32 Pragmatic Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic
- the persistence of original lexico- grammatical meaning;
- subjectifi cation ;
- scope expansion (scope over a whole proposition or utterance);
- decategorialization ; and
- divergence (in Hopper’s [ 1991 ] sense).
Pragmaticalization has been said to differ from grammaticalization in
respect to (a) the non- truth- conditionality and optionality of pragmatical-
ized forms (see Aijmer 1997 ) and (b) the centrality of (inter)subjectivity
and pragmatic strengthening to pragmaticalization ( Claridge and Arnovick
2010 : 186).^35 But, as we have seen above, these are also characteristic
of grammaticalization. There is, in fact, little to distinguish the two pro-
cesses qua process. In addition to the characteristics listed above which
are common to grammaticalization (subjectifi cation , decategorialization ,
and so on), both may lead to the rise of function words, dummy markers,
or clitics ( Erman and Kotsinas 1993 : 79), both may involve increased fre-
quency, phonetic reduction, syntactic isolation, and potential for deletabil-
ity ( Frank- Job 2006 ), both involve semanticization (conventionalization) of
discourse- pragmatic functions and expansion of scope ( Günthner and Mutz
2004 : 98), both conform to Traugott and Dasher’s ( 2002 : 40) semantic path-
ways of change ( Claridge and Arnovick 2010 : 180), and both adhere to
Hopper’s ( 1991 ) grammaticalization principles of specialization, layering ,
divergence , and renewal ( Aijmer 1997 : 2– 3, 6). Thus, while the diachronic
processes are “virtually indistinguishable” ( Diewald 2011 : 456), the end
result – grammatical markers in the case of grammaticalization and prag-
matic markers in the case of pragmaticalization – are, in the view of these
scholars, fundamentally different: “What is important ... is that the result-
ing output functions in the domain of discourse, not with the (grammat-
ical) system of a language” ( Claridge and Arnovick 2010 : 165). Examples
given of pragmaticalization, in addition to you know and ba’ , include I think
( Aijmer 1997 ), German obwohl ‘although’ and wobei ‘whereby’ ( Günthner
and Mutz 2004 ), listen , look , well , okay , here , now ( Frank- Job 2006 ), and
well , pray (you)/ prithee , Jesus!/ gee! , as it were , good- bye , and bless you
( Claridge and Arnovick 2010 ).
Two proposals which do not use the word but which can be seen as con-
sistent with notions of pragmaticalization are those of Waltereit ( 2006 ) and
Ocampo ( 2006 ). Waltereit, for example, sees three stages in the development
of pragmatic markers:
35 Claridge and Arnovick ’s claim that (inter)subjectifi cation and pragmatic strengthening are
“additional, not the main” features of grammaticalization seems to go against received opinion
(see above).