Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume III
- General Preface
- Abbreviations
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume III
- Part I The Transmission of English
- Part II Tracking Change in the History of English
- 6 Spelling Practices and Emergent Standard Writing
- 7 Phonological Change
- 8 Applying Historical Phonology
- 9 The Emerging Phonological Standard
- 10 The History of R in English
- 11 The System of Clausal Complementation
- 12 Tense, Aspect and Modality in the History of English
- 13 Developments in the Passive Construction
- 14 Adverbs in the History of English
- 15 The Story of English Negation
- 16 Dative and Genitive Variability in the History of English
- 17 Relativisation
- 18 Recent Grammatical Change in English
- 19 The History of English Registers
- 20 The History of Semantic Theory
- 21 The Development of Pragmatic Markers
- Part III Ideology, Society and the History of English
- Index
- References
21 - The Development of Pragmatic Markers
Pathways and Processes
from Part II - Tracking Change in the History of English
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2025
Edited by
Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume III
- General Preface
- Abbreviations
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume III
- Part I The Transmission of English
- Part II Tracking Change in the History of English
- 6 Spelling Practices and Emergent Standard Writing
- 7 Phonological Change
- 8 Applying Historical Phonology
- 9 The Emerging Phonological Standard
- 10 The History of R in English
- 11 The System of Clausal Complementation
- 12 Tense, Aspect and Modality in the History of English
- 13 Developments in the Passive Construction
- 14 Adverbs in the History of English
- 15 The Story of English Negation
- 16 Dative and Genitive Variability in the History of English
- 17 Relativisation
- 18 Recent Grammatical Change in English
- 19 The History of English Registers
- 20 The History of Semantic Theory
- 21 The Development of Pragmatic Markers
- Part III Ideology, Society and the History of English
- Index
- References
Summary
Pragmatic markers, extra-sentential forms occurring preferentially at the clause boundary, have procedural meaning and serve a variety of ‘pragmatic’ functions. They can be traced back to the earliest English, for example the much-discussed hwæt of Old English. After discussing difficulties involved in the historical study of these characteristically oral forms, this chapter presents an overview of pragmatic forms found in the history of English. Pragmatic markers are shown to arise from a variety of sources, including adverbials, declarative and imperative main clauses, and adverbial/relative subordinate clauses. The syntactic pathways from these sources to target pragmatic markers are explored. The remainder of the chapter focuses on the diachronic processes responsible for the development of pragmatic markers, including lexicalisation, grammaticalisation, pragmaticalisation, and cooptation. If a broad view of ‘grammar’ is adopted, grammaticalisation most adequately accounts for the development of pragmatic markers.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The New Cambridge History of the English LanguageTransmission, Change and Ideology, pp. 598 - 628Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think- an English modal particle. In Swan, Toril and Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin and Simon Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2011. Pragmatic markers. In Zienkowski, Jan, Östman, Jan-Ola and Vershueren, Jef (eds.), Discourse Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 223–246.10.1075/hoph.8.13aijCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akimoto, Minoji. 2000. The grammaticalization of the verb pray. In Fischer, Rosenbach and Stein (eds.), pp. 67–84.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2016. Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Wiemer, Björn (eds.). 2004. What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from Its Components and Its Fringes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110907582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2006. Pathways in the development of pragmatic markers. In van Kemenade and Los (eds.), pp. 307–334.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2010. Discourse markers. In Jucker and Taavitsainen (eds.), pp. 285–314.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2014. If you choose/like/prefer/want/wish: the origin of metalinguistic and politeness phenomena. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 270–290.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2020. The development and pragmatic function of a non-inference marker: this is not to say (that). In Rautionaho, Paula, Nurmi, Arja and Klemola, Juhani (eds.), Corpora and the Changing Society: Studies in the Evolution of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 251–275.10.1075/scl.96.10briCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Busse, Ulrich. 2002. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cichosz, Anna. 2018. The constituent order of hwæt-clauses in Old English. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 30.1: 1–42.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2013. The evolution of three pragmatic markers: as it were, so to speak, and if you like. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14.2: 161–184.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia and Arnovick, Leslie. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discoursisation. In Jucker and Taavitsainen (eds.), pp. 165–192.Google Scholar
CMEPV= Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse. 2006. Humanities Text Initiative, University of Michigan. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/.Google Scholar
COHA = Davies, Mark. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English. www.english-corpora.org/coha/.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. Like and language ideology: disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech 82.4: 386–419.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin, De Wolf, Simon and Van linden, An. 2015. The development of (there/it is/I have) no doubt expressing modal and interactional meaning. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16.1: 25–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defour, Tine and Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2010. ‘Positive appraisal’ as a core meaning of well: a corpus-based analysis in Middle and Early Modern English data. English Studies 91.6: 643–673.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth and Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16.1: 59–85.10.1075/jhp.16.1.03degCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dér, Csilla Ilona. 2010. On the status of discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57.1: 3–28.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2006. Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In Fischer (ed.), pp. 403–425.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics 49.2: 365–390.Google Scholar
DOEWC = Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus. 2009. Antonette diPaolo Healey (comp.) with John Price Wilkin and Xin Xiang. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project. https://doe.artsci.utoronto.ca/?p=498.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1972. Old English adverbial þa- an action marker? Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 1.3: 90–96.Google Scholar
