1.5 Processes of Change 31Since the processes pointed to as indicative of lexicalization – fossilization,
univerbation, and coalescence – are common to grammaticalization as well,
some studies (e.g., Wischer 2000 on methinks ; see Section 5.6.4 ) have argued
that pragmatic markers result from a combination of grammaticalization and
lexicalization.^33
1.5.3 Pragmaticalization
The belief that pragmatic markers are “agrammatical” (Goldberg 1980 : 7) because
they belong to no identifi able grammatical class, typically occupy an extra-
sentential position, are not truth- conditional, and function pragmatically has led
others to question “whether processes which involve an enrichment of pragmatic
functions can be subsumed by the model of grammaticalization” at all (Günthner
and Mutz 2004 : 97) and to propose an entirely distinct process. The other ways
in which the development of pragmatic markers does not seem typical of gram-
maticalization, i.e., (relative) lack of fusion, increase in scope, and optionality,
also contribute to the debate (see above; Heine 2013 : 1218).
In a synchronic study of you know and Swedish ba’ , Erman and Kotsinas
( 1993 ) are the fi rst to propose that pragmatic markers develop via a process
distinct from grammaticalization and lexicalization, which they term “prag-
maticalization.” In pragmaticalization, a lexical element develops “directly
into a discourse marker without an intermediate stage of grammaticalization”
( Erman and Kotsinas 1993 : 79). Pragmaticalization is “the process by which a
syntagma or word form, in a given context, changes its propositional meaning in
favor of an essentially metacommunicative, discourse interactional meaning ...
the pragmaticalized linguistic item operates on the level of discourse organ-
ization” ( Frank- Job 2006 : 361; cf. Günthner and Mutz 2004 : 98; Claridge and
Arnovick 2010 : 167, 187). Claridge and Arnovick ( 2010 : 179– 182) list the
following characteristics of pragmaticalization:^34
- the development of textual/ discourse- oriented and/ or interpersonal meaning
from fully propositional meaning; - semantic bleaching accompanied by pragmatic strengthening (the conven-
tionalization of pragmatic meaning);
33 Studies of other forms have suggested that grammaticalization and lexicalization may work in
tandem: e.g., Haas (2007) on each other ; Lightfoot ( 2005 ) on German heit , English hood ; and
Trousdale ( 2008 ) on the give- gerund composite predicate (e.g., give a thrashing to ).
34 Frank- Job ( 2006 : 364– 367) identifi es formal features which accompany pragmaticaliza-
tion: frequency, phonetic reduction, syntactic isolation, co- occurrence in contiguity (i.e., the
pragmaticalized item may occur in the same context as the non- pragmaticalized item, e.g.,
Well I think I did well on the test ), and deletability. Note that these are features of pragmatic
markers, not of the process of pragmaticalization, and many of the features are true of gram-
maticalized items as well.