalization of conversational implicatures in
specifi c contexts, a process also identifi ed with grammaticalization ( Traugott
1988 ; Hopper and Traugott 2003 : Ch. 4). For example, the inference arising
from the physical act of looking – ‘what is visible must be believed’ – becomes
part of the meaning of the pragmatic marker look , which serves not only as
an attention- getter but also as a request for the hearer to believe the prem-
ise of what is being said (Brinton 2008 : 201); see also above ( Section 1.4.2 )
on the inferential processes of change in the development of I mean. Third,
pragmatic markers undergo subjectifi cation (encoding of speaker attitude) and