36 Pragmatic Markers: Synchronic and Diachronic
in one language and as pragmaticalization in another (see Degand and Evers-
Vermeul 2015 : 77).
1.5.5 “Cooptation”
Kaltenböck et al. ( 2011 ) propose two domains of grammar: sentence grammar
and thetical grammar.^41 A thetical the latter belong “theticals,” which they defi ne
as “a word, a phrase, a clause, or even a chunk that does not form any syn-
tactic constituent” (856). A thetical is syntactically independent (not licensed
by the syntax of the anchor), set off prosodically from the rest of an utterance,
“non- restrictive” in meaning, positionally mobile, and built on the principles of
sentence grammar, but possibly elliptic (853, 857) (cf. Section 1.2.2 above on
pragmatic parentheticals). It has wide scope over discourse (861). Theticals form
a class including all types of parentheticals; pragmatic markers belong to the sub-
set called “formulaic – conceptual” theticals ( Heine 2013 : 1214n., 1216).
Of interest here is the process Kaltenböck et al. ( 2011 ; Heine 2013 ) pro-
pose to account for the appearance of new theticals. They call this process
“cooptation.” It is described as a “cognitive” or “cognitive- communicative”
operation (2011: 874, 876, 879) “whereby the grammatical resources available
in the domain of sentence grammar are recruited for designing information
units in the domain of thetical grammar” (879): “a clause, a phrase, a word, or
any other unit is taken from [sentence grammar] and is coopted (or re- defi ned)
for use as a thetical” (875). When coopted from sentence grammar to thetical
grammar, a unit is freed from the constraints of syntax and responsive to the
environment of discourse ( Heine 2013 : 1221– 1222). Cooptation is an instan-
taneous or spontaneous, not a gradual process.^42 It entails an increase in scope
“over discourse,” with the meaning of a coopted unit shaped by its function
in discourse. The coopted unit is syntactically independent (not fused) and
prosodically autonomous. Freed from the syntactic and semantic constraints
of sentence grammar, it may appear elliptical. Finally, coopted units tend to be
free in their placement.
Heine ( 2013 ) applies the concept of cooptation diachronically. Importantly,
he adds that after cooptation produces “instantaneous” (freely formed and
fully compositional) theticals, then grammaticalization can operate to produce
“formulaic” (invariable, non- compositional) theticals (see Kaltenböck et al.
2011 : 871). Grammaticalization involves increased frequency, extension of con-
text, loss of most lexical- conceptual meaning, loss of internal compositionality
41 For more on these two domains, and the motivation for proposing them, see Kaltenböck and
Heine ( 2014 ).
42 On the features of cooptation, see Kaltenböck et al. ( 2011 : 875) and Heine (2013: 1222– 1224);
in the latter, cooptation is compared to grammaticalization.