1.6 Contents and Organization 37(internal decategorialization ), and (partial) loss of morphological and phonetic
substance (erosion) ( Heine 2013 : 1223). Heine is therefore proposing that a
separate change of cooptation explains features of pragmatic markers that do
not appear to be compatible with grammaticalization, i.e., independence, lack
of fusion, increased pragmatic scope. Reviewing a number of studies of prag-
matic markers, what else , I mean , and look (see Brinton 2008 ) and indeed , in
fact , and besides (see Traugott 1995a ), he argues that the gradual rise of prag-
matic markers is diffi cult to establish, with the dating of non- pragmatic and
pragmatic uses of the forms suggesting a sudden rather than a gradual change.
I have argued above that the changes in pragmatic markers that are appar-
ently incompatible with grammaticalization can be understood with a broader
conception of grammar and clearer insights into grammaticalization. Moreover,
grammaticalization – with its view of semantic change as gradual, involving
the conventionalization of invited inferences , and dependent on indeterminate
or “bridging” contexts which permit both older and newer interpretations –
motivates the changes that we see in a way that the idea of cooptation, with a
sudden change from sentence to discourse meaning and function and no ref-
erence to how semantic change works in particular cases, does not. That is,
cooptation would not seem to explain why any particular form might be suited
(and hence coopted) to serve a certain pragmatic function. Problems of dating,
which Heine points out, are likely the result of insuffi cient or inadequate data.
1.6 Contents and Organization of the Book
The following chapters present a number of case studies of the historical
development of pragmatic markers in English. While the question of grammat-
icalization remains important, the focus of this work is on the semantic and,
especially, syntactic pathways via which pragmatic markers develop.
Part I ( Chapters 2 – 4 ) focuses on the path from single lexical item to prag-
matic marker, with examples chosen from three periods of English, hwæt in
Old English, whilom in Middle English, and only in Early Modern English. In
addition, Late Modern English (LModE) admittedly is discussed in Chapter 6
and PDE whatever is included in Chapter 9. With the exception of whatever ,
which likely has a clausal origin, the pathways that have been proposed (from
clause- internal adverb to pragmatic marker or from adverb to conjunction to
pragmatic marker) seem to account well for these forms.
Part II ( Chapters 5 – 9 ) focuses on the path from clausal construction to prag-
matic marker. Much work to date has argued that clausal pragmatic markers,
which are often elliptical, develop from full biclausal structures. Three sets of
forms which would apparently originate in main clauses – I think parentheti-
cals, I/ you admit and I’m just saying/ all I’m saying/ what I’m saying – pro-
vide a testing ground for the matrix clause hypothesis. Likewise, the adverbial