Enkvist, Nils Erik and Wårvik, Brita. 1987. Old English þa, temporal chains, and narrative structure. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio and Bernini, Giuliano (eds.), Papers from the Seventh International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221–237.10.1075/cilt.48.17enkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt. 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ba’ and you know. Studier i Modern Språkvetenskap. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, pp. 76–93.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change: Formal and Functional Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Anette and Stein, Dieter (eds.). 2000. Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the historical construction of interlocutor stance: from stance markers to discourse markers. Discourse Studies 6.4: 427–448.10.1177/1461445604046585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Fischer (ed.), pp. 359–374.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics 2: 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentens, Caroline, Kemps, Ditte, Davidse, Kristin, Jacobs, Gilles, Van linden, An and Brems, Liselotte. 2016. Mirativity and rhetorical structure: the development and prosody of disjunct and anaphoric adverbials with ‘no’ wonder. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien and Lohmann, Arne (eds.), Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–156.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Mutz, Katrin. 2004. Grammaticalization vs. pragmaticalization? The development of pragmatic markers in German and Italian. In Bisang, Himmelmann and Wiemer (eds.), pp. 77–107.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2006. A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In Fischer (ed.), pp. 21–41.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2012. Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English. In Hegedüs, Irén and Fodor, Alexandra (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: the case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47.2: 375–424.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2013. On discourse markers: grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51.6: 1205–1247.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania and Long, Haiping. 2021. The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108982856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: opposite or orthogonal? In Bisang, Himmelmann and Wiemer (eds.), pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), Vol. 1, pp. 17–35.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1997. The discourse marker well in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics 1.1: 91–110.10.1017/S136067430000037XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.). 2010. Historical Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35.4: 848–893.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van and Los, Bettelou. 2006. Discourse adverbs and clausal syntax in Old and Middle English. In van Kemenade and Los (eds.), pp. 224–248.Google Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van and Los, Bettelou (eds.). 2006. The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivisto-Alanko, Päivi and Rissanen, Matti. 2002. We give you to wit: semantics and grammaticalisation of the verb wit in the history of English. In Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja and Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Variation Past and Present: VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015[1995]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Third edition. Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/88.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2000. Soþlice and witodlice: discourse markers in Old English. In Fischer, Rosenbach and Stein (eds.), pp. 224–249.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectives in the History of English. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2006. Discourse markers in English: a discourse-pragmatic view. In Fischer (ed.), pp. 43–59.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2007. From temporal to contrastive and causal: the emergence of connective after all. In Celle, Agnès and Huart, Ruth (eds.), Connectives as Discourse Landmarks. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 88–99.Google Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49.2: 415–443.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Jucker and Taavitsainen (eds.), pp. 127–163.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José and Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2014. On the origin of parenthetical constructions: epistemic/evidential parentheticals with seem and impersonal think. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Jucker, Andreas H. and Tuominen, Jukka (eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 189–212.Google Scholar
Lutzky, Ursula. 2012. Discourse Markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mazzon, Gabriella. 2012. I’m afraid I’ll have to stop now … Your time is up, I'm afraid: corpus studies and the development of attitudinal markers. In Carla Suhr and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Developing Corpus Methodology for Historical Pragmatics. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Vol. 11. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/11/mazzon/.Google Scholar
McColm, Daniel and Trousdale, Graeme. 2019. Whatever happened to whatever? In Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, Moore, Emma, van Bergen, Linda and Hollmann, Willem B. (eds.), Categories, Constructions and Change in English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–104.Google Scholar
MED = Middle English Dictionary. 2000–2018. Online edition in Middle English Compendium. Frances McSparran et al. (eds.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2006. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: on the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 27: 141–195.Google Scholar
Palandar-Collin, Minna. 1999. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107(3–4): 227–265.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabor, Whitney and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 229–272.10.1075/tsl.37.11tabCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. and Mulac, Anthony. 1991. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), Vol. 1, pp. 313–329.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 245–271.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995 (version of 11/97). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the thirteenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, UK, August 1995. www.researchgate.net/publication/228691469_The_role_of_discourse_markers_in_a_theory_of_grammaticalization .Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2016. On the rise of types of clause-final pragmatic markers in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 17.1: 26–54.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2022. Discourse Structuring Markers in English: A Historical Constructionist Perspective on Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2013. The status of hwæt in Old English. English Language and Linguistics 17.3: 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2006. The rise of discourse markers in Italian: a specific type of language change. In Fischer (ed.), pp. 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 1995. The ambiguous adverbial/conjunctions þa and þonne in Middle English: a discourse-pragmatic study of then and when in early English Saints’ Lives. In Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 345–357.10.1075/pbns.35.20warCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 2013. Perspectives on Narrative Discourse Markers: Focus on Old English þa. Turku, Finland: Åbo Akademi University.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2000. Grammaticalization versus lexicalization: ‘methinks’ there is some confusion. In Fischer, Rosenbach and Stein (eds.), pp. 355–370.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this book
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.